Canadian Energy Centre
Experts urge caution with Canadian energy in response to Trump tariffs
From The Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
‘We want Americans to stand up for our supply’
A lawyer by training, Gary Mar is also a keen student of history. And he recommends Canadians look at what happened when past U.S. administrations imposed tariffs on imports before jumping to add costs to Canadian energy.
“President Richard Nixon imposed a 10 per cent tariff in 1971 and withdrew it after a few months because it caused so much pain for American consumers,” says Mar, CEO of the Canada West Foundation, who served as Alberta’s trade representative in Washington from 2007 to 2011.
“Canadians and their governments need to be patient. Any tariffs on energy will be passed on to consumers in the United States. We shouldn’t let the president off the hook for raising the price to American drivers by putting more duties on energy we export,” he says.
“We want Americans to stand up for our supply, not displace the anger with President Trump for raising prices with anger towards Canadians.”
A major U.S. supplier
The U.S. imports more than four million barrels of oil per day from Canada, or about one out of every five barrels the country consumes. Most Canadian imports are destined for refineries in the U.S. Midwest including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.
About 99 per cent of natural gas imports into the United States also come from Canada. Natural gas imports flow primarily to Idaho, North Dakota, Minnesota and Montana, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Trump tariffs
Nixon put tariffs in place in an attempt to weaken the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies and strengthen U.S. exports.
Mar, who served as cabinet minister in the Klein and Stelmach governments from 1993 to 2007, sees Trump’s tariffs as aimed to repatriate manufacturing and jobs to America.
“President Trump made this explicitly clear…if you want to sell manufactured goods in the United States, you need to move your factories here,” says Mar.
“But Canadian oil and natural gas are key inputs that help U.S. manufacturing. We ship the products or partially refined products that support manufacturing of finished products in the United States. Tariffs will raise those costs for U.S. manufacturers and ultimately American consumers.”
A divisive rerun of the National Energy Program?
Mar’s former cabinet colleague Ted Morton agrees Canada needs to exercise patience and caution in any response to U.S. tariffs.
Morton, who served as an Alberta cabinet minister from 2006 to 2012, strongly disagrees with the idea of placing countervailing tariffs on energy exports to the United States. Morton casts it as a divisive rerun of then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s controversial National Energy Program in the early 1980s.
Energy export tariffs “would be an attempt to revive Liberal Party support from disillusioned voters in Ontario and Quebec,” he says.
“The biggest loser in Trump’s new tariff war will be Ontario due to the integration of the auto sector between the U.S. and Canada. It’s simple political arithmetic. Ottawa could collect $4 or $5 billion by taxing energy exports in western Canada and send that money to prop up struggling industries in Ontario and Quebec,” Morton says.
“Ontario and Quebec combined have a total of 199 MPs, more than enough to form a majority government. It’s the ‘screw the West and take the rest’ strategy. It’s how the Liberals won the 1980 federal election, and they could try it again.”
Legal and constitutional precedents
And while imposing export tariffs on Canadian energy could be politically popular in central Canada, Morton suggests the action would not withstand a legal challenge thanks to legal and constitutional precedents set by former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed.
“Peter Lougheed left future Alberta premiers with some very effective legal weapons. His government successfully challenged the constitutionality of Trudeau’s export tax on natural gas. He then teamed up with the other western premiers to negotiate a new constitutional amendment that affirms provincial jurisdiction over the development and conservation of natural resources,” Morton says.
“Premier Danielle Smith should win any constitutional challenge if the federal government tries to impose an export tariff on oil or natural gas.”
Morton, like Mar, also counselled patience in responding to tariffs because “Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy will punish American consumers more than Canadians.”
The national interest
David Yager, who has studied and analyzed energy policy for more than 40 years, agrees tariffs on energy have the potential to drive a wedge between Alberta and the rest of the country in the same way the National Energy Program did.
“The dynamic definition of national interest is what I struggle with. Going back several decades, it was in the national interest to get oil and gas across Canada so there was a drive to build pipelines east and west,” says Yager, a consultant who also serves as a special advisor to Premier Smith.
“Today, the national interest has flipped again, and energy exports are now a source of revenue to save the ‘real’ Canada, which is central Canada. It’s the same kind of logic that has seen the emissions cap on oil and gas as well as the carbon tax.”
