MACLEOD: Ottawa killed billions in Alberta projects — when does the province stop asking permission?

Colin MacLeod is the author of the provocative book “The Case for Alberta’s Independence,” and the force behind @cnm5000 on X.The Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) decision is not an isolated setback. It is the latest entry in a pattern Albertans know far too well: major projects delayed, shelved, cancelled, or made uneconomic by a federal policy climate that treats our largest industry as a political problem to be managed rather than a strategic asset to be developed.The CNRL deferral is not some one-off corporate pause. It is the latest warning flare in a long pattern of missed Alberta opportunities under the Liberal-era since 2015. CNRL said it is deferring its roughly $8.25-billion Jackpine mine expansion because governments have still not finalized key policies on carbon pricing and methane, creating uncertainty and added burden for long-term investment. That is the issue in a nutshell: Alberta is expected to commit billions while Ottawa keeps moving the goalposts.That pattern has been building for years. In 2017, TransCanada killed Energy East after citing “changed circumstances.” Ottawa insisted it still backed the energy sector, but the project was dead just the same. A country that cannot get its own energy to its own coasts is not suffering from a lack of resources. It is suffering from a governance failure.Northern Gateway told the same story. In 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the approval over inadequate Crown consultation, and in 2019, Ottawa entrenched the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which blocks large crude tankers from stopping, loading, or unloading along BC’s north coast. Whatever the legal nuances, the commercial outcome was obvious: another western route was effectively shut. Alberta was again left producing wealth without dependable access to tidewater. .Then came Teck Frontier. In 2020, Teck withdrew its Frontier oilsands application and bluntly said that Canada still lacked a framework that reconciles resource development with climate policy. That was a devastating indictment. When a proponent, prepared to spend more than $20 billion, concludes that the country cannot define the rules clearly enough to justify proceeding, serious investors take note. Bill C-69 only deepened that damage. Alberta warned from the start that the Impact Assessment Act widened federal discretion, duplicated provincial authority, and made major projects more vulnerable to delay and politics. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada largely agreed, ruling the federal scheme was largely unconstitutional. That judgment did not restore lost investor confidence. It confirmed that Ottawa had injected constitutional risk into an already shaky investment climate. None of this means every cancelled project can be blamed solely on Ottawa. Commodity prices matter. Corporate balance sheets matter. Indigenous consultation matters. Global markets matter. But that defence only goes so far. Federal policy need not be the only reason a project dies. It only has to be the factor that pushes a project from difficult to not worth the fight. Since 2015, that has happened again and again in Alberta. Now the same problem is back in plain view. Ottawa finalized enhanced methane rules in late 2025, while broader carbon-pricing uncertainty continues to cloud long-cycle investment decisions.Reuters reported this month that industrial carbon-pricing negotiations are also stalling major energy decisions. CNRL’s deferral fits that pattern exactly. When capital spending is delayed, the losses do not stop in Fort McMurray boardrooms. They hit workers, contractors, municipalities, royalties, and the broader tax base that pays for public services across Alberta. Albertans should take the broader lesson seriously. Confederation, as currently structured, leaves this province generating enormous wealth while remaining trapped within a federal regulatory model that can obstruct the industries' ability to finance that wealth. .We are expected to keep paying into the system while accepting chronic veto risk over pipelines, mines, ports, and emissions policy. That is not a balanced federation. It is dependency dressed up as national unity. An independent Alberta would still regulate responsibly. But it would do so under a government with a direct stake in Alberta’s prosperity, not one trying to appease competing political blocs thousands of kilometres away. It would mean clearer approvals, faster decisions, constitutional coherence, and a serious opportunity to align environmental stewardship with economic growth under a single accountable authority. That is not extremism. It is common sense. This province can do far better than permanent delay, managed decline, and endless appeals to Ottawa for fairness. The CNRL decision is one more reminder that Alberta’s future will be safer when Albertans control it. An independent Alberta would not mean no regulation. It would mean regulation designed by a government with a direct stake in Alberta’s success. It would mean clearer approvals, constitutional coherence, and policy built around quickly getting responsible projects to a yes-or-no decision, rather than trapping them in years of political theatre. It would mean a province that can align environmental management, indigenous partnerships, market access, and economic growth under a single accountable authority, rather than several competing ones. That is not radical. It is basic statecraft.When the time comes, we definitely must vote for independence. Colin MacLeod is the author of the provocative book “The Case for Alberta’s Independence,” and the force behind @cnm5000 on X.

MACLEOD: Ottawa killed billions in Alberta projects — when does the province stop asking permission?

Related Stories