March 24, 2025 • 49 mins
Trump looms large over Canada’s 2024 federal election.
With recent polling showing a dramatic surge for Mark Carney’s Liberal Party, Canadian voters face a critical decision: who can best navigate the existential economic threat posed by a potential second Trump presidency?
Political journalist John Ivison joins Stewart Muir to offer sharp insights into the rapidly shifting dynamics between Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and Liberal challenger Mark Carney. What began as a seemingly insurmountable Conservative advantage has quickly evolved into a neck-and-neck contest.
Carbon taxes. Emissions caps. Energy exports. These are the defining issues of the upcoming 2025 federal election. Ivison and Muir break down how President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade war is reshaping Canada’s energy debate—especially in Alberta and Quebec—in unprecedented ways.
The stakes are high. Canada is at a crossroads.
🔔 Subscribe now and join us each week as we follow Canada’s election!
The energy conversation is polarizing. But the reality is multidimensional. Get the full story with host Stewart Muir.
Reach out to us with thoughts, questions, or ideas at info@powerstruggle.ca
Linkedin
Instagram
Facebook
Twitter
🎧 For audio versions of our podcast visit powerstruggle.ca and listen on the go in your favourite podcast app!
Video available on Power Struggle’s YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/@PowerStrugglePod
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
John Ivison (00:00):
I think the resource issue is a national
issue.
This time it's not just theWest, because it's not just
about Alberta's resources.
It's about the diversificationof those resources for the
health, financial health of thecountry.
Stewart Muir (00:30):
Welcome to Power Struggle.
I'm the host, stuart Muir, andthis is the first episode of a
special federal electioncampaign series.
We are going to be tackling thereal issues that are shaping
Canada's future.
Through the current federalelection, we're going to aim to
cut through the noise of all thecampaign promises we're hearing
and we're going to get to theheart of the economic and
political realities around ourfavorite subject, which is
energy.
That's why we're called PowerStruggle.
(00:51):
We need to ask questions whenis Canada really headed?
What does it mean when we hearcertain pledges and promises
from the different politicalleaders who are making them?
Are they legit and what do theymean for the country?
So let's find out.
Today, canada is at a crossroads, especially with the rapidly
shifting political landscape inthe United States.
(01:13):
Resource development, energysecurity, indigenous economic
partnerships these are some ofthe big issues that I'm watching
, but there's other issues tooand we're wondering who's
shaping them.
Joining me today is a veteranpolitical journalist who I've
known for a very long time.
He has sharp politicalinstincts, a deep understanding
of how the country works JohnIveson, ottawa political
(01:35):
columnist for the National Post.
John, welcome, hi, stuart, goodto connect to you.
We go back a long ways, don'twe Back to the previous
millennium, the late 1990s.
We started working together forquite a spell.
John Ivison (01:48):
Yeah Well, I do feel it's a bit like the jockey
asking questions of the horsehere, in that I should see John
Iverson byline pop up that'ssomething I'm going to stop and
(02:12):
read.
Stewart Muir (02:13):
I recommend it to everyone.
The depth, but I think there'ssomething beyond that.
You're a writer's writer.
I mean really your book on oneof my favorite writers and I've
been to his birthplace, robbieBurns.
I mean, you're not just apolitical columnist, john, you
are someone who really you're apoet, and I've appreciated your
work over the years.
But I didn't bring you on justto butter you up because I think
(02:34):
let's get into it.
You know, every election wehear campaign slogans and then
it's your job to sort it out forus.
And I'd like to ask thisquestion from your vantage point
what is this election all about?
John Ivison (02:46):
In a word Trump.
I mean I think at the momentyou know there will be other
issues and we're going to getinto what the other issues are,
but at the moment it's all aboutwho do voters think can best
handle Trump.
I mean, I think we've seenalmost an unprecedented rise in
(03:08):
the Liberal Party's fortunes,from nearly rock bottom.
They were at 16% at some pollswhen Justin Trudeau was there.
Trudeau left, resigned.
In the last two months we'veseen the Liberal fortunes rocket
and as soon as Mark Carneylooked like he was going to
become the leader, they becameturbocharged and most polls now
(03:31):
have the two parties, theconservatives and the liberals,
either neck and neck, whichfrankly gives the liberals the
government because they wouldeither win a minority or a
majority and presumably the NDPwould prop them up.
But in some polls now themomentum is continuing and
there's clear blue water betweenthe liberals and the
(03:52):
conservatives and the maindriver of that is that the polls
suggest that people thinkCarney would be better at
handling Trump than PierrePoiliev.
They think that this theconservative leader has used,
even if he's not a mini Trump,which is the accusation from
some people, and I don't thinkhe is.
I don't think he's a populistin the same way that Trump is,
but he has used a lot of thesame kind of language about
(04:14):
Canada being broken and some ofthe other things that he said
that are still needed to themedia, the fact he's going to
cut foreign aid, et cetera, etcetera, and so, fairly or
unfairly, people think he wouldbe more accommodating to Trump,
and that, to me as a moment, iswhat is driving the vote, and
it's Pauliev's job now to tryand raise Carney's negatives and
(04:37):
raise questions about thingslike energy.
Stewart Muir (04:40):
Well, it's a fascinating situation where we
have whole chunks of what Polyevhas been talking about and put
into his campaign platform foractually years now.
Suddenly, Carney is adoptingthem.
Is that because he likes thosepolicies or because he wants to
steal a march on Polyev and justsort of leave Polyev having to
pivot to something else?
John Ivison (05:06):
anything else.
Well, I think there's a bit ofthe magpie in it in that
apparently, yesterday I made aGST announcement on housing,
which is something that Poilievahas been touting for a long
time.
But I think the circumstancewhereby our main customer to the
south now looks like it's anadversary and there's obviously
whoever comes in has got to tryand diversify the customer base.
(05:26):
I think inevitably that pushesboth parties in the same
direction, like how do you dothis?
Um, that the?
The accusation that theconservatives are leveling
against carly is that hisenvironmental considerations
will mean that he can't pivotquickly enough, and I think,
from the conservative point ofview, they're going to be
(05:48):
pushing everything they can tosuggest that they are the party
that will create opportunitiesin the resource industry more
quickly.
In fact, I announced somethingyesterday whereby areas would be
designated as development zonesand would be permitted ahead of
time.
So there is a bit of a rush inthe same direction, but I'm not
(06:09):
sure it's straight up stealingfrom the liberals.
They're just circumstancesdictate that they have to
respond.
Stewart Muir (06:17):
Now, as one who has devoted a very significant
amount of his career to theclimate cause in terms of
international finance, when hewas in the Bank of England and
started the net zero financeinitiative in Glasgow a number
of years ago, which now iscoming apart at the seams as
Canadian and US banks leave thisclimate-oriented policy vehicle
(06:42):
.
Climate-oriented policy vehicle.
Is it going to be credible tothe voters that Carney's looking
for that he actually isabandoning a lot of what he was
talking about and taking upthings that it was very clear he
was not in favor of only a fewyears ago?
John Ivison (06:57):
I think it's a difficult one.
I mean, he's got to walk atightrope there.
There's not much he can doabout resurrecting the sort of
ESG and finance initiativesthere.
They're multilateralinitiatives that are way beyond
his current remit.
So I think you know, at somestage he says, well, that was
then, this is now.
So I think he's, but he clearlybelieves much the same things.
(07:20):
So how do you walk thattightrope?
I mean to me.
So Danielle Smith came outyesterday with a whole raft of
not requests, demands that thefederal government has got to
respond to, and we can touch onthat later.
I thought the tone was prettyappalling, given that we're a a
(07:42):
national crisis.
But, um, but some of them are,are are legitimate.
And let's take the example ofthe oil and gas emissions cap,
which carney's new environmentminister apparently said yeah,
we're still in favor of it.
This is something that stevengabo brought in, and to me,
(08:04):
carney could ditch that policyas long as he continues the
federal backstop on the largeemitter program in the provinces
, which Pierre Poilievre thisweek said he was going to remove
.
I mean to me, if you've got aprogram like TIER in Alberta and
(08:26):
you keep the stringency ofcredits fairly tight, and I
would say at the moment they'reprobably too loose, because I
think the credits are tradingfor around $40 and the price is
$80.
