Trump’s tariffs made Ottawa suddenly start talking about new east-to-west pipelines, but how long will it last?

For years, oil pipelines have been a political fault line in Canada, with battles over environmental policies, economic development and national energy security. The Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has sent mixed signals – championing climate goals while approving some energy projects like the Trans Mountain Expansion. But now, with a trade war looming over Canada, a surprising shift has occurred: a consensus across the political spectrum in favour of building new pipelines.

And it’s all due to one man: United States President Donald Trump.

Trump’s threat to impose a 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy and 25 percent on other Canadian exports has woken up Ottawa. Previously, Trudeau’s government made decisions that killed off big pipeline projects like Energy East. Bill C-69 was blamed for creating an uncertain regulatory environment that discouraged investment in pipelines.

But now, Liberal ministers are talking about revisiting those projects.

On February 6, Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, a long-time climate crusader, surprised many when he said Canada is too dependent on the U.S. as an oil buyer and suggested Ottawa should consider a pipeline to Eastern Canada to diversify energy exports. He’d made similar comments in September and October 2024 when he said oil demand had peaked and pipelines were unnecessary.

The next day, it was reported that Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne followed Wilkinson’s lead, saying Canada must reassess its energy infrastructure given Trump’s threat. He even suggested Quebec, which has long opposed pipelines, might be open to reconsidering Energy East.

Shortly after, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seized the moment, urging Ottawa to restart talks on national energy infrastructure.

And then on February 9, Champagne again said Quebecers might have a different view on pipelines now that their economic security is at stake.

This is a stunning reversal. Just months ago Wilkinson and other Liberal officials were saying oil demand was declining and Canada should focus on renewables and electrification.

However, is this a real policy shift?

While some senior Liberals are suddenly in favour of pipelines, one key figure has been silent: Mark Carney, the front runner in the Liberal leadership race.

Carney has made climate action a central plank of his campaign, but says he supports the “concept” of an east-west pipeline.

His silence raises a big question: Are the Liberals really in favour of oil pipelines or is this just a reaction to Trump?

Despite Carney, Wilkinson and Champagne’s comments, big industry players remain skeptical. Pipeline projects take years of regulatory approval, billions of investment and political will at both the federal and provincial level. The Trudeau government’s track record has been one of obstacles, not encouragement, for big energy projects.

And some experts say pipeline companies may not be keen to jump back into the fray. TC Energy, the former proponent of Energy East, divested its oil pipeline business in 2023. Would a new pipeline proponent be willing to navigate the regulatory and political minefield that Ottawa itself created?

The political fallout could be immense.

If the Liberals go for pipelines, it will be one of the biggest policy reversals in Canadian energy history. It will also expose deep divisions within the party. Environmental groups and Liberal voters in urban centres will likely rage against such a shift while oil-producing provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan will remain skeptical of Ottawa’s new enthusiasm.

Meanwhile the Conservative Party, the only federal party that has always been in favour of pipelines, will find itself in an unusual position—watching the Liberals adopt its policies as their own.

In the next few weeks all eyes will be on Carney and the Liberal leadership race. If Carney keeps hedging on pipelines, it will be unclear if this new consensus is real or just political expediency in the face of Trump’s tariffs.

For now Canada’s pipeline debate is no longer about energy or the environment—it’s about sovereignty, trade and survival in an uncertain global economy. Will this consensus last beyond the immediate crisis?

Related Topics:#ResourceWorks LiberalLeadership OilPipelines

Up Next

Trial underway in energy company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace

Don't Miss

Trump Could Upend Every Facet Of The Obama-Biden Climate Agenda In One Fell Swoop

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband

Canadian Energy Centre / 5 hours ago

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Canadian Energy Centre

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Billions in government revenue and thousands of jobs across provinces

Announced in 2006, the Northern Gateway project would have built twin pipelines between Bruderheim, Alta. and a marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C.

One pipeline would export 525,000 barrels per day of heavy oil from Alberta to tidewater markets. The other would import 193,000 barrels per day of condensate to Alberta to dilute heavy oil for pipeline transportation.

The project would have generated significant economic benefits across Canada.

The following projections are drawn from the report Public Interest Benefits of the Northern Gateway Project (Wright Mansell Research Ltd., July 2012), which was submitted as reply evidence during the regulatory process.

Financial figures have been adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Bank of Canada’s Inflation Calculator, with $1.00 in 2012 equivalent to $1.34 in 2025.

Total Government Revenue by Region

Between 2019 and 2048, a period encompassing both construction and operations, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following total government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $11.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $8.9 billion
Total: $20.4 billion

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $49.4 billion
Federal government revenue: $41.5 billion
Total: $90.9 billion

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $1.7 billion
Federal government revenue: $2.7 billion
Total: $4.4 billion

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $746 million
Federal government revenue: $541 million
Total: $1.29 billion

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $6.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $4.4 billion
Total: $11.3 billion

Other

Provincial government revenue: $1.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.4 billion
Total: $3.3 billion

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $72.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $59.4 billion
Total: $131.7 billion

Annual Government Revenue by Region

Over the period 2019 and 2048, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following annual government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $340 million
Federal government revenue: $261 million
Total: $601 million per year

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $1.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.2 billion
Total: $2.7 billion per year

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $51 million
Federal government revenue: $79 million
Total: $130 million per year

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $21 million
Federal government revenue: $16 million
Total: $37 million per year

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $204 million
Federal government revenue: $129 million
Total: $333 million per year

Other

Provincial government revenue: $58 million
Federal government revenue: $40 million
Total: $98 million per year

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $2.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.7 billion
Total: $3.8 billion per year

Employment by Region

Over the period 2019 to 2048, the Northern Gateway Pipeline was projected to generate the following direct, indirect and induced full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs by region:

British Columbia

Annual average: 7,736
Total over the period: 224,344

Alberta

Annual average: 11,798
Total over the period: 342,142

Ontario

Annual average: 3,061
Total over the period: 88,769

Quebec

Annual average: 1,003
Total over the period: 29,087

Saskatchewan

Annual average: 2,127
Total over the period: 61,683

Other

Annual average: 953
Total over the period: 27,637

Canada

Annual average: 26,678
Total over the period: 773,662

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.