How Trump's Threats Are Reshaping Canada's Energy Strategy | Election Special Ep.5 - Power Struggle

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Monica Gattinger (00:00):
It's really about rebalancing between
economic and environmentalaspirations and it's, I think, a
growing awareness andunderstanding that durable
policy in the energy space, youknow, has to attend to that
energy trilemma, right, peoplerefer to this energy trilemma so

(00:21):
that you've got, you know, whenit comes to energy policy, you
need to ensure that you've gotpolicy that maintains energy
security.
It also needs to attend toenvironmental sustainability,
and so it's finding what we callin our work a durable balance,
right?
So a balance between thoseobjectives that will stand the
test of time.

Stewart Muir (00:56):
Welcome to Power Struggle.
I'm your host, stuart Muir, andthis is the fifth episode of a
special federal electioncampaign edition.
We're tackling the big issuesshaping this election and really
Canada's future, and we'relooking particularly at issues
related to energy, which is thetheme of the podcast Today.
My guest is Monica Gattinger, aprominent figure in Canadian
energy policy.
She's the founding chair of thePositive Energy Program at the

(01:18):
University of Ottawa.
The program brings people frommany professional interests
together to strengthen publicconfidence in energy
decision-making.
She's the director of theInstitute for Science, society
and Policy and a full professorat the School of Political
Studies.
Welcome, monica.

Thanks so much for having me, Stuart.

You know for those who haven't visited your campus
at the University of Ottawa I'malways struck when I go there
by just how plugged in it iscentral.
You can see the Peace Tower,you can walk to Parliament Hill,
where the power players are, injust a few minutes, and that
gives a certain buzz to, I think, the stuff you do there.

Absolutely.
We're just a few steps fromParliament as a downtown campus.
It really does put it all intoperspective.
For sure, let's talk about thePositive Energy Program.

You've been doing that for quite a while.
What's it all about?

So we founded Positive Energy about a decade
ago and if you cast your mindback, Stuart, about 10 years ago
, that was really at the heightof a lot of the controversy we
were seeing over major pipelineproposals, right?
So Energy East, NorthernGateway, Keystone XL, Trans
Mountain and it was really clearto me that you know we were

(02:32):
running into lots of controversyin the country over energy
issues.
And so the idea of positiveenergy, as you noted at the top,
is really about how do westrengthen public and investor
confidence in energy policy andregulation, and we do that in
two ways, one of which is to usethe convening power to bring
together leaders from business,from government, from Indigenous

(02:52):
organizations and researcherslike myself.
And then the second way that wepursue that mandate is by
undertaking solution-focusedapplied academic research.
So I lead a research team offolks who are really digging
into the issues that a lot ofour convening has surfaced as
being absolutely crucial tostrengthen public and investor
confidence in energy.

In Canada, the public opinion tracking on
issues.
I don't think anyone else isdoing what you're doing.
If it wasn't for that, I'm notsure we'd have a sort of crisp
understanding, as we do, of someof these trends.

Yeah, no.
Thanks so much, Stuart, forthat.
That was really important to usat the outset.
I must admit a certainfrustration, or had at that time
a certain frustration withfolks saying, oh well, canadians
think this or they think that,and not necessarily, you know,
digging into it empirically.
So we formed this reallyfantastic partnership with Nick
Nanos at Nanos Research andwe've been diving into

(03:55):
Canadians' views on energyissues, in particular as they
intersect with environmentalconcerns, and so we've got about
10 years of tracking data nowon some of our questions.

It's a very unique focus to your point, yeah, and
you pair that with the academicresearch.
I think it's just a greatcombination, truly inspired.
I just want to jump into whatwe're talking about during the
federal election right now.
You were recently at a majorindustry conference A lot of the
not just the continents, butthe world's energy thought
leaders and decision makers.
You were talking about the needfor North America to build
energy infrastructure faster toachieve economic security and

(04:34):
energy dominance, or that wasthe topic of your panel, but
you've seen it hampered byregulatory and permitting
obstacles.
So this is interesting for alot of reasons.
One is the fact that theleaders of the major political
parties asking for votes rightnow are pledging to speed up
approvals of energy projects andrelated infrastructure.

(04:54):
What do you make of theirstatements?

Well, I mean, I guess I'd start by saying you
know, this is an issue thatwe've been digging into at
Positive Energy over the courseof our entire existence.
Really, how do we make surethat we've got regulatory
processes that secure theconfidence not only of the
public but also of investors?
I mean, obviously you needinvestment dollars or you don't
have projects.
We're seeing this on thecampaign trail so prominently.

(05:23):
It's very much about what thiselection campaign is focused on.
I mean, this is a pivotalelection for Canada.
I think, on the one hand, we'reseeing the ballot box question
very much around President Trump, and which leader and which
party is best positioned toaddress some of the threats
coming our way from the UnitedStates.

(05:46):
I think, you know, if I had awish in terms of the ballot box
question, it would be that itwas about the future of the
Canadian economy, because that'sreally what we're talking about
.
So when we've got the leaderssaying, you know, we need to
expand internal trade, we needto diversify our international
export markets, that's reallyabout what's the vision for the
future of the Canadian economy.

(06:07):
And so if you're looking todiversify whether it's, you know
, domestically orinternationally, when it comes
to energy, that absolutely meansnew energy infrastructure.
Right, you've got to haveinfrastructure and projects to
move energy from one part of thecountry to another.
So whether it's pipelines orexport terminals for LNG, you
know, take your pick.

(06:28):
And it's been no secret thatCanada has a major problem when
it comes to getting things built, and this is not, you know,
something that the leaders kindof just discovered over the
course of this election campaign.
This has been an ongoing issuefor the country over the last
number of years.

And we were coming into this election only a few
weeks ago, when it was going tobe the carbon tax election.
But then Mark Carney made adecision that just took that off
the table, right.

Yeah, I mean.
I would say even more than thatthough, stuart, is that the you
know the threats coming our wayfrom the United States.
What President Trump is doingto you know, in effect upend the
entire global trading systemthat's been built up over the
last, you know, seven, eightdecades.
That's an existential crisisfor Canada.
We're a country, you know,we're a small, open,

(07:17):
trade-dependent economy.
The vast majority of ourexports, you know, do go to the
United States, despite effortsover the last number of years to
diversify to other markets.
So you know, you're quite right,that Mr Carney's decision to
remove the consumer carbon taxwhen he first came was appointed

(07:38):
prime minister, certainly tookthat off the election agenda.
But I think you know, over andabove that, off the election
agenda, but I think you know,over and above that, we've been
overtaken by events.
Right, we had a particularconfiguration of issues for the
election that we thought wasgoing to go a certain way, where
we thought the issues weregoing to be, you know, a certain
list of topics.
Now many of those topics aremuch further down the, you know,

(08:01):
further down the electionpriority list and it's really
become much more about who isbest positioned to take on some
of the threats coming our wayfrom the United States.
And again, my wish would bethat we would talk more in depth
about the policy plans of eachof the parties to help Canada

(08:21):
navigate not only the currentcrisis but its economic future
at large.

