The eight steps to getting a pipeline built in 2025

Skeptics say Canada can’t build major projects anymore. They cite too many jurisdictions, lawsuits, and political whiplash.

Yet in 2025, a pipeline is back on the table.

Prime Minister Mark Carney says he’s open to the idea, as long as it’s tied to billions in decarbonization investments. The government’s first major piece of legislation, Bill C-5, seems to signal it’s ready for big builds. Meanwhile, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is pushing a crude line to Prince Rupert as the nation-building project of our time, but B.C.’s premier is already signalling: not so fast.

It all feels like déjà vu, but with different stakes.

Canada faces pressure to reduce its reliance on the U.S. and deliver energy security to allies. But to do that, it first has to prove it can still build major infrastructure.

The Hub spoke with two former top bureaucrats who have worked extensively on pipeline approvals: Gitane De Silva, former CEO of the Canada Energy Regulator and Alberta’s ex-deputy minister of international and intergovernmental relations; and Grant Sprague, Alberta’s deputy minister of energy from 2013 to 2016 and 2019 to 2023. Today, they are colleagues at Blue Rock Law. They offer a practical roadmap and a reality check before shovels hit the ground.

Step 1: Define the market and product

Before drawing a line on a map, ask: What are we shipping, and where is it going?

“We need to be super clear—what’s the market?” said Sprague. “Because that drives where you’re going. Is it natural gas? Bitumen? Hydrogen? Are you filling a ship, or feeding another facility for processing? Those things matter.”

There’s renewed talk of an energy and trade “corridor” after this month’s first ministers’ meeting in Saskatoon. The concept—rooted in 1970s planning, revived by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy in the mid-2010s, then more recently adopted in political party platforms—calls for a multi-use right-of-way to potentially include highways, rail, power lines, fibre, and yes, pipelines.

During the federal election, an infrastructure expert with KPMG Canada threw in carbon sequestration—the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in liquid form—as another possibility. The idea is to dream big.

But vagueness is a trap, and right now, no one has spelled out specifically what would go in such a “corridor.”

“I am anxious, nervous about people who say we’ll have a broad corridor,” Sprague said. “The question is—but what’s going in it? We need to know where the markets are; we need to know what the product is.”

There is no blanket approval giving carte blanche to build a giant ditch and insert anything. If the goal is to build a pipeline, the government can’t simply wish it into existence by changing its vocabulary.

Step 2: Pick a route and stick with it (but be flexible on details)

In 2025, success demands clarity from the start.

“You best know where you’re going, with what, and why,” said Sprague. “And once you do, pick a route—but make it strategic.”

He explained that that goes beyond technical know-how.

“The choice of route is far too important to leave to the engineers,” he added. “Of course you need to account for physical challenges, but you also have to be alert to the social, environmental, and economic realities you’re facing.”

Trying to run a pipeline through a community that, in his words, is “1,000 percent opposed” might be technically efficient, but politically foolish.

“Doing a loop-around may be a far more strategic choice,” Sprague said.

Critics of today’s “vetocracy,” like New York Times columnist and Abundance author Ezra Klein, note that projects now tend to be “squiggly” rather than straight—designed to avoid conflict rather than optimize performance.

Linear infrastructure becomes anything but straight, but builders adapt. No one would question routing a sour gas pipeline around a major city today.

“You do not want to be penny-wise and pound-foolish,” said De Silva. “It’s going to cost you a little more, and it may be money you don’t think you need to spend, but it will likely save you money down the road if you just listen to those concerns and address them at the outset within reason.”

The most discussed (and shortest) route today is from Alberta to Prince Rupert, a deepwater port with existing infrastructure and shorter shipping times to Asia. But those aren’t the only advantages.

“Prince Rupert is not Vancouver,” Sprague said plainly. “Not dealing with the Greater Vancouver area will probably be easier.”

Other options—Churchill, Manitoba, or a revived Energy East to the Maritimes—carry their own distance, geological, and jurisdictional complexities.

“There is no part of Canada that’s not going to be challenging, so I wouldn’t write it off,” De Silva said of either option.

But each adds layers: seasonal limits at Churchill, multiple provinces (and Quebec politics) for Energy East, the Canadian Shield’s geology, avoidance of urban centres, and so on.

The sooner a route is picked, the sooner everyone can get to work trying to sort out the details.

Step 3: Move the political decision to the front

A perennial bottleneck is that companies spend years and millions on regulatory reviews, only for politicians to intervene at the final stage.

Today’s “yes or no” should come early and hold beyond an election cycle.

To build consensus, a pipeline proposal today cannot be pitched solely as moving oil; it must be framed as nation-building infrastructure—part of a larger story about sovereignty, security, and shared prosperity.

“Does Churchill factor into Canada’s Arctic strategy?” De Silva asked. “What are the broader implications of building out the infrastructure?

“I think similarly to Energy East, it’s both a national security question—a sovereignty, and a G7 ally conversation.”

Reframing it as advancing Canada’s national interests requires looking beyond regional gains.

“Canada has rested on its laurels,” De Silva explained. “We used to contribute in international conflicts with a specialist team. Now our military readiness has decreased. But we still have the resources the world wants—and that can be part of how we contribute.”

This narrative must be more than rhetoric; it needs practical, measurable benefits—GDP uplift, job creation, logistics improvements, strengthened sovereignty—so the political decision is grounded in tangible public interest.

Step 4: Engage in meaningful partnerships with First Nations

This isn’t a box to check. It’s foundational.

“The goal isn’t persuasion—it’s partnership,” said Sprague. “And that starts with showing up yourself. Not sending someone else. And listening more than you talk.”

