I don't know a lot about the issue. But i'd say if the people of BC don't want the pipeline, that's their choice, it's their province. If Alberta pays them enough for the use of land and maybe they'll change their mind.
I dunno i see both sides, it's tough. It's for the national interest for the economy but also it's BC's territory, it's not fed land. I believe in local sovereignty. I don't know what the constitution says about this though, provinces and the fed negotiated this stuff back in 1867. Provinces got health care and education (not a big deal back then), the feds got control over canals (a big deal back then) lol.
If you believe in 'local sovereignty' then you don't believe in Canada. You can't believe in both. Is BC an independent nation with control and sovereignty over its own land or is it a subordinate government under a federation? If the latter then it doesn't 'control' its territory except as defined by the constitution. And the constitution makes it very, very clear the federal government makes the decisions when it comes to issues of national importance, including the transit of goods and materials from province to province and for export. The province has NO legal say in it. The federal government can expropriate the land if it needs to. Its done it before. Look into how BC tried to pressure the Amricans over salmon fishing a while back by threatening to close down a torpedo training area the US navy uses. The federal government expropriated the area, and that was that.
No society can be ruled by NIMBYism, which is what this is. Nobody wants a pipeline, a highway, a garbage dump, a prison, an oil refinery, a railroad track or any other unpleasant things near them. If you believe in 'local control' then you believe locals have the right to refuse all such things. Which means no highways, no railroads, no airports, sewage treatment plants, etc.