Skip to main content

Justin Trudeau told an Alberta audience this week that his vision for Canada's energy sector doesn't include the words "National," "Energy" or "Program" – a joking reference to the disastrous policy championed by his famous father. But when you look at his latest musings on new pipelines for the province's locked-in oil, you have to wonder if the apple has fallen very far from the tree.

Mr. Trudeau – the front-runner for the federal Liberal Party leadership and the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau – made it clear, again, that he opposes the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would deliver Alberta crude to the West Coast for export to energy-hungry Asian markets, citing environmental concerns and insufficient consultation with native peoples. But he insisted that he has no problem with pipelines per se.

Like, for instance, that other proposal to pipe Alberta oil east, to Quebec and New Brunswick, where there are refineries that could use the cheaper oil sands heavy crude to produce fuel for the eastern side of the country, and ship it across the Atlantic. Mr. Trudeau wants to see more details, but he said the idea of a west-to-east pipeline is "extremely important."

Story continues below advertisement

Funny that the pipeline to which Mr. Trudeau is more disposed is the one that plays to Eastern Canadian interests. The one that could convert Alberta oil wealth into jobs and economic opportunities in Quebec (Mr. Trudeau's home province and his party's traditional power base) and the Maritimes. The one that offers the tantalizing proposition of reliable and lower-cost fuel to the urban-industrial heartland in Ontario, the most critical political battle ground in the country.

If any of that has a ring of familiarity, let's recall the stated goals behind the National Energy Program (NEP), which Pierre Trudeau introduced as Prime Minister in 1980: "… to provide Canadians with energy security, the opportunity to participate in energy development, and fairness in the manner in which the benefits of the nation's rich resources are shared."

This is not to suggest that a west-to-east oil pipeline is even remotely akin to the NEP, a notoriously heavy-handed, nationalistic and interventionist policy that drove investment out of Alberta's oil fields almost overnight, sending the province into a deep and painful economic slump. (Full disclosure: I'm a born-and-bred Albertan who lived through the NEP. We have long memories.)

In fact, the province and its massive oil industry absolutely need such a pipeline to unlock oil that is languishing at far below going global market prices because of insufficient transportation capacity to deliver it to high-demand markets. When Mr. Trudeau speaks of the need for a "pan-Canadian" energy strategy, he's borrowing a term championed by Alberta's own Premier, Alison Redford.

Nevertheless, the younger Mr. Trudeau's enthusiasm for a west-to-east pipeline is remarkably aligned to the goals espoused by his late father's policy. Yet when it comes to another pipeline that both the Alberta and British Columbia governments see as a key cog in their economic prosperity, but which would deliver oil to Asia without sharing much obvious economic benefit with the rest of the country, he stands in high-principled opposition.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into Mr. Trudeau's words; maybe there is no cynical, Eastern-Canada-centric political motive behind his differing positions on the pipelines. But when the son of the father speaks on this issue, it's hard not to hear echoes.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies