MARCH 12, 2025 — In a curious display of unity, premiers from eastern and western Canada are aligning their voices to confront economic vulnerabilities exposed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade war tactics. As steep tariffs threaten Canadian energy exports, a renewed call for pipeline infrastructure is gaining traction, with Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith leading the charge. Their bold rhetoric signals a potential turning point in Canada’s long-standing pipeline debate, fueled by the need for energy security and economic resilience in an unpredictable global landscape.
The catalyst for this emerging alliance came in late February when Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet issued a stark ultimatum: “We are fiercely opposed to any type of transport on Quebec territory of hydrocarbons from Western Canada to any market whatsoever. It does not serve Quebec.” The statement, delivered with unwavering conviction, drew a fiery response from Houston. In a public letter dated February 28, 2025, he lambasted Blanchet, writing, “Your eagerness to disparage opportunities for ALL Canadians for energy security and intentionally alienate Atlantic Canada is appalling.” He concluded with a searing critique: “It is only small minded thinking that causes Canada to be so dependent on foreign nations.”
Houston’s frustration is palpable, and it resonates with a growing sentiment across Canada. For years, Alberta and Saskatchewan leaders have warned of the consequences of failing to build pipelines to tidewater, a concern amplified by the shelving of projects like Energy East—a proposed pipeline that would have transported western Canadian oil to refineries and ports in Atlantic Canada, and potentially Quebec. The federal government’s Bill C-69, with its virulent impact assessment rules, has deterred private investment, leaving Canada reliant on foreign energy imports despite its vast domestic resources.
Yet, Trump’s tariffs, imposed in early March 2025, have injected fresh urgency into the debate. Alberta’s Danielle Smith, a vocal advocate for energy independence, responded swiftly. On March 5, she declared, “With U.S. tariffs in place on Canadian energy products, Alberta is looking elsewhere for additional pipeline infrastructure, including east and west, in order to get our products to new markets.” Her resolve hardened after Trump briefly offered a tariff reprieve on March 6, set to expire April 2, 2025. In a candid phone interview, Smith expressed disillusionment: “Trump has ‘shattered our confidence that he’s going to honour trade agreements.’ When you sign a trade agreement, you expect people to try to live up to it in good faith.”
Smith’s strategy is pragmatic and outward-looking. “We will trade with anyone in Alberta, in Canada, or any country that honours its free trade agreements, and that includes the Americans,” she affirmed. “If they want to get back to honouring their agreement, we’re happy to continue a flow of products. But in the meantime, we want to deal with the countries that are going to approach it in good faith.” Her dismissal of Blanchet’s stance was equally pointed: “Well, let’s remember the Bloc wants to split the country up. So the Bloc is going to take a position that it is going to cause maximum damage to Canada. That’s their position. So I’m glad to see Tim Houston calling them out on it.”
Recent polling bolsters their case. An Angus Reid survey, released the day after Blanchet’s statement, revealed that 74% of Quebecers support a pipeline transporting western hydrocarbons—a statistic that “really grinded” Houston. “This guy is just out of touch,” he told me during a recent call. Smith echoed this optimism, citing approval rates exceeding 70% across all provinces, including Quebec, for revisiting an “Energy East 2.0” concept. She suggested a collaborative approach: “Perhaps a route through Montreal was very aspirational and turned out to be probably not the best route. But maybe there is a route that would be more acceptable to Quebecers. Maybe if we go further north, there are significant gas resources that Quebec can develop themselves for their own people to get a financial benefit from it. Maybe we talk about building another refinery in Quebec so that they can get those value-added jobs.”
The stakes are high. Houston highlighted Nova Scotia’s energy vulnerability, noting, “The natural gas that is in our system does come through the United States, 100 per cent of it.” Oil follows a similar path. “Now if they (the U.S.) were to make that inaccessible, turn the valve off, do whatever,” he explained, “we could meet our energy needs but it would mean burning more coal. So I’m not worried we’re going to be in darkness but it’s a vulnerability and there’s no good reason for it. We have to address it.” His solution? Ramp up natural resource development and secure pipeline access to diversify markets.
Smith, meanwhile, firmly rejected using Alberta’s energy as a bargaining chip against the U.S., a possibility floated by federal ministers like Mélanie Joly and Jonathon Wilkinson. “We do not, we will not use Alberta energy as a weapon in that way,” she insisted. “Because if the U.S. decided to retaliate in kind, it would turn off energy to Ontario and Quebec. So, I do not want Ontario and Quebec to be in the dark without gasoline and without home heating. So, anyone who thinks that they’re going to hurt the Americans by taking action like that, it’s like punching yourself in the face. It’s not a good strategy. No one should threaten it.”
The road ahead is fraught with challenges. Political turnover in Atlantic Canada—marked by the resignations of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Andrew Furey and P.E.I.’s Dennis King—underscores the difficulty of leadership in turbulent times. “It’s a tough time to be a leader right now, in business, in politics,” Houston admitted. Yet, he remains undeterred, engaging pipeline companies with a mix of pragmatism and persuasion. He recounted these exchanges with a playful tone: “If the federal government were to use their power and ability to automatically permit, so you didn’t have to worry about permitting, would you build it?” The tepid response: “Well, we’re not too sure given the history here.” Undaunted, he pressed, “If it’s permitted and the federal government started to build it, what do you think?” The reply: “Well, we’re getting a little closer now.”
For Houston, the mission is clear. “We’re a strong country, and we will respond to this moment,” he assured me—a statement that carries the weight of resolve and hope for a nation at a crossroads.
AI Inferences and Considerations
The burgeoning alliance between eastern and western Canada reflects deeper economic and geopolitical currents not fully articulated in the original discourse. Trump’s tariffs, while a proximate trigger, amplify a longstanding tension: Canada’s overreliance on the U.S. as its primary energy market. According to the Canadian Energy Regulator, 96% of Canada’s crude oil exports went to the U.S. in 2023 (source), a dependency that leaves the country exposed to American policy whims. Houston and Smith’s push for pipelines to tidewater—whether east, west, or north—seeks to diversify this risk, potentially tapping into Asian or European markets where demand for energy remains robust.
Blanchet’s opposition, rooted in Quebec’s historical resistance to fossil fuel projects, may also mask a strategic play. The Bloc Québécois, with its separatist leanings, could be leveraging the pipeline debate to deepen regional divides, a tactic consistent with its broader agenda. Yet, the Angus Reid poll suggests a disconnect between the party’s stance and public sentiment, hinting at an opportunity for premiers like Smith to negotiate compromises—such as northern routes or economic incentives—that align with Quebec’s interests.
Moreover, the resignations of Furey and King could signal political fatigue or a shift in Atlantic Canada’s priorities, potentially weakening regional cohesion just as Houston seeks to rally support. Conversely, the alignment of Houston (54) and Smith (53), both relatively youthful and assertive, may herald a generational shift in leadership willing to challenge entrenched norms. Their dialogue with industry leaders, though cautious, indicates a thawing of private sector skepticism—provided federal regulatory hurdles are cleared.
Keywords:Canada pipeline debate, Trump trade war tariffs, Eastern-Western Canada alliance, Energy East pipeline, Nova Scotia energy security, Alberta oil exports, Quebec hydrocarbon opposition, Danielle Smith trade policy, Tim Houston pipeline support, Bloc Québécois stance
