Event31 March 2025Statement

CSIS (Hernandez-Roy): Canada is already talking about coastal export infrastructure instead of north-south links; if built, the US could lose its cheap heavy crude

On Mar 31, 2025, days after Carney said the old relationship with the US was 'over' and after 14 energy CEOs had called for new pipelines and LNG terminals, Christopher Hernandez-Roy of CSIS's Americas Program described Canada's response as already under way: Canada 'is talking about building new infrastructure on its coasts' to reach other markets rather than north-south links, and new pipelines, if built, would cost the US its source of cheap heavy crude. He wrote that Canada and Mexico 'will make long-term investments in infrastructure to facilitate access to non-U.S. markets' and warned that North America could become less integrated, a loss for US economic and national security.

Date: 31 March 2025
Kind: Statement
Where: United States
Evidence: Statement: Something was said. Weighted lowest: words cost less than actions. How evidence is weighed
Who: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) (acted); Christopher Hernandez-Roy (acted)

Articles that cite this record

An awkward response

Sources

CSIS, “Effects of the Trump Administration's Tariff Threats Against Canada and Mexico” (external site), 31 March 2025. source record

Quotes

“Canada is talking about building new infrastructure on its coasts to access those markets, rather than the North-South infrastructure”

From CSIS: Effects of the Trump Administration's Tariff Threats Against Canada and Mexico, paragraph beginning "However, President Trump's approach"

“not only would the United States lose its source of cheap heavy crude”

From CSIS: Effects of the Trump Administration's Tariff Threats Against Canada and Mexico, paragraph beginning "The first place Canada will look to diversify markets"

Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment

Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.

Non-discriminating: this event fits the plain self-interest reading and the foresight reading equally. It does not tell them apart. What this means

Reading	Fit	Why
I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent)	Neutral weak	An outside analyst describing Canada's turn to coastal export routes as a loss for the US fits all readings equally; it is commentary, not evidence of what the administration foresaw.
I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent)	Neutral weak	An outside analyst describing Canada's turn to coastal export routes as a loss for the US fits all readings equally; it is commentary, not evidence of what the administration foresaw.
I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent)	Neutral weak	An outside analyst describing Canada's turn to coastal export routes as a loss for the US fits all readings equally; it is commentary, not evidence of what the administration foresaw.
I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent)	Neutral weak	An outside analyst describing Canada's turn to coastal export routes as a loss for the US fits all readings equally; it is commentary, not evidence of what the administration foresaw.
I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent)	Neutral weak	An outside analyst describing Canada's turn to coastal export routes as a loss for the US fits all readings equally; it is commentary, not evidence of what the administration foresaw.
R-annex Annexation Rival reading	Neutral weak	An outside analyst describing Canada's turn to coastal export routes as a loss for the US fits all readings equally; it is commentary, not evidence of what the administration foresaw.
R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading	Neutral weak	An outside analyst describing Canada's turn to coastal export routes as a loss for the US fits all readings equally; it is commentary, not evidence of what the administration foresaw.
R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading	Neutral weak	An outside analyst describing Canada's turn to coastal export routes as a loss for the US fits all readings equally; it is commentary, not evidence of what the administration foresaw.