In an interview on CTV’s Question Period, host Vassy Kapelos repeatedly pressed Premier Smith and tried to make a case that investment into Alberta was being hindered by the pending referendum to be held on October 19. Kapelos asked the premier, “Do you not have some culpability in that and therefore an inability or lack of ability to assure investors that Alberta is a stable place?”

Accusing the premier of culpability for something that hasn’t happened is a loaded approach to an issue. There has been no evidence to date that the referendum itself is chilling or driving out investment into Alberta.

No major energy CEO has publicly blamed the Alberta referendum for suspending or delaying pipeline investment. When they talk about hesitation, they talk about Ottawa. A July 2026 Business Council of Alberta CEO survey found most respondents planning to increase capital spending and viewing regulatory burden as the main barrier. Recent private-sector commitments in Alberta (Meta’s $13-billion data centre and the associated $4.6-billion private natural-gas pipeline) also undercut the claim that the referendum is freezing capital.

Enbridge’s July 2026 decision to postpone the second phase of its Mainline expansion is a clear example. CEO Greg Ebel and liquids pipelines president Colin Gruending pointed to producers’ reluctance to make binding commitments until there is greater federal policy and regulatory certainty. Enbridge is instead prioritizing U.S. expansions where the rules are clearer. That is a statement about Ottawa’s regulatory policies and obstructionist history on pipelines, not about an Alberta referendum.

This pattern is consistent. Pipeline companies have repeatedly cited years of federal regulatory delays, cost overruns on Trans Mountain, cancelled projects (Northern Gateway, Energy East), and shifting rules as reasons they will not put billions of their own capital at risk. Greg Ebel has previously noted Enbridge spent hundreds of millions on a West Coast project only to have the process collapse. Those comments predate the current referendum and focus on federal legislation and process, not provincial politics.

Kapelos’ framing treats the referendum as the cause of investment caution. The public statements from the companies that would actually write the cheques treat federal policy uncertainty as the cause. Those two things are not the same.

The Canadian status quo has been proven to be the primary hindrance to investment within Alberta, while no evidence has shown capital chill due to the holding of a referendum.