Well, right now, it seems like every new day
brings a mind-bendingdevelopment, whether in
commodity prices or in what thistariff thing means to different
countries that are all nowbeing dragged into it.
So, in this almost random fieldof uncertainty, I think we need

(08:48):
some principles to judge it by,which comes back to the value
of your work.
And I think if, in what we canshed some light on today, if we
just share some of thoseguardrails for getting towards a
better outcome for Canadians,it feels like that would be a
good use of our efforts in thisconversation.

Absolutely, I'd be happy to.
And I guess I think about it intwo ways, stuart.
You know my early career wasreally focused on Canada-US
relations and in particularCanada-USUS and broader North
American energy relations, andmy doctoral dissertation focused
on negotiation of the Canada-USfree trade agreement and then

(09:31):
NAFTA after that.
And so I think you know, forCanada, you know, if you cast
your mind back to the free tradeelection of 1988 and then the
years prior to that, we had avery substantial national debate
about what is the future of theCanadian economy.
And you know a previousgovernment former Minister of

(09:57):
External Affairs, mitchell Sharp, wrote a document that really
has had a lot of staying power,and it laid out, in effect,
three options for the Canadianeconomy One, the status quo.
Two, leaning more intointegration with the United
States this was pre-free tradeagreement, so that was a big

(10:17):
debate for the country.
And then the third option,which was about diversifying
trade to other markets and moreinternal trade within Canada.
And you know, if you cast yourmind back to the 1980s, the
decision was made at that pointto go in the direction of
greater integration with theUnited States and despite

(10:37):
efforts to pursue, you know, theso-called third option in the
intervening years.
I think the economic pull of theUS.
It's the largest market in theworld.
It's right on our doorstep.
We share a language, you know.
For the most part we've gotsimilar cultures in many
respects and so it's very easyto lean into that marketplace in
terms of our exportopportunities.

(10:59):
So, despite a lot of theefforts, notably over the last
decade and more, to diversifyCanada's exports to other
markets you know we've got aflurry of free trade agreements
that have been signed over thelast number of years you know
there's been some movement inthat direction, but really that
gravitational pull of the USeconomy has really swamped many

(11:24):
of those efforts.
I think now we're in a verydifferent position, right.
So now we've got thisexistential threat to the
Canadian economy coming from theUnited States, and so now we're
pursuing what I think of as thefourth option, which is now
we're integrated with the US.
We need to, you know, continueto maintain access to the US

(11:44):
marketplace.
So we, you know we continue toneed to press the case to our US
counterparts about theimportance of that relationship.
But we also, in addition tothat, there is opportunity to
expand internal trade in thecountry, and it's really putting
a sharp focus on the importanceof diversifying our exports to
other markets.
So it's sort of an all of theabove approach.

(12:05):
So that's kind of on the onehand.
And then the second piece andI'm sure you'll want to come to
this, stuart, in the context ofthis conversation is well, what
does that mean for energyspecifically?
You know what are we talkingabout when we talk about
internal trade and export marketdiversification for energy.
Those, to me, are some of thekey questions facing Canada and

(12:27):
Canadians right now.
So you know, on the one handyou could say, well, maybe this
is the worst time to have anelection because we're not
necessarily having the mostserious discussion about some of
these issues, but on the otherhand, it really does put a focus
on this issue and Canadians'engagement with it and desire to
find a really constructive pathforward for the country.

So for 40 years Canada has been pursuing a
policy to be best buddies withthe United States, and now we
have been betrayed by thatfriend.

Yeah, and I mean again, I would draw a
distinction between best tradingbuddies and best policy buddies
.
So you know, the issue forCanada and for Canadians has
always been, you know, let'stake advantage of the
opportunities that the Americanmarketplace affords Canada in
terms of exports and in terms ofeconomic exchanges.
So best commercial buddies, wecould put it that way.

(13:21):
But there has always been amongCanadians a very strong set of
concerns about Canadiansovereignty and ensuring that we
have the policy sovereignty tochart our own path in terms of
any area of public policy thatyou might imagine.
So I think you know the currentmoment is not only raising all

(13:44):
kinds of questions about thatcommercial relationship and
friendship, but it's alsoraising all kinds of questions
about Canada's sovereigntyeconomic, political and
otherwise.

Well, there's a lot to come back to there, but
two big issues right now that Ithink we can't have this
conversation without addressing,and I think one of them is
indigenous communities, and thisis among the varied interests
that you've been engaging within the Positive Energy Program.
I've attended some of yoursessions with First Nations

(14:19):
leaders from across the country,and when we look at the
significant attention in thisfederal election on energy,
which includes building energyinfrastructure on the land where
Canada's 600 plus First Nationshave their rights and are
present, are we missing out inwhat's being said during the

(14:42):
election on, first of all,ensuring that the First Nations
peoples of Canada are includedin this?

I'm so glad you've asked this question,
stuart, because it's somethingthat I worry about a great deal.
You know, over the last decade,notably the last, I'd say, five
years, there's been a realtransformation in the way
corporate Canada engages withIndigenous nations, indigenous
communities, when it comes toenergy infrastructure projects.

(15:12):
So, you know, sort of gone arethe days for at least the smart
entities in corporate Canada,gone are the days of looking at
consultation and engagement askind of a box ticking exercise.
Companies the smart ones theyknow that if you want to get a
project in service as opposed toin court to your point about

(15:32):
rights, building a trustedrelationship with Indigenous
communities and with Indigenousnations is absolutely pivotal.
And again, this goes, you know,we've seen over the years
impact and benefit agreementsincreasingly and, stuart, I know
thinks about how do youactually get a project across

(16:06):
the finish line.
But to make that happen, youknow it takes time.
Building a relationship oftrust takes time.
This is not about.
You know, here's our projectand this is what we're going to
do.
And you know, get with theprogram.
This is very much about earlyengagement, you know, even to
the point of developing aproject, co-developing a project

(16:29):
, ensuring that there is astrong, strong relationship that
is built and that you knowgetting for a community and
their nation to a place wherethat informed consent is truly
and authentically beingexpressed.
But that takes a lot of time.
At the front end of a project, Iwould argue, and I think many
would argue, it is timeabsolutely well spent.

(16:51):
It absolutely is essential.
You're not going to getprojects these days if you don't
do that.
So when I hear, stuart, back toyour question about kind of
where we're at now, when I hearthings on the election trail
like pre-approved corridors orshovel-ready projects, I really
get concerned because it's notclear to me what that means

(17:14):
exactly.
And so is the sort of theunderstandable desire to
fast-track projects actuallygoing to lead to backtracking
all of the amazing progress thathas been made with Indigenous
nations and communities acrossthis country.
So you know, just to kind ofunpack that a bit, stuart, when

(17:36):
I hear some of the discussionaround the development of energy
corridors or economic corridors, I mean maybe I just am not
getting the memo properly, but Ineed somebody to explain it to
me, like I'm a fourth grader, soI can understand what
Indigenous community or nationwould be comfortable with the
idea of not knowing what theprojects are that are going to

(17:58):
be inside that corridor, notknowing what the nature of the
effects of those projects willbe on the environment.
How does that constituteinformed consent?
I just, you know, again happyto be missing something and be
set straight, but I just don'tsee how it works.
I mean, I could see how itwould work in the context of an

(18:20):
existing right-of-way, anexisting corridor where, you
know, maybe there's much betterunderstanding of what sort of
the environmental impacts are ofdevelopment in that space.
We've got lots of experience,good data, you know,
well-functioning risk mitigationstrategies, all of this stuff.
I can kind of wrap my headaround that.