So if you keep those creditstight and limited so that supply
doesn't outweigh demand, thenwhy do you also need a
(08:49):
cap-and-trade system for an oiland gas emissions cap?
I mean, you're sort of layeringanother layer of bureaucracy
and regulation on top of onethat exists already.
And, from what I gather,there's not a huge amount of
backlash against the largeremitter program.
(09:09):
So why not keep those in placeand make sure they work properly
?
And I think Carney has actuallyindicated that's what he wants
to do, which is why it mystifiesme why he would want to proceed
with this oil and gas emissionscap.
But that's the type of thingI'm talking about.
As far as a title, he could doone and not the other.
Stewart Muir (09:27):
Yes, you know, I think in recent years, even
before it was known he wasrunning for the leadership of
the Liberals if you look back onsome of the pronouncements from
Mark Carney say in 2024, youknow, I don't think anyone could
look at it and say, oh, he'sout to shut down the Canadian
oil and gas sector or close theoil sands or even necessarily
(09:49):
reduce them.
But there would be the argumentthat well, the policies he is
advocated for would be theeffect that, in fact, rather
than just reduce emissions, itwould reduce the amount of oil
(10:13):
produced, which is a thorny one.
But the tone you mentioned, thetone of Alberta, I think it's
fascinating to see the oil sands, or the oil and gas and
pipeline CEOs.
I think 14 of them signed aletter.
If you look at the five thingsthey're asking for, it's
actually very reasonable.
You know, the simplifiedregulation get some deadlines
(10:33):
for approval who doesn't wantthat?
You know, grow the amount ofproduction as long as you're
performing on the environmentalfront.
I think the key thing there isthe investments in indigenous
participation in the economy.
That's something the CEOs arecalling for.
Who wouldn't want that?
John Ivison (10:49):
Well, just, touching on that.
I mean, I think that'sabsolutely right.
And in the last fiscal update,christopher Freeland finally
brought in this policy wherebythere would be loan guarantees
for indigenous Canadians.
And they've been calling forthat for years and years and
years and eventually there it is.
That's an easy one for that foryears and years and years and
eventually there it is.
That's an easy one for Carneyto pick up and run with.
Stewart Muir (11:09):
Yeah, he could grow that and should grow it in
my view, but it's a very goodstart.
I mean points well earned forthat, but you know the tone of
that, so I'd just like to diginto it, because you wrote a
lovely column not long ago, john.
I really appreciated it,because when there's so many
divisive issues and thesecritical issues as you say, this
is a Trump election we do needto unify.
(11:30):
You know Mark Carney, I'm sureyou know Pierre Poliev, but in
this case you were just sharingsome reflections.
Maybe, as someone who knowsboth of them personally, could
you give us a little bit ofpersonal insight into who these
men are.
Could you give us a little bitof personal insight into who
these men are?
John Ivison (11:51):
What human factors come into this when you look at
them through your eyes.
Well, so I mean, so I do knowMark very well when you're in
Ottawa.
It's a small town and ourdaughters grew up as friends and
I'm sure I coached at least twoof his four daughters at soccer
, um, so I got I know him prettywell.
Uh, he keeps saying he's apragmatist, and I think he is.
(12:11):
I mean he has he has obviouslyhas environmental convictions,
but I don't think he's a zealot.
I mean, I think stephenguilbeault is a zealot and I was
very critical of him havingGuilbeault as an endorsement.
I thought it was not helpful tohis cause and I'm surprised
(12:31):
he's still in cabinet.
That was a man who was clearlyout to shut down the Allsands.
I don't think Carney is.
I mean he is a Wesson long timeremoved but he still is, you
know, in your formative years.
Recall your formative year fora reason.
I mean he went to high schoolin Alberta and he still feels
(12:52):
like he's in Alberta.
So I think he's not.
He said things in the past aboutleaving oil on the ground which
will be cast up at him andhe'll be reminded of that fact.
But he's also talking now aboutpipelines to Churchill,
pipelines somehow getting oiland gas to Ecalibur I'm not even
(13:15):
sure how you would do that, butI guess there's and using deep
ports in those two places toexport to Europe.
So you know, I don't think he'scoming in with the idea that he
wants to close it all down, andwhy would he?
