We will never use our energy for coercion
In Goa this week, Canada's energy minister Tim Hodgson arrived not merely to negotiate oil and uranium contracts, but to articulate something older and more fragile: the idea that nations need not submit to the economic gravity of the powerful. Against a backdrop of American tariff pressure felt by both Ottawa and New Delhi, Hodgson's visit to India Energy Week was a quiet argument that middle powers, long accustomed to orbiting larger ones, might yet choose each other. Whether principle becomes pipeline remains the open question of this emerging alignment.
- The United States has been deploying tariffs as instruments of coercion, and both Canada and India have felt the pressure — creating an unusual diplomatic opening between two countries whose recent relationship has been strained.
- Canada, despite vast reserves of LNG, LPG, uranium, and critical minerals, remains dangerously dependent on American markets — a vulnerability Hodgson traveled to Goa explicitly to address.
- Hodgson praised India's sweeping EU trade deal as a model act of resistance, calling it proof that mid-sized powers can refuse a world where economic might dictates terms.
- Canada is now racing to expand export infrastructure capable of moving energy across the Indian Ocean, positioning itself as a supplier that will, in Hodgson's words, 'never use energy for coercion.'
- The real test lies ahead: energy markets run on economics, not solidarity, and both nations must convert geopolitical urgency into binding contracts, competitive prices, and lasting supply chains.
Tim Hodgson arrived in Goa this week carrying a message that went beyond energy policy. Canada's energy minister was at India Energy Week to discuss oil, gas, and uranium — but his deeper subject was how two mid-sized powers might resist the economic coercion of a dominant one.
The context was unmistakable. The United States has been wielding tariffs as leverage, and both Canada and India have felt it. Canada, one of the world's largest producers of oil, gas, and critical minerals, remains heavily dependent on American markets. Hodgson named the pressure directly from the podium: 'I don't need to tell India what it means when hegemons use tariffs as leverage.'
What moved him most was India's recent trade agreement with the European Union — 'the mother of all deals,' he called it, not for its scale alone but for what it represented: a refusal to accept a world ordered by raw power. He argued that the old multilateral architecture of global trade was giving way to something meaner, a mercantilist order where economic tools become weapons.
Canada's offer to India was concrete: a growing energy relationship built on LNG, LPG, and uranium, backed by expanded export infrastructure and a pledge never to weaponize supply. India's energy demand is among the fastest-growing on earth, while Canadian energy barely registers in India's current import mix — leaving significant room to build.
The timing is telling. Canada and India have navigated diplomatic friction in recent years, yet shared pressure from Washington has a way of clarifying priorities. Hodgson's visit was an acknowledgment that the world is reorganizing, and that countries like theirs must move quickly to secure partnerships independent of any hegemon's goodwill.
Whether this alignment produces real infrastructure and real contracts remains uncertain. Principle and economics do not always travel together, and India will demand competitive prices while Canada needs durable market access. The geopolitical moment has created urgency — the question is whether urgency is enough.
Tim Hodgson arrived in Goa this week with a message that sounded less like energy policy and more like a quiet rebuke. Canada's energy minister was at India Energy Week to talk about oil, gas, and uranium—the practical stuff of global supply chains. But what he really came to discuss was something harder to quantify: how two mid-sized powers might resist the gravitational pull of economic coercion.
The backdrop matters. The United States has been wielding tariffs like a cudgel, and both Canada and India have felt the weight. Canada, despite being one of the world's largest producers of oil, gas, and critical minerals, remains tethered to American markets for the bulk of its exports. India, meanwhile, has watched as economic leverage has been deployed against it before. When Hodgson stood up to speak, he wasn't pretending these pressures didn't exist. He named them directly. "I don't need to tell India what it means when people use their economic integration with your country for coercion," he said. "I don't need to tell you what it means when hegemons use tariffs as leverage."
What struck Hodgson most was India's recent trade agreement with the European Union. He called it "the mother of all deals"—not because of its size, though it is substantial, but because of what it represented: a refusal to accept a world ordered by raw power. "That was a perfect example of how to say no, we're not going to live in a world where might makes right," he said. The old architecture of global trade, built on multilateralism and free exchange, was crumbling, he argued. In its place, something meaner was taking shape—a mercantilist world where economic tools became weapons and alliances fractured along lines of self-interest.
Canada's pitch to India was straightforward: let's build something together. India's energy demand is growing faster than almost anywhere else on earth. Canada has the resources—LNG, LPG, uranium—and the infrastructure to move them. Right now, the relationship is thin. Canadian energy barely registers in India's import mix, and Indian oil companies have only modest stakes in Canadian upstream projects. There is room to grow. Hodgson spoke of expanding Canada's export infrastructure, not to lock in dependence on any single buyer, but to have options. "We will never use our energy for coercion," he said, drawing a contrast with the behavior he saw elsewhere.
The timing reveals something about the current moment. Canada and India have had a strained relationship in recent years—diplomatic friction that seemed unlikely to thaw quickly. But shared pressure from Washington has a way of clarifying priorities. When the most powerful player in the room starts playing by different rules, smaller players start looking for allies. Hodgson's visit was an acknowledgment that the world is reorganizing, and that countries like Canada and India need to move fast to secure partnerships that don't depend on the goodwill of a hegemon.
What remains to be seen is whether this moment of alignment translates into real infrastructure, real contracts, real flows of energy across the Indian Ocean. Hodgson spoke the language of principle—multilateralism, fair trade, resistance to coercion. But energy markets run on economics, not rhetoric. India will want competitive prices and reliable supply. Canada will want market access and long-term demand. The question is whether the current geopolitical moment creates enough urgency to bridge the gap between what both countries say they want and what they're willing to commit to achieve it.
Citas Notables
What you just did with the EU, signing the mother of all deals, was a perfect example of how to say no, we're not going to live in a world where might makes right.— Tim Hodgson, Canada's energy minister
The way to resist that change is to build multilateral relationships and to double down on diversification of supplies.— Tim Hodgson
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Canada care so much about India right now? They've had rough relations.
Because the US is making everyone else's life harder. When your biggest customer starts using tariffs as a weapon, you stop taking that relationship for granted. India's been through this too. Suddenly you have something to talk about.
But Canada already sells energy to lots of countries. Why is India special?
Scale and growth. India's energy demand is exploding—faster than anywhere else. That's not a small market. It's the future. And right now, Canada barely registers there. There's room to build something real.
Hodgson kept talking about "not using energy for coercion." Isn't that just politics?
Maybe. But it's also a promise. He's saying Canada won't do what the US is doing—weaponize supply. For India, that distinction matters. They've seen what happens when you're dependent on someone willing to use that leverage.
What does India get out of this besides cheaper energy?
Options. Diversification. Right now, if one supplier cuts them off, they're vulnerable. More partners means more security. And it signals to the world that India won't be pushed around—they're building their own coalition.
Can this actually work, or is it just talk?
That's the real question. The politics are aligned. The resources are there. But energy deals need contracts, infrastructure, years of commitment. Whether they actually build that depends on whether the economic case holds up when the geopolitical moment passes.