(18:40):
I can definitely wrap my headaround an Indigenous-led
corridor If you've got a numberof communities, nations, come
together and say, you know,we're interested in development.
You know in this particulararea that I can get, but a sort
of what I think of as agreenfield order.
I just really struggle tounderstand how that would work.
And you know, same thing goesfor some of the comments that

(19:03):
have been made aroundshovel-ready projects.
So I think we are very much, Iget very concerned about not
taking into consideration theway we absolutely need to the
involvement and meaningfulrelationship building and
partnerships with Indigenousnations on all of these projects

(19:26):
.

Well, there's a takeaway there for campaigns.
When you're listening to ourguest Monica here, I think she's
saying something reallyimportant, which is that if
you're using phrases, if you'rereferencing ideas and there's
been some publishing on thingslike the energy corridor idea,
like Shovel Ready, but I don'tthink a lot of people are paying
attention to it so be prepared,do your research and when

(19:50):
you're talking about theseissues, maybe the First Nations
who you're referencing or notreferencing should be visible in
this.

Because you know, monica, I'm just trying to
think how visible areIndigenous people in, say, the
roster of candidates, and I'mstruggling to think of a lot of
campaigns that have come to myattention in recent weeks that
are putting First Nations withyou and I think you know, there
is the election that we weregoing to have, which maybe would

(20:31):
have had a variety of thesetopics more front and center,
and then there's the electionthat we now have, which seems to
be really boiled down to thisvery kind of narrow issue.
And again, I understand, I getit.
We're facing an existentialthreat from the United States.
But this is where you know Iwould really like to think that
you know we can have a morerobust discussion of Canada's
economic future and all of thevarious elements that are going

(20:53):
to be keys to success in thatfuture, including reconciliation
with Indigenous peoples.

Yeah, I mean it seems like there's the
appearance of agreement on theseissues, just as there's the
appearance of agreement on thecarbon tax, and one can have
one's questions and perhapsskepticism about whether really
there's as much agreement there.
Or maybe it's just a strategy tonot make this an issue that
we're going to have argumentsabout, because for someone it's

(21:21):
a good issue, for someone it's abad issue and it's a
distraction from other issuespeople would rather talk about.
But we want to talk aboutenergy, so let's keep doing that
.
And indigenous we've talkedabout.
But the other thing we have tobe talking about, if we're going
to talk about energy, isclimate, and climate change has
for many years been almost adefining factor of any energy

(21:42):
debate not just any climatedebate, but also the energy side
, and you recently co-authored areport Energy Projects and Net
Zero by 2050.
I'd like to talk about that,because you've raised this
question of whether Canada canbuild enough fast enough to meet
these net zero targets.
And you know, in BritishColumbia recently we've seen the

(22:03):
government say well, you know,maybe these targets were not
matched to how things wouldunfold in reality.
So let's you know, tweak hereand there.
Can you explain how we get tonet zero by building more?

Because there's going to be some voters
saying okay, they're saying thisover here, but they're also
saying this over there I thinkthat's a really good way of
putting it, stuart, becausesometimes I think for Canadians
it's like they need help frompolitical leaders and others to
kind of connect the dots on howall of these pieces fit together
.
And I want to just start, youknow.

(22:39):
So we started this project andI'm sure you'll probably want to
dig in a little bit more in aminute here, but so it's called
Can we Build Fast Enough EnergyProjects in Net Zero, of fast
enough energy projects in netzero.
And at the time that we startedthis project, which was a
couple of years ago, the finalreport, as you've noted, was
just published a couple ofmonths ago.
You know net zero.
There was a tremendous amountof momentum and pretty broad
consensus around net zero andyou know at that time whether it

(23:01):
was domestically or globally,you had some pretty broad
alignment between industry,government, finance, community,
canadians, indigenous, don'tknow if weakening is quite the
gas front, but oil as well.
So that I think sort of startedto get people thinking about OK

(23:55):
, wait a minute, when we talkabout energy, it's not just
about climate.
There are other things we needto be thinking about as well.
So you know, security being oneof them, I think the other
thing, stuart, that we've seen,certainly domestically but also
in many countriesinternationally, is growing
concerns among the populationabout affordability and cost of
living right.

(24:16):
So to date, you know, for themost part Canadians are very
enthusiastic and ambitious whenit comes to climate, but that's
when they have their hat on as acitizen.
Increasingly, climate action isasking them to put their hat on
as a customer right, so it'sincentives to purchase an
electric vehicle or a heat pump.

(24:36):
And I think you know, when ourpublic opinion survey research
is starting to bear this out,that concerns over affordability
and cost of living have kind ofgotten Canadians going like
just wait, whoa, whoa, wait aminute here, how up am I for
some of these additional costs.
And the collapse of publicsupport for consumer carbon
pricing, I think would be agreat and unfortunate example of

(25:01):
where we see that happening.
I think you know globally,within the financial community,
a lot of the momentum aroundsustainable finance.
You know some of the wind hascome out of the sails of that
over the course of the lastlittle while as a result, in
many instances, of some of theseadditional changes.
And now we've got the electionof President Trump, you know,

(25:24):
pulling out of the Paris Accord.
You know the tagline for energyis drill, baby drill.
So all of this to say, you know,I think what we're seeing is
very much a bit of a strategicrealignment around what are some
of our core objectives when itcomes to energy.
And so for the last decade inCanada, at least at the federal
level, the core objective hasbeen climate.

(25:46):
And I think what we'rebeginning to see and our
research has been kind ofbanging this drum for years is
that if you want to have durablepolicy in this space, it's got
to attend not only tosustainability issues but also
to affordability,competitiveness, economic issues
and also to the questions ofsecurity, including reliability

(26:08):
of energy.
So with that, by way of kind of, where are we at on net zero,
which I think is an importantlevel set, because things have
changed quite substantially overthe last couple of years.
So why do we say, or why doesit require new infrastructure to
pursue decarbonization, topursue emissions reductions?

(26:29):
Well, just think about it.
We're talking aboutdecarbonizing the energy system
and the broader economy.
So just a few examples Ifyou're in the oil and gas
production sector, that's goingto require carbon capture,
utilization and storage.
Those are big projects, biginvestments, lots of
infrastructure there.
If you go in the direction ofelectrification, well, you're

(26:52):
building new things.
Maybe you're doing like the oilsands some of the producers are
doing and looking into thedeployment of small modular
reactors Again, big investments,new infrastructure projects.
If you think about theelectricity system and trying to
get a cleaner grid, you knowfor Canada, electricity system.

(27:12):
You know decarbonization, youcould be looking at carbon
capture on gas plants you couldbe looking at.
You know building more nuclear.
If you look at electrification,building more nuclear.
If you look at electrification,you know again, there it's not
just about cleaning up the gridas much as we can, but it's also

(27:33):
about getting new electricityresources to the places that
they're being consumed.
So you're talking abouttransmission, you're talking
about distribution, you know Icould go on and on, stuart, but
you know all of this to say that.
You know decarbonizing,reducing the emissions profile
of the energy system and thebroader economy absolutely
requires new infrastructure.

