In all the political wind over tariffs, there’s a breeze of sanity from Yves-Francois Blanchet, the tough nut who leads the Bloc Quebecois.
Blanchet says it would be “absurd” to ban energy shipments to the U.S. during the trade and tariff dispute with U.S. President Donald Trump.
That aligns him with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, the only other leader who says clearly that energy cuts should be off the table, never to be mentioned again.
Blanchet is talking about both electricity and oil. But don’t get the notion he’s any friend of Alberta, or some kind of separatist ally with our sovereignty-loving premier.
Blanchet, in fact, is as hypocritically green as most Quebec politicians, rejecting oil and gas pipelines from the West while Quebec cashes a $13.6-billion annual equalization cheque.
Yet he’s right about the danger of cutting energy shipments to the U.S., whether it’s Quebec electricity or western oil and gas.
“If you disrupt the habit of Americans sourcing energy from Quebec and Canada, once they have found other sources of supply, you will be in a very disadvantageous position to negotiate new contracts,” Blanchet said.
“In the long term, it’s a bit of a scorched-earth policy.”
That’s one solid point. But Blanchet also touches on a far more serious possibility.
He says Americans regard our oil as “somewhat in their backyard.” This makes the threat of cutting supply even less “wise.”
Trump has just declared a national energy emergency in the U.S. He wants oil production vastly increased. For him, this is a strategic imperative.
He keeps insisting that America has more oil than anywhere in the world, which isn’t true — but he clearly wants it to be.
Maybe the president already considers our huge reserves to be American.
Trump could view cutting oil shipments to the U.S. as an extremely hostile move. And he’s the president who thinks Canada should be the 51st state.
Other premiers and the feds may have their doubts about cutting off energy, but they keep refusing to rule out the tactic.
Smith is clear — don’t do it.
This is the only sane view. A duel where one combatant pulls out a new weapon can become a war.
Smith has another concern; the impression that she’s seeking a tariff “carve-out” specifically for oil and gas.
This damaging idea grew from her suspicion that Ottawa will impose an oil export tax if oil is spared from tariffs.
That in turn fostered the impression that she’s pressing for an oil exemption in her private talks with U.S. leaders.
Asked about this Tuesday, Smith said it’s not true.
“I’ve been asking for recognition that this important trade relationship means Canada should get a carve-out, that Canada has got a special integrated relationship with the U.S., that Canada buys more U.S. goods and services than any other country in the world, that Canada is able to singularly provide that security to the United States.
“I think that’s the true Team Canada approach. I don’t anticipate a carve-out (for oil), I never have, but I have been asking for Canada to have a carve-out on the basis of this special relationship.”
Smith still puts her faith in personal diplomacy. But the wind is blowing against her as premiers line up to support retaliation.
B.C. Premier David Eby said Tuesday that even though B.C. is one of the least affected provinces, 100,000 jobs are at risk.
He backed the federal drive for retaliatory tariffs. “We will respond in kind and they will feel it,” Eby declared.
It’s impossible to know what Trump will do. Keeping track of his twists is like following a bumblebee through a field of daisies, as columnist Graham Thomson once wrote in another context.
But 82 per cent of Canadians agree with a tough stand, according to a new Ipsos poll.
And so, the country heads blindly into the uncertain future.
Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald