David Eby’s Refinery Talk Is a Deflection, Not a Plan
Premier David Eby floated an interesting idea this week: instead of backing a new pipeline to British Columbia’s coast, perhaps Canada should invest public money in refining Alberta’s oil into gasoline and diesel for domestic use.
On the surface, it sounds pragmatic. Refine more at home. Reduce reliance on the United States. Capture more value from our own resources.
But this isn’t a policy proposal. It’s a deflection.
As Rob Shaw reported in Business in Vancouver, even as the premier raised the refinery idea publicly, his own energy minister was quick to clarify that British Columbia has no intention of hosting one. Alberta, he suggested, would be the more “efficient” place. In other words, the government is advancing an alternative it has no plan to pursue and no willingness to lead.
That matters.
A refinery requires exactly what Eby continues to oppose: infrastructure. It needs a proponent, a location, a business case, regulatory certainty, and critically, a reliable supply of oil. As Conservative MLA Peter Milobar put it, a refinery without a pipeline is not a serious proposal. It’s an idea without a foundation.
This is the recurring problem with this government’s approach to energy. It acknowledges the consequences of dependence and underinvestment while rejecting the means required to fix them. Pipelines are dismissed as hypothetical or politically inconvenient, while equally hypothetical alternatives are floated to relieve pressure.
The irony is hard to miss. British Columbia imports the majority of its gasoline and diesel. We ship raw resources out and buy finished products back at higher cost. We remain dependent on foreign refining capacity while blocking domestic projects that would improve energy security.
If refining more at home makes sense, then transporting Canadian energy responsibly also makes sense. These ideas are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary. Refusing to acknowledge that reality doesn’t make the trade-offs disappear. It just avoids them.
As others have pointed out, there is no pathway to energy independence that doesn’t include pipelines, access to tidewater, and regulatory certainty. Ending the tanker ban, building infrastructure, and exporting Canadian energy are not ideological positions. They are economic ones.
What we’re seeing instead is paralysis disguised as pragmatism. While other countries move to secure supply and investment, British Columbia stalls projects, signals hostility, and watches capital and jobs leave. Venezuela re-enters global markets while Canada kneecaps itself.
Leadership means choosing a path and owning it. Floating ideas you won’t pursue is not leadership. It’s delay.
Canada’s energy debate doesn’t suffer from a lack of ideas. It suffers from governments unwilling to align words with action.