So net zero for 10 years, we've been told.
That means build lessinfrastructure.
Leave it in the ground oil, notdrill, baby drill, but leave it
in the ground.
Electrify everything.
The ground oil not drill babydrill, but leave it in the
ground.
Electrify everything.
When one of the chiefproponents of carbon pricing,

(28:13):
carbon tax, becomes the leaderof the federal liberal party and
the first thing he does is toditch the very policy that has
been the hallmark of his careerfor at least a decade, it kind
of tells you that things aren'tnormal right now, because we're
talking about building things,we're talking about not leaving
oil in the ground, we're talkingabout electrify what we can

(28:33):
electrify and maybe look atother solutions too, and then
you're talking abouttechnologies like carbon capture
.
So is it not suddenly upsidedown?

Because a year ago we weren't talking about
things this way.
Maybe some were, but not thebroad political discourse.
It's not that anybody is sayingclimate doesn't matter.
It's certainly not thatCanadians are saying that.
It's really about rebalancingbetween economic and
environmental aspirationsno-transcript.

(29:45):
And so it's finding what wecall in our work a durable
balance, right so a balancebetween those objectives that
will stand the test of time.
And I think what we've seenover the last you know my
reading of the last number ofclimate has been undertaken in
some instances to the expense orat the expense of security and

(30:09):
affordability, and I think thatnow is beginning to come to
light and so it's shifting someof those policy settings.

Now that's what's showing up in your public
opinion research.
But if you shift to the policyrecommendations, just going to
your recent report, I think youtalked about the need for
clarity and predictability offuture and current policy and
regulatory frameworks.
Now we're really nerding outhere and hope we don't lose
everybody, because this is sortof important, isn't it?

(30:38):
The processes of how we approvethings.

It really is, and so you know, to hopefully
hook it to where we're at rightnow.
In the federal electioncampaign, you know a lot of the
focus on approvals and projectset cetera has been on time.
Right, it's been.
We need to do things faster,and that is absolutely the case.
You know things do need to bedone faster, but the work that

(31:02):
we did in this research study,you know things do need to

(31:24):
industry from Indigenouscommunities and organizations
from the finance community andask them.
You know about basicallyinvestor confidence, because
that's what we're talking aboutinvestor confidence in Canada's
policy and regulatory frameworksfor building projects.
And what we heard loud andclear from them was that,
absolutely, time is an issue,but one of the really big issues

(31:46):
is about predictability andclarity of policy and regulatory
frameworks.
Right, so you can have a reallyfast process, but if it's
unclear and unpredictable, thatis a big problem.
And so a lot of theunpredictability and lack of
clarity happens not only withinthe regulatory system but also

(32:06):
at the level of policy.
Right, so if you're a companytrying to decide do we go
forward with project X or not,you're obviously running the
business case on that project.
And if you don't know if we'regoing to have an industrial
carbon price or not.
That's a huge problem, right,because the economics of that
project might depend upon theexistence of an industrial

(32:29):
carbon price.
And that's just a small example.
There are many, many otheraspects of policy.
It's you know, do we have anoil and gas emissions cap or
don't we?
Do we have clean electricityregulations or don't we?
So that whole issue ofpredictability of policy is a
challenge.
And then a lot of our policiesaren't always that clear, right.
So we've struggled, I think youknow, in a number of

(32:52):
jurisdictions to clarify whatthe policy frameworks are on
things like tax credits etc.
That's also a problem forinvestors and then within the
regulatory system.
So again, I'd really come back,stuart, to this notion that you
know it's not just about time.
Our regulatory processes nowincreasingly involve individual

(33:15):
ministers and cabinet at variousparts of the decision-making
process, and if you talk to anyproponent they'll say, like this
is very unpredictable for us,this is very unpredictable for
us, you know.
So if you've got a regulatoryagency, it makes a decision
about a project and then thatdecision comes to cabinet for
approval, like what happens whenit hits the cabinet table.
It could go anywhere becauseall of a sudden, you got a whole

(33:37):
different lens on whether thisproject should go forward or not
.
We've also seen a lot of youknow lack of clarity in our
regulatory frameworks as well.
You talk to a lot of proponentsand they say, like it is not
clear what the government'sexpectations are when it comes
to what we need to do to get aproject passed the finish line.
So, yes, it's about time, butit's also about making sure that

(34:01):
we've got policy and regulatoryframeworks that are clear and
predictable.

I think it would be helpful just to get a little
window of insight into how youdo this work, because I've had a
chance to meet your researchers.
You put together a team.
I know you've got PhDs andpostdocs and you've got certain
academic disciplines that giveyou a way of doing the research.
And the reason I want to askthis question, monica, is just

(34:25):
to see how credible it is whatyou're doing there and what kind
of methods allow you to get tothese important truths.
I mean, what you're doing isand tested academic
methodologies.

You know literature reviews, case studies
, in-depth interviews withsenior leaders.
All of our work goes to theResearch Ethics Board at the

(34:57):
university so that you know,we're ensuring that we're
following the latest protocols.
And you know, and I thinkwhat's really been crucial to
the work that we've done, stuart, is that we have maintained the
independence of the academicwork but, at the same time, we
have engaged very closely withpeople who are living these

(35:21):
challenges on the daily right.
So we have an advisory council.
We've engaged, as you know,stuart, with folks across the
country, from business, fromgovernment, from regulatory
agencies, and so, as a researchproject proceeds, we're sharing
some of the findings with thoseindividuals we're seeking input
into, like are we asking theright questions?

(35:43):
Are we getting things wrong?
That really helps us to ensurethat what we're doing on, you
know, on an ongoing basis, ispertinent and it's relevant.
I think the other thing that wedo, you know.
So, yes, there is the typicalacademic publication that comes
out of this work.
So you know book chapters andjournal articles and all of that
.
You know fun stuff that, forthe most part, your listeners

(36:05):
probably aren't reading articles, and all of that.
You know, fun stuff that, forthe most part, your listeners
probably aren't reading.
But we also really take greatpains, when we publish our work
for a practitioner audience,that it's written and it's
packaged in a way that isaccessible to practitioners so
that that way you know if you'resomebody who heads a regulatory
agency or you're in a policyshop and you're, you know this

(36:26):
is your file, that you canreally readily understand what
some of the key findings arefrom the research, how we've
gone about developing thatresearch, the rigor that's been
put into it, so that you canhave confidence that these
findings you know have undergonethe scrutiny of an academic
study.

You talked about Nanos Research.
You've been doing this pollingfor years, so appreciative of it
, because no one else is doingthat.
I mean, maybe there's peopledoing it privately for their own
interest in government orindustry and they keep it to
themselves.
But you're doing it.
You've got this great poster,nick Nanos really knows his
stuff and you're sharing it.
So recently you wanted to lookat the attitudes of Canadians to

(37:06):
oil and gas, so you had somestudies.
The top line to me was amajority of Canadians believe
that oil and gas is important toCanada's current and future
economy, and they also here'smaybe a surprise they scored
governments poorly on theirenergy and climate performance.

(37:26):
So where are we at?

