December 1st, 2025 | Allan Ray

David Eby Is Sacrificing Prosperity For Ideology

The NDP premier can't promise prosperity while trying to stifle it.

British Columbia now finds itself at a crossroads. The province can either embrace a future powered by resource-development, or lock itself out of massive economic opportunity through ideological rigidity. Unfortunately, under Premier David Eby, the NDP appears to be choosing the latter, erecting significant barriers to pipeline projects and other resource investments — even when they promise real economic gains, jobs, and stability for the province. Their posture may sound noble in rhetoric, but the costs of inaction are mounting, and economic prudence demands a much sharper critique of their resistance.

At the heart of the problem is Eby’s insistence on preserving the oil tanker ban on the province’s north coast, a policy he defends as foundational to First Nations consent for other resource investments. He argues that lifting the ban to accommodate a proposed pipeline from Alberta would jeopardize some $60 billion in capital investments in energy and mining by undermining that “social licence.” On its face, that sounds like careful, even responsible leadership — but the devil is in the assumptions and the trade-offs.

First, Eby frames the Alberta pipeline as “nonexistent,” because he claims there is no proponent, no route, and no private investment. While he may be technically correct about the specific proposal advanced by Alberta’s premier, his dismissal overlooks a broader opportunity. By rejecting any pathway for oil export that requires tanker traffic, Eby is effectively shutting the door to even more ambitious regional energy corridors — ones that could bring Canadian energy to global markets and generate meaningful returns. He is treating this pipeline in isolation, rather than considering its role in a larger strategy of trade, infrastructure, and interprovincial cooperation. That is not prudence; it is economic isolationism cloaked in virtue.

Second, his argument that maintaining the ban protects First Nations support for other projects is deeply flawed. Yes, social licence matters. But good-faith negotiation and economic partnership do not necessarily require a blanket prohibition on tanker access. By doubling down on the status quo, Eby risks freezing First Nations into a rigid position rather than offering them the chance to meaningfully participate in and benefit from resource development. True reconciliation should empower Indigenous communities to shape large infrastructure projects — not force them into a binary where they must accept no oil traffic in exchange for support of everything else. Eby’s strategy treats those communities as passive actors whose consent depends on maintaining an ideological red line, rather than as full partners.

In opposing a pipeline from Alberta, Eby undermines Canada’s broader economic sovereignty. Countries around the world want Canadian energy. By refusing to consider infrastructure that would allow western Canadian oil to reach global markets, BC risks becoming a bottleneck rather than a conduit. That has real consequences for Canadian competitiveness. When you refuse to capitalize on natural resource wealth, you forgo billions in GDP, tax revenue, and investment. Eby’s posture isn’t just about environmental risk; it’s a tacit admission that he is willing to sacrifice long-term economic leverage for short-term political optics.

Eby’s resistance amounts to fear-mongering. He exaggerates the risks of tanker traffic and plays to political audiences rather than addressing economic realities. If a pipeline could be built with strong First Nations consent, financing, environmental safeguards, and economic benefit, wouldn’t that deserve serious consideration? By reflexively rejecting it, Eby seems less interested in building a sustainable energy future and more in defending a narrow political identity. That kind of approach stunts economic growth.

Worse, Eby’s skepticism about pipelines isn’t consistent with his support for other resource projects. Indeed, he has championed the North Coast Transmission Line as one of his government’s major nation-building efforts. The line, he says, is “one of the biggest, most transformational opportunities in a century.” But here is where the contradiction bites: why green-light a multibillion-dollar transmission project to support mines and LNG facilities while denying the province access to oil export infrastructure? On what economic grounds does it make sense to invest taxpayer money in power lines for resource companies but refuse to entertain infrastructure that could deliver oil and gas to world markets? The inconsistency suggests that Eby’s ideological gatekeeping is not rooted in protecting the public — but in controlling which projects get to move forward.

His threat to call a snap election if the NCTL legislation is delayed illustrates just how politically motivated his infrastructure agenda can be. That kind of brinkmanship might rally his base, but it hardly inspires confidence from investors who prefer stability and clear policy frameworks. When government power is leveraged like that, the risk is not only economic instability but a chilling effect on investment — companies may simply steer clear of a province where infrastructure policy is wielded as a political cudgel.

One must also question Eby’s claim that environmental assessments and regulatory processes exist to prevent “cutting corners”. In parliamentary debate, he has defended red tape as essential trust-building with Indigenous communities and ensuring environmental protection. But this overemphasizes process at the expense of outcomes. Investors do not shy away from regulation per se; they shy away from uncertainty and arbitrariness. When the rules of the game are constantly shifting, and political red lines prevent strategic infrastructure from being even considered, risk becomes intolerable. The result is capital fleeing to more welcoming jurisdictions.

Eby also frames the tanker ban as the keystone of his resource-development model, but that creates a contradiction. If he views tanker access as existentially dangerous, why is he simultaneously promoting natural gas facilities and mining projects that rely on that same corridor? He is effectively building an energy future that depends on massive investment in power lines, mines, and LNG — but will not permit oil export infrastructure that could further diversify markets and leverage Canada's resource wealth more fully. That selective “yes” for some resource sectors and “no” for others is not coherent economic leadership; it's partiality.

