With the war in the Middle East threatening the global supply of oil, most Canadians appreciate the urgent need for a new pipeline to our West Coast and others to the east — entirely within Canada.
Albertans are understandably frustrated after a decade of Liberal policies that have blocked access to world markets for oil and gas. As an outside observer, I can empathize.
U.S. President Donald Trump recently signed an agreement to build a new pipeline. Bridger would then build a 1,000-km pipeline from Monchy, Sask., terminating in a major oil hub in Guernsey, Wyo. With an eventual capacity of one million barrels daily, it would increase Canada’s crude exports by 20 per cent.
While this might appear to be good news, Alberta would continue to sell its oil to the U.S. at discount prices. Moreover, Trump or his successor could, in future, terminate this agreement.
Canada is the world’s fourth-largest producer and exporter of crude oil and its fifth-largest natural gas producer. Yet, more than 90 per cent of our oil and nearly 100 per cent of our natural gas are exported to the United States at a huge discount. This has cost our economy about $25.6 billion annually.
Global oil demand should grow until 2050 — and demand for natural gas will likely grow by 30 per cent by 2050. In addition to Asia, we have several potential markets. The EU plans to phase out Russian LNG imports by Dec. 31, 2026. Norway had supplied 33 per cent of EU gas imports, but this may drop by 48 per cent by 2035.
British Columbia Premier David Eby and a few coastal First Nations have attempted to block a new pipeline to the northern B.C. coast. However, public opinion may increasingly favour building this pipeline.
In November 2025, an Angus Reid poll found that 53 per cent of residents supported a new pipeline to the northern coast. The B.C. Conservative Party is in favour of this pipeline and is now 10 points ahead of the NDP.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, in frustration, proposed that Alberta instead run a pipeline across Montana, Idaho and Washington State, with oil loaded onto tankers, perhaps in Longview, Wash. This idea was supported by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
This is a dangerous solution that would leave Alberta vulnerable. Consider this precedent: The Enbridge mainline was laid in 1950 to Superior, Wisc., and Line 5 through Michigan to Sarnia, Ont., in 1953. Any talk of keeping it within Canada was dismissed at the time as unnecessary and expensive.
From Sarnia, Enbridge Line 9 terminates at two Montreal refineries and supplies two-thirds of the crude oil refined and consumed in Quebec. A series of pipelines then supplies petroleum to much of Ontario and jet fuel to Pearson Airport near Toronto.