Well, I would say you know the ground is
shifting.
One of the values of thispartnership we have with Nick is
that we've got lots of trackingdata now.
So, if you look at the oil andgas question that you referenced
, we've been asking that forfive years now.
So we asked Canadians, you know, on a scale of zero to 10,
where zero is not important atall and 10 is very important or

(37:50):
the most important how importantis oil and gas to Canada's
current economy?
And then we ask how importantis it to Canada's future economy
?
And over the last five years,the responses to that question
have just gone up and up and upand up, to the point now that
nine in 10 Canadians say thatoil and gas is important to

(38:12):
Canada's current economy.
That's a 23 percentage pointincrease since the first time we
asked the question five yearsago.
And so you know you could sayon the one hand, okay, well,
yeah, it is important toCanada's current economy.
So what's so surprising aboutthat?
But I think to us what'ssurprising is that it suggests
that Canadians are learningabout the profile of Canada's

(38:34):
economy, have seen over thecourse of the last five years,
again, when we ask that question, how important is oil and gas
to Canada's future economy.
Again, the numbers are going upand up and up and up, to the
point that now seven in 10Canadians say that oil and gas

(38:56):
is important to Canada's futureeconomy.
That is a 29 percentage pointincrease from the first time we
asked that question five yearsago, and a full four in 10
Canadians score the level ofimportance to Canada's future
economy a 10 on 10.
So this is a remarkable shift.
There's also a remarkable levelof consensus.

(39:18):
So you know, regardless of sortof how you slice and dice the
numbers regionally, gender, age.
You know even party affiliationand ideology.
Yeah, there are somedifferences here and there, but
still very strong numbers acrossthe country.
So I think for us, thissuggests that, for the energy

(39:41):
sector, that Canadians are veryopen to new infrastructure, even
and including oil and gasinfrastructure.
What I would say, though, isthat you know they're not saying
it's full steam ahead, right,they scored to the other point
you mentioned.
They scored governments verypoorly, very poorly, on how they
work with each other on energy,how they work with each other

(40:03):
on environment energy, how theywork with each other on
environment.
We've got previous polling workon.
You know how well governmentsdo at having a shared vision for
Canada's energy future, publicconfidence in energy decision
making, and like the results arejust dismal.
The first time we asked thesequestions I asked Nick, you know
, like geez, these are likereally bad scores.
Is this normal?
Do people always just scoregovernments poorly?

(40:26):
And he said, no, monica, likethis is really really bad.
So it suggests that you knowthe positive spin, stuart, would
be that governments, you know,have a lot of work to do.
There's lots of room for lotsof room for improvement.
So it really does underscorethat you know how we get things
built.
That importance of alignment,you know, across governments

(40:46):
working on these things togetheris going to be key in the years
ahead.

It's almost a year since the Trans Mountain
pipeline, which ends inVancouver, not far from where
I'm sitting, was finished.
The expansion was finishedafter more than a decade in the
making and I wonder if the factthat that was finished no fuss,
no muss I mean, yeah, overbudget and some delays, but a

(41:10):
lot of projects encounter that Iwonder if the evidence of that
plus it contributed a couple ofpoints to the Canadian economy
GDP points it actually grew theeconomy in an immediate,
measurable way.
I wonder if people picked up onthat and that's part of what
we're seeing in this poll.

Potentially.
I mean, we always follow up thequestions about current economy
and future economy by askingpeople why, and so you know the
top responses in terms of whythey responded the way they did
is really people are pointing tothe economic contribution of
oil and gas to Canada's economy,to its exports, to certain

(41:48):
regions of the country.
And then the other thing thatthey point to that, stuart, I
think goes back to ourconversation earlier around
climate is they say you knowthat oil and gas is going to be
with us for many years to come,that alternatives, you know, yes
, they're coming on stream, butnot as quickly as perhaps people
have thought, that it's alittle more difficult to replace

(42:09):
oil and gas than perhaps peoplehad imagined.
So I think what we're seeingthere I don't think it's any one
thing, although probablyTransmountain had some kind of
an impact, but the steadyincrease in numbers over the
course of five years suggests anongoing process of learning to
us.

Yeah, I think people are picking up a little
more information as they go.
The awareness, as you say, thehigh degree of reliance on
fossil fuels or hydrocarbons inour energy diet is like
four-fifths of the energy weconsume is from that and that
has been remarkably durable overtime.
And the new phrase and there'sa book about this recently, it's

(42:50):
called More and More and More,so you can see where it's going
just from the title is thatenergy transition.
Well, in some ways, but reallythere's this energy addition
that's been going on because theworld never uses less energy,
except maybe a moment in COVID,and then it just bounces back up
.
So some of the things we'vebeen hearing over and over.

(43:11):
People are just in our face allthe time saying energy
transition, we're phasing outthis, and then it doesn't happen
because you know what the wayhumans live it's not going to
happen, it's going to unfolddifferently, and you've referred
to technologies and approaches,so maybe that's just getting
across to the public.

The other thing I would note, though,
stuart, is that we trackCanadians' climate ambition, and
while the level of ambition hasweakened over the last number
of years, it's not zero, so Ithink that's really important
for leaders to be aware of aswell is that Canadians still
care about the environment.

(43:50):
They still care about climate,so they will be looking for
environmental and climateperformance of new projects.

I have no doubt of that week or so before the
election was called and thenpretty soon we see a campaign
where both the liberal andconservative the leading party,
the leading political partiesare talking about speeding up
approvals for major resourceprojects.

As a policy geek, that is always the dream,
but it's always difficult toisolate what any level of
discrete influence would be.
I think one of the things thatwe see is that when we present
these findings to leaders again,whether it's, you know, in the
government space or the industryspace there's often surprise at

(44:36):
the findings because of thetracking data right.
So I think you know we've had alot of folks say, oh well, now
all of a sudden Canadians aresupporting pipelines of oil and
gas.
It's like no, but in the lastfive years their level of
awareness and understanding andseeing a role for oil and gas in
Canada's future economy hasbeen growing.
So you know it's not a surpriseto us that there's been a bump

(45:06):
over the last little while,given all the turmoil and what's
coming at us from the UnitedStates.
But this was already a trendthat we were seeing well before
now.

It's a bump, it's not a spike.

Yeah, I think that's a fair way to put it.
And who knows, the next time wego into the field and ask this
question, who knows where theattitudes will go?
But certainly the trend line tothis point has just been a
stronger and stronger consensusamong Canadians about oil and
gas being important to Canada'seconomy.

It is at a point where you have broad social
voter approval for gettingthings done, getting
infrastructure built that existsright now.

What I would say, though, is that it's not.
That doesn't mean it's ano-brainer, right?
Canadians still care about theenvironment.
They still care about climate.
We already talked aboutIndigenous nations.
You know, this is not ano-brainer about.
Any project will be supportedby Canadians, but it's also not
a pipe dream.
I think that's the bigdifference.

(45:59):
Right, this is not a areinterested, but I think there's
going to be some conditionsthere in terms of what people
are looking for when it comes toenvironmental performance of
those projects and, of course,for Indigenous nations, their
rights being upheld andrespected.

