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?

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Every week in this second Donald Trump presidency is such a whirlwind of major events that it is always a challenge to pick a topic for the next contribution here at the Daily Caller News Foundation.

But, despite this having been one of the most frenzied weeks of all since Jan. 20, picking the topic for this column was easy, because no energy-related action by this administration would have a bigger impact on American society than a successful effort to reverse the Obama EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding on greenhouse gas regulation.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin “has privately urged the White House to strike down a scientific finding underpinning much of the federal government’s push to combat climate change, according to three people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.” Zeldin’s recommendation was a response to Trump’s Day 1 executive order tasking Zeldin to conduct a review of “the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).’”

The Obama EPA’s finding was enabled by the 2007 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts v. EPA case allowing the agency to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants in the context of the Clean Air Act. In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who long served as the swing vote on the Court, joined with four liberal justices to give EPA this authority.

Given that the main so-called “greenhouse gases” — water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide — are all naturally occurring elements, a ruling classifying them as “pollutants” as that term was intended by the authors of the Clean Air Act in 1963 was absurd on its face, but that didn’t stop the five justices from imposing their political will on U.S. society.

Since implemented by the Obama EPA, the endangerment finding has served as the foundational basis for the vast expansion of climate change regulations impacting every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy, dramatically increasing the cost of energy for all Americans. The climate alarm hysteria over carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food and the basis for all life in Planet Earth, was also the motivational basis for every aspect of the Biden-era efforts to force taxpayers to bear the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars in renewable energy subsidies.

So, what has changed between 2007 and today to make Administrator Zeldin and President Trump think their attempt to reverse this endangerment finding would survive all the court challenges that would arise from the climate alarm community?

First, there is the dramatic shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy is no longer on the court, nor are the other four justices who issued the majority decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Where the Court was evenly divided in 2007, today’s Supreme Court is made up of a decisive 6-3 originalist majority with three justices appointed by Donald Trump himself during his first presidency.

But an even more decisive difference now stems from last year’s reversal of the Chevron Deference by the Supreme Court in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case. As I wrote here at the time, the Chevron Deference, established as a legal doctrine in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1984, required the federal judiciary to defer to the regulators’ judgments about the governing statutes whenever the statutory intent was vague and open to interpretation.

That doctrine of law led directly to the vast expansion of the regulatory state for the 40 years it was in effect. The question now becomes whether, in the absence of that doctrine, regulators at the EPA truly have the authority to regulate atmospheric plant food in the same way they regulate particulate matter and other forms of real air pollution.

A successful effort to reverse the Obama EPA endangerment finding would then put every element of the Obama/Biden climate agenda in jeopardy.

Mr. Trump likes to say he wants to bring common sense back to government. This is one big way to do exactly that.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.