Recent polling highlights a split view across Canada on the proposed Alberta‑to‑British Columbia pipeline. While a majority of Canadians back the project for its promised economic benefits, many Albertans resist the idea of funding it with taxpayer dollars.
Public support driven by jobs and market diversification
The Angus Reid Institute surveyed Canadians in July and found that 63% support the new pipeline. Respondents cited the need to diversify oil markets away from the United States and the belief that oil remains vital to the national economy. Nearly half said the project would create jobs, and many saw it as a way to open additional export routes for Canadian crude.
Taxpayer resistance emerges in Alberta
In contrast, a poll commissioned by the Pembina Institute and conducted by Probe Research in April revealed that 61% of Albertans do not want to spend public money on the pipeline. The same poll indicated a strong preference for private‑sector financing, echoing concerns that billions of public dollars have already been spent on similar projects.
Cost estimates and past spending
The proposed pipeline is projected to cost between CA$35.2 billion and CA$43.7 billion. For comparison, the Trans Mountain expansion—an upgrade of a 1950s‑era line—ultimately cost taxpayers about CA$34 billion, roughly CA$30 billion more than initial estimates. The federal government purchased the original Trans Mountain pipeline in 2018, and Canadian taxpayers have already contributed billions toward its operation and debt service.
Earlier, the cancelled Keystone XL expansion was backstopped by Alberta taxpayers for CA$1.5 billion in 2021. The Alberta government has already contributed just over CA$18 million to preliminary work on the new project, covering engineering studies, cost modeling, early Indigenous engagement, and proposal development.
Who would own the pipeline?
Under the current plan, the federal Crown corporation Trans Mountain Corp. would partner with the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, giving the government a majority interest. While the private partner Pembina Pipeline holds a modest 10% stake, the bulk of ownership—and thus financial risk—remains with the public sector.
Revenue and profitability questions
Federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson told CBC that the investment is “good for Canadian taxpayers.” Pipeline operators charge tolls or tariffs to oil companies for using the infrastructure. The Canada Energy Regulator says these fees must be “just and reasonable” and should cover the cost of service plus a fair return for investors.
However, the Trans Mountain expansion’s tolls cover only about CA$15.4 billion of its CA$34 billion cost, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development. While Trans Mountain Corp. reported a net income of CA$556 million for 2025, analysts note that the corporate structure—where a Crown corporation holds the debt and another entity collects the tariffs—makes the profit claim complex and potentially misleading.
Economic benefits versus environmental costs
Industry advocates argue that pipelines generate broader economic gains, including tax and royalty revenues and tighter price spreads between Western Canadian Select and West Texas Intermediate, which they estimate added roughly CA$10 billion in revenue during the first six months after the Trans Mountain expansion opened.
Critics counter that any accounting must also consider health risks, environmental degradation, and the climate impacts of increased fossil‑fuel combustion. They point to rising wildfires, extreme heat, and health issues such as heart disease and cancer that disproportionately affect First Nations communities and Canadians at large.
What lies ahead?
The federal government’s designation of the project as being in the national interest could fast‑track environmental assessments, but the question of financing remains unresolved. If the pipeline proceeds, taxpayers are likely to shoulder a substantial portion of the cost, echoing past experiences with large‑scale energy infrastructure in Canada.
Original reporting: El Paso News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