There has been quite an investment in an
environment energy policy by theLiberal government, an
environment energy policy by theliberal government, and since
they're the ones who have beenholding the stick of power for
the last decade, I think it'sfair to delve into what they
mean when they talk about thingsand do things.
Just as with the carbon tax,that policy, we should be

(46:41):
scrutinizing that closely.
But the thing I want to raiseis a policy that has caused a
lot of upset in Alberta, in theindustry, in the politics of
Alberta and Saskatchewan, Ithink to some extent in British
Columbia, and that's a federalpolicy that Mark Carney is
continuing with.
That can't be dismissed as aTrudeau policy.
He's gone, the policy's gone.

(47:21):
Mark Carney has said he willstick with the emissions cap
that many say is a productioncap, and including those saying
it's a production cap, which isto me, in my opinion, you know,
comes into it.
So if the parliamentary budgetofficer, someone whose
credibility and qualificationsand resources to ask questions
and get to the answer, he's justa short walk away from where
you work If that PBO is sayingthis is not an emissions cap, it

(47:45):
is, as the opposition claims, aproduction cap.
It's going to reduce the sizeof the oil and gas economy, and
then that statement is directlycontradicted and dismissed, if
not just ridiculed, by our primeminister that's saying yeah,
it's a production cap.
You've got everyone in Albertasaying it's a production cap.
And if you're projectingeconomic growth and you say

(48:10):
you're going to build newinfrastructure but you're
actually implementing aproduction cap disguised as an
emissions cap or otherwisedescribed as an emissions cap,
you know, I think there's someconfusion out there.
Can you help me understand thisbetter, monica?

Well, would that I could?
So I mean, maybe a couple ofthoughts.
First, you know this is apivotal election for Canada for
all the reasons we've beentalking about.
Canada faces an existentialcrisis, it may need to take some
very significant shifts indirection in terms of its

(48:49):
economic policy, in terms of theorientation of the economy, and
we're in the midst of a federalelection campaign.

Well, you've got the liberals saying, hey, we're
not as liberal as you think, andthe conservatives, we're not as
conservative as you think,don't worry.
And it almost seems to bedriving implicitly towards this
thing.
Oh yeah, it's just thishomogeneous middle and you can
choose whatever is on the menuthat you like.
I like that, I like this.

(49:16):
But really there's actually alot more differentiating the
different paths out there.
I mean, I think of in Vancouver.
I don't think anyone's payingattention to one of the
appointments.
So Mark Carney made a decisionto, rather than do a nomination
process, appoint a candidate ina Vancouver writing who is a
well-known name, a former mayorof Vancouver who jury's term in

(49:39):
office.
That was when the TransMountain Pipeline was being
built.
This mayor, whose name isGregor Robertson and is now
running for the Liberals inVancouver, opposed that pipeline
.
He used taxpayer dollars fromhis pulpits in City Hall to
actually engage in legal fightsagainst the federally approved

(50:01):
national interest projectinterest project.
He was constantly in socialmedia, photographed at the front
lines of protests to try tostop different construction
components of delivering thisproject and became the
anti-pipeline mayor.
So our supposedlypro-infrastructure even

(50:22):
pro-pipeline prime ministerialcandidate, mark Carney, for
liberals is saying one thing,but then he's doing another
thing.

Well, and and it's.
I think it's very tough then toknow in in that context, um,
what you know sort of what, whatthe actual position is.
I mean, that's certainlysomething that I've been
watching very closely.
I can remember, you know,heading into the liberal
leadership race.
You know, for each of thecandidates, my mind of course
goes to energy and climateissues and you know wanting to

(50:53):
see.
You know where were they at onthe carbon tax, and they made
themselves relatively clear onthat.
Where were they at on existingliberal government policies?
That was not something that cameout very clearly in the Liberal
leadership campaign, so itwasn't entirely clear whether
the candidates, you know, wouldgo forward with existing
policies in the energy andclimate space.

(51:16):
And then how did they kind oftalk about oil and gas, right,
Like, was it a topic that theyavoided or used code words for,
or you know sort of what was thelanguage there?
And I think it was verysurprising, frankly, to see, as
a result of the Trump tariffs, areal transformation in the way

(51:37):
you know what people weretalking about.
Who would have thought thatpipelines would have been talked
about in a positive way in aliberal leadership campaign?
And now, kind of moving intothe election, we're getting a
little bit more clarity from MrCarney in terms of where he
would take things.
A lot of the existing policieswould appear to be ones that he

(51:57):
would continue to espouse, andso for me that raises a whole
host of questions about how arewe going to get a different
outcome in terms of industrialconfidence and projects.
And this isn't just, I think,the other thing I should note,
stuart, this isn't just, youknow, an oil and gas question.
It's more broadly about energyinfrastructure projects writ

(52:20):
large.
So even if the sole aim isprojects that reduce emissions
like take that as a, forinstance, that's going to mean,
you know, continuing the path onelectrification, continuing the
path on CCUS.
And you know you talk to folksin other parts of the energy

(52:41):
space beyond oil and gas.
Talk to folks in nuclear, talkto folks in the transmission
business, talk to folks in youknow, generation of a variety of
different types of electricity,you know, and they'll say, like
this investment environment isreally challenging.
Not only is it not timely butit's not clear and it's not

(53:03):
predictable.
So you know there have beensome commitments that have been
made by the current federalgovernment around timeliness for
things like nuclear projects.
And then you know you speak tofolks in the nuclear sector and
they say I have no idea howthey're going to make that
happen.
It's not clear to me howthey're going to kind of line
things up to get that level ofrapidity in the existing system

(53:24):
and over and above that.
You know, in the existing systemand over and above that, you
know lots of big questions aboutBill C-69, in effect, and the
way in which the ImpactAssessment Act will be brought
to bear on some of thoseprojects, and so you know a
continuing sort of lack ofclarity and predictability and
concern across the energy space.

(53:44):
So these issues of you know,how do we get things built?
At the end of the day, stuart,it doesn't matter if your reason
is to reduce emissions or it'sto strengthen energy security or
it's to, you know, pursueeconomic growth, like regardless
.
We've got policy and regulatorysystems that are not
incentivizing investment the waythat they need to, and we need

(54:07):
fundamental change to make thathappen.

Yeah, because an electricity transmission line is
as likely to be opposed bynimbyism, local interest groups,
as an oil pipeline, and we'veseen that.

Yeah, I mean I don't know that I'd put it at
equal.
I would have to do some publicopinion polling to assess that.
Put it at equal?
I would have to do some publicopinion polling to assess that.
But you know, early in the workthat we did at Positive Energy,
we did a lot of very deep divestudies looking at what are the
drivers of local communities'support or lack of support for

(54:43):
energy projects and their levelof satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with energyproject decision-making
processes.
So in effect, you know the kindof the regulatory process and
one of the things that came outof that work that I think was a
surprise to some at that timewas that you know, if you're a
local community, theenvironmental impacts that
you're thinking about are notabout the climate.

(55:05):
They are much more likely to beabout local environmental
impacts.
So you know to your point, evenif a project is going to have
beneficial impacts for theclimate, it's going to reduce
emissions you can still seelocal communities who are very
opposed to a project because ofits local environmental impacts.