I mean, if he does that, thereis absolutely no prospect of his
government being a success.
He has to create new alliances,find new customers and find a
(13:41):
new way of doing things that ismuch quicker and much more
effective than the last nineyears.
Stewart Muir (13:49):
Not that that would be hard, yeah it would be
pretty difficult to go from whathe portrayed before, that
climate financier, to now thispro-oil and gas Canadian prime
minister running for office.
When he gains his mandate, ifhe's the winner, suddenly he
goes back to what he was before,because that's what the liberal
(14:09):
base in Ottawa demands.
That sounds like a veryunlikely shift to make, so I
think the liberal base in Ottawajust demands that they be in
power.
John Ivison (14:18):
Right, If he can give them power, they will do.
You won't hear a-.
Stewart Muir (14:22):
The unifying principle of liberalism.
John Ivison (14:24):
That's the unifying principle.
Liberalism that's the unifiedprinciple.
This is a brokerage party thatis all about being being in
power and just the one thingthat, um, you know what, while
he's not gonna um, I don't thinkhe's gonna abandon either,
cause he's not gonna abandonenvironmentalism completely and
he's not gonna abandon economicdevelopment completely um, the
one thing that he keepsmentioning is pathways.
(14:44):
The pathways are lines, andI've talked to people who say
this thing's dead right now, buthe will bring it back.
I think, if whatever it takesto make that thing happen
presuming it works at scale Ithink that's a priority for him.
Stewart Muir (15:00):
Well, if we have pathways, the carbon capture
project that I think it's a $30billion project, it's probably
decadal in scope that would getthe emissions from Edmonton and
store them in Cold Lake and thegeological storage and that way
keep the CO2 out of theatmosphere.
So that was good.
If we can do that, it was agreat outcome.
But it's been a tough one, andif Trump is tearing up
(15:24):
everything that he can get hishands on, including all the
climate pledges in the U, somehope, john, that there's maybe a
longer-term environmentaldividend for doing the right
(15:51):
thing, because we should bedoing the right thing, shouldn't
we?
John Ivison (15:53):
Well, I think we've signed up to international
agreements that say that Canadawill try and do X and we're a
country that lives up to itscommitments.
And I think that if we donothing else but leave the large
emitters carbon pricing systemin place and make sure it works
properly, then we're probablydoing our bit.
(16:14):
I mean, I think some of theother things are inevitably
going to fall by the wayside,just as the consumer carbon tax
is done, wayside, just as theconsumer carbon tax is done.
But, um, yeah, I think carneyis, uh, he will try and live up
(16:35):
to those commitments.
I think, um, while he hasshifted the goalposts a little
bit, because he's basically nowsaying if so, he's removing the,
the federal backstop on the, onthe large emitters program,
which essentially means that theprovinces don't have to be as
ambitious and that the carbontax which is scheduled to go to,
I think, a hundred and will youtell me a hundred and 70.
70, eventually by 2030.
(16:56):
That would remove the need tohit that price.
You could keep the system inplace, but just not be quite as
stringent in the pricing or inthe supply of place, but just
not be quite as stringent in thepricing or in the supply of
credits, what needs to becovered by credits?
So yeah, I think Kvaliev isessentially saying that's a tax
on business.
At a time when Trump's going totariff businesses more, that
(17:18):
will probably resonate with alot of people.
But Carney is to answer yourquestion.
Carney is making the pointpoint.
Trump won't be there foreverand we're already seeing a
border adjustment mechanismbeing put in place in Europe
which is essentially a tariff oncountries that don't take
climate seriously and put acarbon price on, and that at
(17:39):
some point America will comeback and we'll start addressing
climate change again.
And if we don't try andleapfrog them now, we will have
a bigger problem down the road.
I don't know whether I thinkpeople might buy that as far as
Europe is concerned.
I don't think they buy it.
As far as Asia is concerned,which he mentioned in his press
conversation that day, he saidwe won't be able to export to
(18:02):
Asia if we don't have stringentcarbon pricing.
I don't know if that's true.
I don't think China or Indiaare too fussed about it.
Stewart Muir (18:10):
Yes, Well, I saw that.
I was wondering whether youknow.
