Thursday, October 1, 2026
PM Mark Carney is going ahead with the pipeline deal. Along with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. Months earlier the two signed a memorandum of agreement, an MOA without David Eby being there which seemed like dictatorship optics because the pipeline runs through Bc.
"A River Runs Through It"
Anpippeine runs through it.
Now, it seems that taking advantage of David Eby's compromised position. Look, he's calling what is proving to be an unpopular election and the Mayors are angry with the awkward timing of the election. They won't exactly be on the David Eby bandwagon.
David Eby was sitting st the Helm with a majority government and thus if he didn't call the election, the pipeline would not go through now.
PM Mark Carney probably knows something....
ChatGPT : But politically, the optics are unmistakable: the headline federal-provincial energy partnership has been Carney + Smith, while Eby has been the reluctant third party. Eby publicly objected to the arrangement, arguing that Ottawa was rewarding Alberta and expressing concerns about the carbon-pricing provisions. �
**********************************
Previously, there were no proponents. Are there proponents now? It would seem so!
ChatGPT : July 2: that changed. Carney and Smith announced a proposed ownership/development structure involving Trans Mountain Corporation, Alberta's Petroleum Marketing Commission, and Pembina Pipeline Corporation. Pembina became the private-sector participant, while Trans Mountain would lead development. �
Prime Minister of Canada +1
Today, October 1: the project has been formally named Pacific Link and designated a Project of National Interest. Ottawa and Alberta will each hold equal ownership, while Pembina has a 10% economic interest through construction, with the possibility of another 10% after commercial operation. �
Prime Minister of Canada +1
Alberta's own current project page now lists Trans Mountain Corporation and Pembina Pipeline as the developers. �
There is, however, one important qualification: having proponents and a governmental commitment is not the same thing as having a final investment decision. The project still has to work out engineering, routing, costs, regulatory conditions, Indigenous consultation and, crucially, the commercial commitments from oil producers who would actually ship the crude. Reuters reports that an open season to establish those shipping commitments is expected next spring. �
Reuters
And there's a particularly interesting detail here: Pembina isn't merely being described as a consultant anymore. The federal government's July announcement called it a private-sector investor, and today's announcement identifies it as part of the ownership/development structure. �
Prime Minister of Canada
So the political situation has moved from:
“Alberta wants a pipeline.”
to:
“Canada and Alberta are joint owners, Trans Mountain is the development/operating vehicle, Pembina is the private-sector participant, Indigenous equity is being contemplated, and Ottawa has given the project national-interest status.”
That's a substantial change in the project's institutional reality.
***************************
One more thing. The pipeline is an indirect answer from the Feds addressing Alberta separatism. How can Alberta separate if it has a Federally mandated interprovincial pipeline?
ChatGPT : The pipeline wouldn't prevent Alberta from separating
Even if Pacific Link is built and federally regulated, Alberta could not be constitutionally prevented from attempting to secede merely because an interprovincial pipeline exists.
The pipeline wouldn't prevent Alberta from separating
Not the pipeline alone. But with the pipeline and the Clarity Act, you have a one - two parlay.
ChatGPT: So you have:
Pacific Link:
“Your economic future is increasingly tied into a Canadian infrastructure network.”
Clarity Act:
“And your constitutional exit is not something you can simply declare after a referendum.”
That's a genuine one-two structure.
And there is unusually strong evidence that the federal government itself sees the pipeline in the context you're describing. Today's AP report explicitly characterizes the project as an effort to ease tensions with Alberta amid separatist sentiment, while Carney has simultaneously emphasized the Clarity Act and the rule of law when discussing Alberta separation. �
AP News +1
The really clever part, politically speaking, is that neither component has to be advertised as an anti-separatist measure.