(55:26):
And I can recall, if I can justadd a little anecdote here, when
the you know federal governmentwas doing all the regulatory
reform initiatives thatultimately led to Bill C-69, we
made multiple submissions atthat time, you know, presented
to those processes were, youknow, part of that consultation

(55:49):
in a pretty substantial way, andone of our big points was to
say, like today, the issue thathas us coming together and
reforming our regulatoryprocesses is pipelines, because
that was like back 10 years ago,but the projects of tomorrow
may very well be emissionsreducing projects.
So electricity transmission,ccus, you know, take your pick

(56:11):
of some of the projects we'vetalked about today, and so the
system that you're setting upnow is going to be the system
used for those projects.
And I think we've seen, youknow, a lot of that come to the
concerns that we had come tofruition in terms of creating a
process that really has led tosome challenges when it comes to
getting clarity, predictability, timeliness of decisions.

Well, one thing I heard over and over when I came
out to a number of yoursymposiums and gatherings was
this maddening feature ofCanadian regulatory processes
you design this thing, you passnew legislation.
This is going to free upregulators to come to timely

(56:55):
decisions, and then thosedecisions can be made except by
the cabinet of the day.
And so does it really matterwhat all the processes are if it
comes down to a decision basedon oh, what do today's polls say

(57:16):
?
Well, we better say no to thisproject, because we don't have
the guts to say yes to it.

Yeah, and I think you know that's.
We're actually doing some workon exactly that question right
now.
And to be fair, I should pointout, stuart, this isn't just a
tendency we've seen at thefederal level, we've seen it in

(57:44):
a number of provincialjurisdictions as well that there
some sort of a say in projects.
For all of the reasons we mightimagine, projects are often
controversial.
But at the same time there aresome real costs to that in terms
of the timeliness andpredictability of decision
making and also the clarity ofdecision making.

(58:05):
I mean, increasingly you hearproponents say well, there's the
regulatory process and thenthere's the political process,
and they're like trying they seethose as two separate things
tracks that they have to, youknow, be investing a lot of time
and energy to and then to yourpoint, you know, stuart, to go
through all of that regulatoryprocess only to have it come to

(58:26):
a cabinet table at the end whereat that point there's a lot of
unpredictability in thatdecision making.
You know that really reallydampens investor confidence.
It can be just a level ofuncertainty that's very costly
for the opponents.

I don't know if you got outside of BC about an
interesting thing done by theprovincial government, the BC
NDP government under David Eby.
I just want to mention itbecause they had 18 projects and
just recently they said, look,these projects, given global
circumstances.
And just recently they said,look, these projects, given
global circumstances, shouldreally get built and they need
to get built fast because wewant to see the employment

(59:05):
impact.
We want to see these thingscompleted.
They had like eight or ninewind and solar projects.
They had some mine extensions.
They had some LNG projects.
That said we're going to makeup this list and we're going to
accelerate all the projects onthat list, regardless of what
they are, because they'reinfrastructure projects for

(59:27):
energy.
What do you think of that?

It's a tough question to answer because, on
the one hand, if a government iscapable of accelerating
decision making for 18 projects,why not do it for all of them,
right?
So you know kind of thequestion has to be, has to be
raised, you know, having saidthat, there is only so much time
and energy and regulatorycapacity to go around.
So you know, I think there issome attractiveness to that

(59:59):
approach and maybe provinciallyyou can get to a more consensus
within the province about whatthose projects should be.
I think that's a lot harder todo nationally, where you've got
multiple interests across thecountry.
So I'm not sure about kind ofscaling that one up nationally,

(01:00:21):
how that would go.
Having said that, we've alreadytalked about corridors and you
know, I think conceptually it'sa very attractive idea.
In practice it's not clear tome how that would work.
So I really do think you needto start with projects.
But then of course the questionbecomes which projects?

(01:00:42):
So I think you know ourapproach would probably be more
along the lines of you know what, from a government perspective,
if you are going to prioritizedifferent kinds of projects
rather than picking specificprojects.
You know maybe what are thefeatures of projects, what are
the objectives that thegovernment is trying to pursue,

(01:01:04):
and then you know the projectsthat best meet those objectives.
Perhaps are the ones that youknow that receive a little more
regulatory attention, becauseyou know I get it Capacity,
regulatory capacity, publicservice capacity.
There's only so much of it togo around, but I think we do
really need to be careful about,you know, about picking winners

(01:01:24):
.
It's tough for governments toknow which projects are the best
ones to go ahead.

Stewart Muir (01:01:31):
Energy and tariffs .
What an unpredictable fieldthat is.
Nevertheless, when you look atthe different approaches within
confederation, amongst provincesand territories, and federal
leadership, we have a real mixedbag of responses of what the
messaging is and what theactions are by those who have

(01:01:53):
levers they can move, but italmost feels like there's a
Pinterest mood board of tariffpolicies.
Pick the one you like, whatgoes with your outfit, and
there's no coherence.
We've got Danielle Smithpursuing you know one thing,
we've got Doug Ford doing thisand you know we've got the Fed
saying buying billboards in theUS saying tariffs make your life

(01:02:15):
more expensive, which is trueTariffs make your life more
expensive, which is true.

Monica Gattinger (01:02:26):
Do we need some clarity and consistency as
a country on what our responseshould be to Donald Trump and
his damn tariffs?
I would say yes, and yes to apoint.
You know there has been a lotof folks who have, you know,
dunked on various premiers,notably Premier Smith and
Premier Ford, for you knowdecisions and actions that they
have taken.
You know, having said that, youknow that there has been, at

(01:02:47):
certain points in time, a vacuumof leadership at the federal
level.
So you can well understandprovinces, I know wanting and,
frankly, feeling the need tostep up.
I think you know there has alsobeen a recognition that
different premiers, differentjurisdictions, have different
audiences and levers that theycan pull in terms of, you know,

(01:03:08):
in terms of relationships withthe United States, whether it's
regionally or, you know,different media outlets, et
cetera.
So I have tended to have a bitof a contrarian view.
You know, I don't think anybodyknows what will be effective
vis-a-vis President Trump whenit comes to the terrorists.
If anybody thinks they know,you know awesome.

(01:03:29):
But I think for the moment,everybody on the planet, with
the exception of President Trump, really doesn't know what.
You know what the next move isgoing to be, and so, if there's
one thing that a federationprovides, in the academic
community, the phrase thelaboratory of Canadian
federalism is often used, whichbasically is in a fancy way of

(01:03:52):
saying different jurisdictionsare going to do different things
and through that process wemight actually figure out what
works.
Going to do different thingsand through that process we
might actually figure out whatworks.
So I think to a point there.
Yes does need to be a, you know, a Team Canada approach.
There does need to be someconsistency, but I'm less fussed
, frankly, with, you know,individual jurisdictions trying

(01:04:13):
different things, because Ithink in that process we begin
to learn what are the thingsthat will actually get.
You will actually get somemovement here.
What I would come to, though, interms of the tariffs, is
Trump's going to Trump.
I just don't know how muchinfluence or impact various

(01:04:39):
Canadian reactions will have.
I think that's a question weneed to ask ourselves, and so it
really does mean that you knowCanada needs to look at how does
it position itself for anyeventual outcome.
You know President Trump mightstick to his guns with these
tariffs.
Then we're in for a world fullof pain, and we're likely to

(01:05:02):
have a lot of balkanization inthe international trading order.
You know he might back down ashe, you know, learns in real
time about how dependent theUnited States is on various
trading partners.
He might start to make some ofthese country-specific deals or
sector-specific deals when hestarts to see what can and can't

(01:05:22):
be easily, you know, reshoredto the United States.
And I think Canada needs toposition itself favorably for
all three of those scenarios.
So you know like, regardless ofwhat ultimately happens, the
threat of protectionism from theUnited States has always been
there.
There's a loss of trust.
I think the threat ofprotectionism from the United
States has always been there.
There's a loss of trust.
I think on the part ofCanadians that you know they're

(01:05:45):
not soon going to forget this.
I think people are going tothink twice, you know, three
times, four times, about anykind of new deal with, you know,
with the United States.
So Canada really does need tothink about, you know, how do we
reduce our dependence on theUnited States marketplace,
maintain the relationships, forsure, with the US.