If Canada wants to retaliate, Yager recommends putting a duty on the 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas imported by Ontario and Quebec from the northeastern United States.
“That would be the appropriate tit for tat response,” Yager says.
“You could build a nice pool of capital and clobber U.S. producers without driving a wedge between Alberta and the rest of the country.”
Construction of an oil sands SAGD production well pad in northern Alberta. Photo supplied to the Canadian Energy Centre
From the Canadian Energy Centre
The facts about one of Canada’s biggest industries
Alberta’s oil sands sector is one of Canada’s most important industries — and also one of its most misunderstood.
Here are five common myths, and the facts behind them.
Myth: Oil sands emissions are unchecked
Steam generators at a SAGD oil sands production site in northern Alberta. Photo courtesy Cenovus Energy
Reality: Oil sands emissions are strictly regulated and monitored. Producers are making improvements through innovation and efficiency.
The sector’s average emissions per barrel – already on par with the average oil consumed in the United States, according to S&P Global – continue to go down.
The province reports that oil sands emissions per barrel declined by 26 per cent per barrel from 2012 to 2023. At the same time, production increased by 96 per cent.
Analysts with S&P Global call this a “structural change” for the industry where production growth is beginning to rise faster than emissions growth.
The firm continues to anticipate a decrease in total oil sands emissions within the next few years.
The Pathways Alliance — companies representing about 95 per cent of oil sands activity — aims to significantly cut emissions from production through a major carbon capture and storage (CCS) project and other innovations.
Myth: There is no demand for oil sands production
Expanded export capacity at the Trans Mountain Westridge Terminal. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation
Reality: Demand for Canadian oil – which primarily comes from the oil sands – is strong and rising.
Today, America imports more than 80 per cent more oil from Canada than it did in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
New global customers also now have access to Canadian oil thanks to the opening of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in 2024.
Exports to countries outside the U.S. increased by 180 per cent since the project went into service, reaching a record 525,000 barrels per day in July 2025, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.
The world’s appetite for oil keeps growing — and it’s not stopping anytime soon.
According to the latest EIA projections, the world will consume about 120 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum liquids in 2050, up from about 104 million barrels per day today.
Myth: Oil sands projects cost too much
Heavy haulers at an oil sands mining operation in northern Alberta. Photo courtesy Suncor Energy
Reality: Operating oil sands projects deliver some of the lowest-cost oil in North America, according to Enverus Intelligence Research.
Unlike U.S. shale plays, oil sands production is a long-life, low-decline “manufacturing” process without the treadmill of ongoing investment in new drilling, according to BMO Capital Markets.
Vast oil sands reserves support mining projects with no drilling, and the standard SAGD drilling method involves about 60 per cent fewer wells than the average shale play, BMO says.
After initial investment, Enverus says oil sands projects typically break even at less than US$50 per barrel WTI.
Myth: Indigenous communities don’t support the oil sands
Chief Greg Desjarlais of Frog Lake First Nation signs an agreement in September 2022 whereby 23 First Nations and Métis communities in Alberta acquired an 11.57 per cent ownership interest in seven Enbridge-operated oil sands pipelines for approximately $1 billion. Photo courtesy Enbridge
Reality: Indigenous communities play an important role in the oil sands sector through community agreements, business contracts and, increasingly, project equity ownership.
Oil sands producers spent an average of $1.8 billion per year with 180 Indigenous-affiliated vendors between 2021 and 2023, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
Indigenous communities are now owners of key projects that support the oil sands, including Suncor Energy’s East Tank Farm (49 per cent owned by two communities); the Northern Courier pipeline system (14 per cent owned by eight communities); and the Athabasca Trunkline, seven operating Enbridge oil sands pipelines (~12 per cent owned by 23 communities).
These partnerships strengthen Indigenous communities with long-term revenue, helping build economic reconciliation.
Myth: Oil sands development only benefits people in Alberta
The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) on Bay St. Getty Images photo
Reality: Oil sands development benefits Canadians across the country through reliable energy supply, jobs, taxes and government revenues that help pay for services like roads, schools and hospitals.
The sector has contributed approximately $1 trillion to the Canadian economy over the past 25 years, according to analysis by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI).