Gone are the days of last-minute consultation. Indigenous nations expect involvement from the outset, as co-owners, co-governors, and long-term beneficiaries. Ignoring this reality could lead to legal, political, or financial collapse.

“I resist the view that it’s some sort of payoff,” said Sprague. “In my view, these are sensible measures to support communities who will see the benefit of the projects and who are bearing some of the challenges of their construction.”

“Part of why Trans Mountain succeeded is the government required an Indigenous advisory and monitoring committee for construction and oversight,” De Silva explained. “That gave nations a voice: ‘We want to know what’s happening, understand your safety protocols, speak to what matters to us, and be part of the response when something happens.’”

Oversight must also continue post-construction, she added.

“The next step in Indigenous inclusion is an ongoing presence once the project is operational. Communities want to know what’s happening in their backyard.”

That means First Nations can continue to play a role on the regulatory front. Opportunities shouldn’t end with digging dirt.

Step 5: Identify local concerns and go hyperlocal

You cannot build a pipeline today, hoping people will see the value abstractly. It’s important to engage every community—towns, First Nations, municipalities—along the route and create win-win outcomes.

Employ a bit of game theory and imagine what’s in it for these various groups of people.

“So as you’re building any new piece of infrastructure, you need to think about what are the dual purposes,” said De Silva. “What additional things can be done to create greater economic opportunity for all the communities along the way?”

During the Trans Mountain expansion, proponents looked beyond the pipeline itself to deliver tangible community benefits.

Crews laid fibre-optic cable through Jasper National Park in partnership with a Canadian telecom provider, improving the project’s ability to monitor leaks while also giving local residents and visitors reliable internet access for the first time.

The twinning also ended Jasper’s isolation from Alberta’s electrical grid, eliminating the mountain community’s dependence on diesel and natural gas from a standalone generator, an environmental plus.

Moreover, the infrastructure work enhanced climate resilience. Access roads and cleared corridors serve as fire breaks, while upgraded tree lines reduce ignition risks.

When catastrophic floods and landslides struck B.C. in late 2021, Trans Mountain expansion crews and equipment, which were already positioned along the Coquihalla, stepped in to clear roads, build temporary bridges, and supply evacuation housing, fuel, water, and food, helping reconnect communities that were cut off.

“How do we build local communities, local infrastructure, and diverse parts of the supply chains—the economies of this country?” De Silva explained. “All of these things need to be thought about—not in a painful academic way, but in a way that you can then say, ‘This is the benefit of the project.’”

Step 6: Streamline approvals and offer industry certainty

After securing early political buy-in, the next imperative is to streamline approvals so the government’s role is enabling, not obstructing, through years of new demands and challenges.

Regulators should aim for “one project, one review,” aligning or mutually recognizing federal and provincial environmental assessments to avoid duplicative studies and lengthy wait times.

Because the Constitution gives both federal and provincial governments authority over environmental protection, major projects like pipelines or transmission lines often face overlapping assessments—resulting in longer timelines, and at times, conflicting decisions that spark legal challenges and public opposition. The Trans Mountain expansion is a case in point: even this so-called success story faced delays of up to 23 months on certain sections of the route.

Where legislation creates uncertainty—such as Bill C-69 or the tanker ban—amendments (or repeals) must define timelines and criteria in enough detail to withstand legal challenge but remain flexible for evolving standards.

Recently, Bill C-5 was introduced to offer some de-risking, aiming to dismantle internal trade barriers, fast-track major infrastructure, and signal Canada’s readiness to compete globally.

The so-called One Canadian Economy Act would empower the government to set timelines and harmonize reviews so projects move from feasibility to implementation faster. But details remain unclear, and opposition is already mounting.

“My concern with it is that it’s very high level,” Sprague admitted. “I don’t know exactly how in fact it’s going to work and we need to have that part clearly understood. So you need to drop it down about three layers so that we understand exactly, for example, what the conditions are going to be.”

A dedicated major projects office could coordinate federal departments, provinces, and Indigenous consultations, ensuring the system supports rather than stalls.

The mission, according to De Silva, would be to make “pieces of government work together.”

But until regulations or guidelines under Bill C-5 and related amendments spell out how all of these mechanisms operate in practice, industry will remain cautious.

Step 7: Tell a better story about pipelines 

Alberta’s energy sector is well aware of its messaging problem. It has, for years, tried to show how pipelines boost GDP, create jobs, improve logistics, strengthen sovereignty, support decarbonization, and deliver local benefits.

But none of these words, or jargon, hit home next to stories about stranded polar bears, pristine landscapes in ruin, and ducks suffocating in toxic waste.

When Trans Mountain was first built in 1953, it was touted as a marvel of engineering—a symbol of taming the wild and achieving great things. Without a compelling narrative about why this matters—or worse, framing it as Alberta’s grievance again—proponents risk losing the plot to anti-pipeline activists.

“It invites the opportunity to have a far more robust and, quite frankly, intelligent conversation about the merits of any of these projects as opposed to ‘I don’t like hydrocarbons or I do like caribou,’” Sprague explained.

Step 8: Acknowledge uncertainties

Even with careful planning, market shifts, legal challenges, or extreme weather can upend the best-laid plans. It’s why, early in the interview, Sprague quipped that the first real step is to “pray.”

In practice, that means building flexible plans and maintaining honest conversations about risks. While much attention is paid to approvals, the real work begins during construction, where delays, cost overruns, and permit purgatory often take hold.

The federal government has a crucial role to play: setting clear goals, showing it has some skin in the game, helping to smooth the complex, difficult parts, then stepping aside when project partners are ready to deliver.