I looked at the number of LNGcargos that the Americans have
sent to Europe recently.
It's a lot, and they don't havea mandatory industrial price on
(18:31):
carbon in the US, or consumernational carbon pricing either,
for that matter.
But of course they've become ina very short time the world's
largest exporter of liquefiednatural gas, LNG, and they've
done so without this issue thatMr Carney raises being an
impediment whatsoever.
And now Trump is out to becomethe North American or the
American energy dominator, orthe world dominator, dominator
of everything.
(18:51):
So it hasn't held them back.
I mean, I'm just curious.
Maybe Kenner should just notworry about the international
issues of emissions, because wedo know that getting natural gas
to where it's wanted today,it's wanted because people
(19:13):
around the world want to havelower emissions in their local
economies.
That's why they're choosingnatural gas and LNG.
John Ivison (19:18):
Well, that's Paulieff's point is that if we
export more LNG to India andChina, they will use less coal
and therefore the planetbenefits.
And I think that's a fairargument and that might be the
argument that prevails, because,as you say, people are not
going to in Europe, for example,impose a tariff on Canadian LNG
(19:44):
or oil if we get it there, justbecause there's no carbon price
.
They want it and they'll takeit, and they're not going to
risk us saying, well, we can geta better price elsewhere.
So, yeah, that is going to be.
I mean, we talked about whatare going to be the issues of
the election that's going to bea big issue.
Stewart Muir (20:04):
Yeah, well, the opening days might have a lot of
energy in them, but probablythat's going to recede into the
past.
There's going to be otherissues.
Where do you think those issuesare that come up?
John Ivison (20:12):
Well, it's hard to see at the moment.
I mean, trump just predominatesso much.
I mean, housing and cost ofliving are still there.
The things that Kuala Lumpurstill has the cost of living
concerns are still there.
He scores well on them, butthey are receding below the
Trump issue as the thing thatmost concerns people.
(20:33):
People still want change.
If you look at the, is it timefor a change?
And the numbers were in the 90%Now, but about a third of those
people didn't think there was agood alternative when it was
Kvaliev versus Trudeau.
Now that Carney's come along, alot of those people have
(20:56):
shifted their vote to theLiberals because they see
Trudeau as a good alternative,which suggests that Carney has
positioned himself as an agentof change.
So I think that this is what'sgoing to come up as well.
Carney has positioned himselfas an agent of change.
So I think that this is what'sgoing to come up as well.
Is Carney essentially a newgovernment, or is he the fourth
mandate for a little bit, whichis obviously what he is, but can
(21:19):
he present himself as an agentof change?
I think when he brought in hiscabinet and it was all the same
people that was a bit of a giftto Poilievre.
It wasn't really realistic tosuggest that he was going to
change the you know, removeDominique Leblanc or Melanie
Jolie or François-PhilippeChopin or any of these people,
(21:43):
but their experience and they'reprobably the best that Carney's
got to pick from, yeah, butthat question about change is
still way up there and it's notclear to me that Carney has
succeeded yet in saying, yeah,this is a whole new ballgame.
Stewart Muir (22:00):
Yeah, I mean the lot who are still in there, and
it's fewer of them.
So we know these are the oneswho are really important to
Carney and he looks manageriallyresponsible.
He's reduced the payroll ofcabinet because it was bloated,
so that looks confident.
But then, as you say, I meanthe residue we have is really
the same old thing and these arethe brand managers of
liberalism of this time.
(22:21):
So they have a figurehead today.
Maybe they'll have a differentfigurehead in the future, but
they'll still be on the scene iskind of the impression maybe we
get In terms of the pivot thatPoliev is trying to do or will,
I'm sure have to do, because somany of his ideas have been
adopted by Carney.
I mean that's a compliment.
(22:41):
But then it leaves the problemof, ok, how am I going to
differentiate myself to thevoter?
Then it leaves the problem of,okay, how am I going to
differentiate myself to thevoter?
Do you think that the windowhas kind of moved in some
particular direction or they'repulling, you know, the Overton
window of trying to create thenorms that you hope, as a
political movement leader, thepublic will agree with you are
the norms.
I mean that window has beenmoving around.
(23:03):
It seems to have moved in thedirection of what I would call
energy realism.
