Canada’s Major Projects Push: Energy, Politics, and the Alberta Question

By: Donovan Martin Sr, Editor in Chief

Image Credit: Talpa

Canada has unveiled a sweeping set of “nation-building” initiatives under its newly empowered Major Projects Office, with projects spanning liquefied natural gas, nuclear reactors, copper mines, and container terminals. On the surface, the rollout looks like a bold attempt to re-establish Canada as an energy and infrastructure leader. But beneath the fanfare lies a more political question: is this a sign that Canada is officially back in the oil and gas business—or is Alberta once again being sidelined?

The backgrounder attached to the announcement was full of lofty ambition. Canada, it declared, must “think big” and move at speeds “not seen in generations.” Five flagship projects were immediately referred to the Major Projects Office: LNG Canada Phase 2 in Kitimat, the Darlington new nuclear project in Ontario, an expanded Port of Montreal container terminal, the McIlvenna Bay copper mine in Saskatchewan, and the Red Chris mine expansion in British Columbia.

Together, these projects represent billions in investment, thousands of jobs, and a reassertion of Canada’s economic footprint. LNG Canada alone could draw $33 billion in private capital and position the country as a global supplier to Asia and Europe. Darlington’s small modular reactor aims to make Canada the G7’s first to have such technology operational. Montreal’s port expansion would lift container capacity by 60 percent, while Saskatchewan and British Columbia are positioning themselves as leaders in critical minerals.

What’s missing from that list? Alberta.

Instead of new pipelines, expanded oil sands development, or direct investment in conventional energy projects, Alberta was given the Pathways carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) initiative. Pathways promises $16.5 billion in GDP, $12.2 billion in labour income, and up to 43,000 jobs. But it is framed differently than the others. LNG, nuclear, and mining are presented as engines of expansion. Pathways is cast as an emissions-reduction project, meant to clean up oil sands production rather than expand it. In Ottawa’s narrative, Alberta’s oil is tolerated only if it comes with capture technology attached.

That framing is no coincidence. The federal Liberals won their last mandate without Alberta, and politically, they don’t need the province’s seats to govern. For years, Alberta’s premiers have clashed with Ottawa over climate, regulation, and equalization. Premier Danielle Smith, like her predecessor Jason Kenney, has made Ottawa-bashing a central part of her political brand. Her talk of sovereignty acts and constitutional showdowns may play well at home, but it also gives the federal government little incentive to bend. If anything, it provides Ottawa cover to move forward without Alberta.

For Alberta, the optics are stinging. British Columbia gets LNG and copper. Ontario gets nuclear. Quebec gets container capacity and potential wind energy expansion. Saskatchewan gets critical minerals. Alberta, the historic backbone of Canada’s energy economy, gets a single CCUS project—important, yes, but hardly the kind of nation-building megaproject the province once defined.

Does this mean Canada is officially back in the oil and gas business? The answer is complicated. The LNG Canada expansion is a clear signal that natural gas still has a role in Canada’s energy future. Ottawa is pitching it as “low-carbon Canadian energy,” in line with global demand for alternatives to coal and Russian gas. But in Alberta’s oil sands, the message is different: your product will only have a future if it can be decarbonized.

This selective embrace reflects the Liberals’ broader strategy. They want Canada to be seen globally as a clean energy leader while still accommodating some forms of conventional energy. LNG, nuclear, and critical minerals all fit that narrative neatly. Oil, however, remains politically radioactive. So Alberta’s projects are reframed as climate projects rather than energy projects.

The politics run deeper. For decades, Alberta has argued that its resource wealth underpins Confederation. Yet when pipelines stalled—Northern Gateway killed, Energy East abandoned, Trans Mountain delayed—Albertans saw it as proof that Ottawa was willing to pocket oil revenue while denying Alberta the infrastructure to grow. The current announcement reinforces that perception. Alberta contributes, but doesn’t get to lead.

At the same time, Alberta’s own political choices complicate its case. Danielle Smith’s confrontational rhetoric makes it harder for Ottawa to justify concessions. Every time she talks about Alberta sovereignty or attacks federal climate policy, it hardens the divide. Federal ministers can point to her statements as evidence that cooperation is futile, making it easier to funnel investment elsewhere. In that sense, Alberta is paying the price for its premier’s strategy.

Diplomatically, the federal government insists the Major Projects Office is about uniting the country into “one Canadian economy.” Yet the early list suggests otherwise. The East is getting high-speed rail and port expansions. The North is getting an Arctic Economic Corridor. Atlantic Canada is promised massive offshore wind. Alberta, despite its central role in Canada’s energy story, is asked to accept carbon capture as its consolation prize.

Still, it would be wrong to say Alberta has been written off entirely. If Pathways succeeds, it could reposition Alberta oil as some of the lowest-emission barrels in the world—a potential selling point in markets increasingly focused on ESG standards. That would secure Alberta a role in the global energy transition, even if not on its own terms. But it requires billions in private and public investment, and without Ottawa’s full embrace, the path forward remains uncertain.

The bigger picture is this: Canada is back in the energy business, but not in the oil and gas sense that Alberta expects. The federal government is choosing winners that align with its political and environmental narrative—LNG, nuclear, wind, and critical minerals. Oil sands projects will only be tolerated if wrapped in the language of carbon reduction.

That is not just economics; it is politics. The Liberals can afford to govern without Alberta, and Alberta’s combative tone makes it easy to justify sidelining the province. For all the rhetoric of national unity, the rollout of these projects reveals a deeper truth: Ottawa is building an energy future, but Alberta is not the main architect.

As the Major Projects Office promises more announcements in the coming months, the test will be whether Alberta sees a genuine green light for new energy development—or whether carbon capture remains its only ticket into Canada’s future. Until then, the message is clear: Canada is retooling its energy mix, but Alberta is being told to play by Ottawa’s rules.