(01:06:05):
This is an important market.
We can't ignore that.
You know we're on the doorstepof the largest economy in the
world, but maybe you know someof our new economic growth.
If that comes from reducingdependence on the US marketplace
by greater trade within thecountry, more diversification of

(01:06:26):
our exports, that will positionus well to avoid having the US
turn our dependence on theireconomy and weaponize it against
us.

One thing that struck me every time I visit
your group in Ottawa when you'redoing things is I look around
the room and there's a prominentenvironmentalist and there's a
political columnist, and there'sa professor, and there's a
regulator, or there's a FirstNations chief who's involved in
a transmission line project.
You've got an incrediblediversity of thought.

(01:07:01):
I don't run into that diversityin one room anywhere else.
Is that something you dointentionally?

Absolutely.
It is something we dointentionally.
So you know when we startedPositive Energy, for us the term
energy means all energy, right.
So this isn't just about oiland gas, it's not just about
electricity, it's about thinkingabout Canada's energy system,
you know, and how to ensure wemeet all the demands of that

(01:07:31):
energy trilemma.
And you know the context for,let's say, energy projects has
really changed fundamentallyover the last number of decades
where you know people want tosay, in projects that are going
to have an impact on theircommunity, indigenous nations,
you know, have ever more rightswhen it comes to, you know, when

(01:07:54):
it comes to their consent toprojects in their territory.
You know when it comes to theirconsent to projects in their
territory.
And so you know, ourperspective on this is if we can
be a neutral, nonpartisan forumthat brings together people
from across all of thoseinterests, that actually could
be very powerful in terms ofidentifying what some of the

(01:08:15):
challenges are that we face as acountry and how we can go about
addressing them constructively.
So that is 150% by design,stuart, that we make sure that
we've got representation fromacross the country, from across
the energy sector and fromacross different perspectives on
the issues.

Well, I thank you for that and I hope you keep
doing it for a long time,because it's so important.

Thanks so much , stuart.
Hope to for sure.

We're almost out of time here, but there's
something that really troublesme, and mostly when I invent
this to friends, family, youknow I sense maybe their eyes
are glazing over a bit.
But let me, if you'll hear meout Canada has two big export
categories from which it derivesa huge amount of economic

(01:09:07):
benefits.
The number one, biggest in thesense of dollars and value to
the economy, is the crude oilthat right now we export very
quietly every day to the UnitedStates.
That's our biggest exportcategory.
Our second biggest is thatautomotive auto parts space.
Number one, number two Both ofthose are intimately about

(01:09:29):
energy in our lives and in oureconomies.
Evs we're all seeing a tidalwave of potential exports of
cheap and good cars from Chinathat China is betting its
economic future on being aworld-dominant provider of these

(01:09:51):
cars.
And now suddenly everyone hatesTeslas, apparently, or at least
hates Elon Musk, or some do soearly dominance and prominence
in North American and Europeanautomotive succession, having
dominated this space for over100 years, it's in question.

(01:10:13):
And then we have these batteryinvestments in mainly central
Canada.
And then we have these batteryinvestments in mainly central
Canada.
The Liberal government saw fitto try to stimulate the growth
of this, the thesis being thatif we're going to save this
valuable Canadian auto industry,we're going to have some
battery inputs and we should ownthat.
So there's a rationale there.

(01:10:34):
Whether it's executed in a waythat is going to work out, only
time will tell.
Whether it's executed in a waythat is going to work out, only
time will tell.
And then, on the first item,crude oil, there is an emissions
cap that everyone who istrustworthy is saying is
actually a production cap, andactive policy will decline the
value and economic impact andbenefits of our number one, most

(01:10:57):
valuable industry and otherpolicies as well.
Like you mentioned a couple oftimes, C-69, the legislation
that Jason Kenney, who was aprevious guest on the Power
Struggle campaign series, he hascalled the no More Pipelines
Act.
So that's his view on it.
So here we go.

(01:11:18):
Canada, we're this tradedependent small trading nation,
more dependent than the US is ontrade.

We have a preponderance of dependency on
these and also, especially inthe second case, threats that
comeent economy that hasbenefited and contributed to
greatly the development of therules-based multilateral trading

(01:12:09):
system, and so, if we're movinginto an era of greater
protectionism and the you know,unraveling of that system, I
think it raises a whole host ofvery big questions for Canada's
future.
And now we'll see where thisall winds up.

(01:12:32):
Right, I think you know, if wetalked earlier about the ballot
question, I'm increasinglythinking about, like we talked
earlier about the ballotquestion, I'm increasingly
thinking about, like what's theballot emotion?
And the ballot emotion is fear.
People are scared,understandably.
Right now they're looking atwhat are the future prospects
for the country, what ishappening to people's retirement

(01:12:54):
savings, you know, concernabout jobs, their kids, all of
this stuff together.
So, like, the ballot of motionis fear.
But somewhere amongst all ofthis and this is why I come back
to like we need a policydiscussion what is, you know,
cooler heads need to prevail.
And what is the appropriatepath forward for Canada?

(01:13:18):
The appropriate path forwardfor Canada?
I would like to think that overtime, there will be a greater
recognition on the part of theTrump administration and we're
beginning to see things reallybubble up in the United States
about the limitations of thisdirection that's been taken.
And so you know the cautiouslyoptimistic glass half full

(01:13:40):
perspective would be that overtime, you know, some of this
will, some of these existentialthreats will begin to decline,
and you know.
But Canada has to positionitself in the event that they
don't.
And that's where you know,coming back to more internal
trade, trade diversification.

(01:14:00):
But that is not a overnightprocess.
You know, that is a years-long,decade-long process.
So I think you know, making thedistinction between what needs
to be done now in the short termthat's urgent and then what do
we need to be doing to positionourselves in the medium and long
term is going to be crucial.
And I see a lot of the shortterm thinking now, less of the

(01:14:24):
long term approach that isultimately going to define how
successful we are as a countryin the evolving trade context
that we're finding ourselves in.

This has been Power Struggle campaign edition
with Monica Gattinger ofPositive Energy and I'm host
Stuart Muir.
Be sure to like, share andsubscribe.

All Episodes

How Trump's Threats Are Reshaping Canada's Energy Strategy | Election Special Ep.5

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}How Trump's Threats Are Reshaping Canada's Energy Strategy | Election Special Ep.5