From a fiscal standpoint, refusing to consider pipelines is an expensive gamble. By closing off potential export paths, BC treats its resource wealth like an unused library book that no one bothers to read. That leaves money on the table. It means less tax revenue, fewer royalties, lower employment, and less long-term infrastructure payoff. It undermines the very argument for nation-building that Eby claims to champion. The fact that he touts one infrastructure megaproject (the transmission line) while foreclosing others suggests a fundamental misalignment between his stated economic ambition and his policy choices.

There is also a larger national dimension. If British Columbia refuses to cooperate on pipelines — particularly with Alberta, a province deeply tied to energy production — the broader Canadian economy suffers. Interprovincial cooperation is not just a political nicety; it is a foundation of economic strength. By resisting meaningful dialogue and infrastructure development, Eby weakens Canada’s ability to act as a unified energy exporter. That loss ripples beyond provincial borders.

Admittedly, some of Eby’s concerns are not without merit: environmental risk, First Nations consent, and climate uncertainty are serious. But managing those risks should not mean shutting down options entirely. Economic policy is about balance: fostering growth while respecting values, not treating every pipeline as a war. A government that truly prioritizes prosperity would negotiate, incentivize, guarantee environmental safeguards, and bring Indigenous communities to the table in a way that respects their agency rather than substituting ban for dialogue.

Eby has offered contradictory signals about his openness to privately financed pipelines. In some interviews, he purports to support such projects — so long as they are genuinely commercial and not politically manufactured. Yet in practice, his government refuses to signal the kind of accommodation or willingness to negotiate that could bring such a project into reality. That half-heartedness discourages serious proponents from seriously investing.

And let us not forget the alternative lies: do nothing, and BC risks being left behind globally. With nations pushing aggressively into critical minerals, hydrogen, and other strategic resources, BC has a window to be a global powerhouse. But pipeline access is part of that equation — enabling markets beyond North America, diversifying export routes, attracting investment, and building interprovincial infrastructure. By refusing to consider such options, Eby’s government is choosing ideological comfort over long-term competitiveness.

Additionally, Eby’s insistence on maintaining the tanker ban may be more fragile than he claims. Reports suggest that discussions between Ottawa and Alberta on bending the tanker ban could be underway, which has caused consternation in his administration. Suppose the federal government were to support some form of carve-out — or a compromise with First Nations — Eby would be forced to either back down or risk alienating his base. That suggests his maximalist position may not be sustainable, yet he continues to lean into it politically.

The critical point here is that Eby and the BC NDP are playing an economic high-stakes game with a narrow hand. Rather than treating resource development as a lever for long-term growth, they treat certain forms of resource export — namely oil pipelines — as unacceptable in principle. That inflexibility undermines their broader infrastructure vision and badly underestimates the role that resource export could play in generating jobs, regional development, and fiscal capacity.

Governments should maximize the value of their assets, promote private-sector investment, minimize politically induced risk, and build infrastructure that catalyzes growth. Eby’s approach fails in all three respects. He is not maximizing value; he is sidelining a potentially powerful export path. He is increasing political risk by closing off legitimate projects for ideological reasons. And he is building infrastructure (like the NCTL) in a way that feels selective and self-serving, rather than genuinely open.

By making the tanker ban a non-negotiable condition, Eby signals to global investors that some forms of development in BC are just off-limits. That hurts investor confidence, particularly for firms wanting to make long-term bets on Canadian energy. If foreign or domestic capitalists see that political ideology, not market calculus, determines which projects move forward, many will simply invest elsewhere.

It is also worth noting how Eby frames economic growth. He often speaks of “nation-building” in terms of large infrastructure projects, social reconciliation, and Indigenous partnerships. That rhetoric appeals to a certain sensibility. But nation-building isn’t merely ideological — it is practical. It demands not only regulation and social buy-in, but also global competitiveness. A government that rejects a pipeline for a province with enormous resource potential is making a bet that others will invest elsewhere, rather than here — that they’ll take the capital and build their own corridors. That is a risky bet for BC and for Canada.

In summary, Premier Eby and the BC NDP’s opposition to pipelines and certain resource projects reflects a short-sighted, politically motivated risk aversion. Rather than engaging in meaningful compromise, leveraging private capital, and building infrastructure that unlocks economic potential, they double down on bans, political threats, and ideological red lines. The result is not prudence, it's self-limitation.

If BC is serious about prosperity, it must reconsider its reflexive opposition to pipelines. It must work with other provinces, investors, and First Nations to craft deals that balance environmental protection, indigenous rights, and economic growth. The alternative — burying its resource wealth under prohibitions — is not just economic stagnation, it is a decision to let opportunity fade.

Eby’s legacy should not be about standing firm against oil; his legacy should be about building a future where BC is not only a green leader but a global energy and infrastructure hub. But with his current path, he risks handing that future to other provinces and other countries — leaving BC on the sidelines, watching as others build. That is the real cost of his ideological inflexibility.