In the follow-up to their fall Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the federal government and Alberta have signed another agreement that critics say is heavy on aspirations but light on concrete action. Prime Minister Mark Carney and Premier Danielle Smith shook hands in Calgary on May 15, 2026, before signing an agreement on oil pipeline approvals and carbon pricing. The celebratory media coverage gave the impression of a binding deal to build a bitumen pipeline to Canada's West Coast, but a closer look reveals otherwise.
Another Agreement Without Teeth
This is not the first time such a spectacle has occurred. Last November, the same leaders celebrated an MOU about the same potential pipeline. That document was not legally binding, and this new one follows suit. It sets out aspirations, priorities, and reaffirmations without detailing how they will be implemented. The apparent purpose is to persuade the media that real progress has been made, when in fact little has changed.
Key Obstacles Remain Unaddressed
Critics have focused on the competitive disadvantage imposed by the industrial carbon tax, given that Canada's competitors do not face such a cost. While valid, this is just one of many concerns. The West Coast tanker ban remains in place, as do requirements for Indigenous consent and British Columbia's approval. The agreement supposedly clears a path to a pipeline, but two largely unnoticed appendices may actually create more obstacles.
Environmental Assessment Cooperation
The first appendix is the Cooperation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment. Alberta uses its own environmental assessment process, while Ottawa has the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), which critics call the No More Pipelines Act. Under the new agreement, the IAA is to be integrated into Alberta's process, effectively giving Ottawa a veto over any pipeline assessment. If the two governments disagree, the federal process prevails.
One controversial aspect of the IAA is Section 22.1.n, which requires every assessment to consider the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors. Critics question why this is relevant to a proposed pipeline. Nevertheless, impact assessments must now consider evidence on this issue, along with 19 other mandatory hearing subjects.
In summary, the new Alberta-Ottawa agreement appears to be more political theatre than a substantive step toward pipeline construction. Without addressing key barriers like the tanker ban or Indigenous consent, and with added layers of federal oversight, the path to a pipeline remains unclear.