That reflects total direct spending — including capital investment, operating costs, taxes and royalties — not profits or dividends for shareholders.
More than 2,300 companies outside of Alberta have had direct business with the oilsands, including over 1,300 in Ontario and almost 600 in Quebec, MLI said.
Energy products are by far Canada’s largest export, representing $196 billion, or about one-quarter of Canada’s total trade in 2024, according to Statistics Canada.
Led by the oil sands, Canada’s energy sector directly or indirectly employs more than 445,000 people across the country, according to Natural Resources Canada.
Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel. The company’s extensive pipeline network transports about 30 per cent of the oil produced in North America and nearly 20 per cent of the natural gas consumed in the United States. Photo courtesy Enbridge
From the Canadian Energy Centre
B.C. tanker ban an example of federal rules that have to change
The CEO of North America’s largest pipeline operator says Alberta’s move to champion a new oil pipeline to B.C.’s north coast makes sense.
“There’s a good reason the Alberta government has become proponent of a pipeline to the north coast of B.C.,” Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel told the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto the day after Alberta’s announcement.
“The previous [federal] government’s tanker ban effectively makes that export pipeline illegal. No company would build a pipeline to nowhere.”
It’s a big lost opportunity. With short shipping times to Asia, where oil demand is growing, ports on B.C.’s north coast offer a strong business case for Canadian exports. But only if tankers are allowed.
A new pipeline could generate economic benefits across Canada and, under Alberta’s plan, drive economic reconciliation with Indigenous communities.
Ebel said the tanker ban is an example of how policies have to change to allow Canada to maximize its economic potential.
Repealing the legislation is at the top of the list of needed changes Ebel and 94 other energy CEOs sent in a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney in mid-September.
The federal government’s commitment to the tanker ban under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was a key factor in the cancellation of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline.
That project was originally targeted to go into service around 2016, with capacity to ship 525,000 barrels per day of Canadian oil to Asia.
“We have tried to build nation-building pipelines, and we have the scars to prove it. Five hundred million scars, to be quite honest,” Ebel said, referencing investment the company and its shareholders made advancing the project.
“Those are pensioners and retail investors and employees that took on that risk, and it was difficult,” he said.
For an industry proponent to step up to lead a new Canadian oil export pipeline, it would likely require “overwhelming government support and regulatory overhaul,” BMO Capital Markets said earlier this year.
Energy companies want to build in Canada, Ebel said.
“The energy sector is ready to invest, ready to partner, partner with Indigenous nations and deliver for the country,” he said.
“None of us is calling for weaker environmental oversight. Instead, we are urging government to adopt smarter, clearer, faster processes so that we can attract investment, take risks and build for tomorrow.”
This is the time for Canadians “to remind ourselves we should be the best at this,” Ebel said.
“We should lead the way and show the world how it’s done: wisely, responsibly, efficiently and effectively.”
With input from a technical advisory group that includes pipeline leaders and Indigenous relations experts, Alberta will undertake pre-feasibility work to identify the pipeline’s potential route and size, estimate costs, and begin early Indigenous engagement and partnership efforts.
The province aims to submit an application to the Federal Major Projects Office by spring 2026.
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
New report warns WHO health rules erode Canada’s democracy and Charter rights
Quebecers want feds to focus on illegal gun smuggling not gun confiscation
No Exit Wound – EITHER there was a very public “miracle” OR Charlie Kirk’s murder is not as it appears
US government buys stakes in two Canadian mining companies
France stunned after thieves loot Louvre of Napoleon’s crown jewels
Canada surrenders control of future health crises to WHO with ‘pandemic agreement’: report
-
Alberta1 day agoB.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way
-
Uncategorized2 days agoTrump Admin Establishing Council To Make Buildings Beautiful Again
-
Economy1 day agoTop Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years
-
Business20 hours agoTrump Raises US Tariffs on Canadian Products by 10% after Doug Ford’s $75,000,000 Ad Campaign
-
Energy19 hours agoCAPP calls on federal government to reset energy policy before it’s too late
-
International2 days agoUS Deploys Gerald Ford Carrier Strike Group To Target Cartels
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoChurches Are All That Stands Between Canada And Tyranny
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta introduces bill allowing province to reject international agreements