Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2025. Robert Lyman’s bio can be read here.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A major issue in Canadian politics today is whether or not the federal government and the governments of Alberta and British Columbia should authorize and facilitate the construction of a new oil pipeline from Alberta to a port on the northern British Columbia coast.

The issue is made more contentious by the fact that the statements of the leaders and the media coverage of it is dominated by differences of political objectives, not by facts and analysis as determined by an independent expert body. It was not always like this.

Up until 2019, the National Energy Board (NEB) had regulatory jurisdiction over the certification and regulation of interprovincial and international pipelines. The NEB was an independent, quasi-judicial, expert regulatory body that operated at arms’-length from the federal government in carrying out its responsibilities. The federal government rarely overrode the decisions of the Board.

We do not have to guess how an independent, professional body like the NEB would have treated a proposal to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast. We can observe the actual process that it followed in reviewing the Northern Gateway pipeline project.

The NEB carried out an exhaustive review over four years. It held 35 public information sessions. Public hearings were held over 180 days; these heard the views of 206 intervenors, 12 government departments and agencies, and 1,179 oral arguments before the Panel. The entire record of the proceedings was published. The panel’s report[1] set out a lengthy summary of the evidence it heard and of the Panel’s views based on the evidence. 

The Panel found that:

• A large spill due to a malfunction or accident, from the pipeline facilities, terminal, or tankers, is not likely.
• Northern Gateway had followed good engineering practice in determining a proposed route that would avoid or minimize exposure to geohazards (e.g. unstable slopes), reduce pumping requirements, and provide a safe and responsible route for construction and operation.
• Northern Gateway had incorporated appropriate mitigation in its design and operation of the Kitimat Terminal to avoid spills or lessen their effects through appropriate containment and recovery measures.
• Since 1992, there have been no spills throughout the world where the total insurance funds available were insufficient to cover all costs and losses.
• Malfunctions leading to large spills from the marine facilities, terminal or tankers are not likely and may not occur during the life of the project.
• Shipping along the north coast of British Columbia is accomplished safely the vast majority of the time, in the absence of many of the mitigation measures that would be in place for the Northern Gateway project.
• With Northern Gateway’s commitments, and with the Panel’s conditions, the project was likely to have positive net economic benefits to local, regional and national economies, and can provide positive benefits and opportunities to those local, regional and Aboriginal individuals, communities, and businesses that chose to participate in the project.

Based on the report of the Panel, the National Energy Board approved the Northern Gateway Pipeline subject to 209 conditions, the largest number of conditions ever imposed on a pipeline project. The Harper government approved the project in 2014. Subsequently, the project’s approval was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2016 on the grounds that the federal government (i.e. not Northern Gateway or the National Energy Board) had failed to adequately consult with the affected indigenous communities. The Trudeau government made no effort to conduct such consultations after the court decision. 

The NEB’s review of Northern Gateway demonstrated on the evidence that an oil pipeline from Alberta to the northern British Columbia coast and the related port and marine shipping could be accomplished in a safe and environmentally responsible way and would yield large economic benefits to British Columbia, Alberta and Canada as a whole.

[1] https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/cearref_21799/97178/Considerations_-_Report_of_the_Joint_Review_Panel_for_the_Enbridge_Northern_Gateway_Project_(Volume_2).pdf