A year ago we weren't talkingabout that phrase.
We were talking about, you know, climate realism, and maybe it
was starting to move.
But now, at recent places wherepeople gather in the energy
industry, they're talking aboutthings very differently, and
that's because of Trump, butnevertheless they are talking
(23:23):
about things differently.
So to make that a question foryou, john, in trying to move
that window around of what's thenormal discourse space, who's
winning?
John Ivison (23:34):
Well.
So the broader picture, notspecific to issues, I think at
the moment is Zucconi getselected liberal leader.
The next day he goes to Parisand London and meets Macron and
Keir Starmer and King Charlesand then he's in Iqaluit making
(23:56):
announcements.
He looked and sounded primeministerial and credible.
Frankly, I mean he looked likean international statesman.
I mean he knows these people,he's been in that game.
I mean I think he aninternational statesman, I mean
he knows these people, he's beenin that game.
I mean I think he's a farbetter statesman than he is a
politician.
He kind of lost his cool a bitwith reporters in London when
they were asking him about hisassets and I think he's still
(24:20):
got a lot to learn about retailpolitics and dealing with the
media.
I mean, the media coveringcentral bank governors are very
respectful and don't startprying at your personal life.
But I think by and large helooked prime ministerial.
And now, well, the otherproblem is that for years and
years now he's been.
For two and a half years he'sbeen the leader of the
(24:42):
opposition, and when you're theleader of the opposition, you
oppose and you nitpick and youare angry and hostile almost.
But now he's in a campaign.
We're already in the campaign,even though it's not formally
declared.
Now he's in a campaign to beprime minister and he has to
look more prime ministerial andhe not only has to change his
(25:07):
demeanor, he has to change hismessage and I think it has to
change his demeanor.
He has to change his messageand I think it has to be far
more hopeful.
And we saw that to some extentwith his Ring of Fire
announcement, where he startedtalking about developing the
Ring of Fire and getting on withit.
I mean, I started covering theRing of Fire 25 years ago Still
a pipe dream at the moment.
25 years ago, still a pipedream at the moment, or I hope
it's not a pipe dream, but it'sstill not a reality.
(25:29):
So I think he's pivoting rightnow and that's the bigger
picture is that he has to not beangry, he has to be hopeful and
he has to sound and look a bitmore like Carney than himself as
of last year.
Stewart Muir (25:49):
Well, every campaign is a test of the
personalities and capabilitiesof the candidates, and it sounds
like we're going to have acrucible to see what qualities
exist in these individuals whowant to lead us.
John Ivison (26:04):
Yeah, I mean it's just cliche, but it's a cliche
for a reason.
Campaigns matter.
I mean it's just cliche, butit's a cliche for a reason.
Campaigns matter.
I mean I was talking tosomebody yesterday who was
saying well, the last time thatthe polls moved like this was in
favor of Kim Campbell in 1993.
And it was a total blowout atthe end of the day.
You know, there was this sortof exhilaration among
(26:26):
conservatives.
The poll numbers went throughthe roof and then when Canadians
got a really good look at her,they decided no thanks.
And is there a prospect thatcould happen to Carney?
I think there is a prospect.
He could totally flame out Well.
Stewart Muir (26:41):
We had a term back in the newsroom for company
stocks that behave this way.
We called it the dead catbounce, and it's yet to be known
whether Carney's surge is inthat category or the miracle
comeback for his party.
John Ivison (26:56):
Yeah, I mean, if I had to bet now, I think he's got
more substance and resiliencethan Ken Campbell, for example.
I also think the circumstancesare so extraordinary that
Canadians are harking theirsuspicions and disillusionment
(27:22):
with experts.
I mean, we've seen as populismhas developed.
We've seen these characterscome along, trump being the main
one, with simple solutions tocomplex problems, slogans, no
real depth about any of it and,you know, castigating elites who
(27:47):
have caused all these problems.
I get a sense that the backlashagainst that might start in
Canada, where Carney is clearlynot a populist, but there seems
to be a sort of momentum towardsshelter and safety and
(28:07):
expertise and I think when youstack up his resume against
Poiliev's, there's only onewinner.
I mean, he's just when it comesto if you've got an economic
crisis.
He has experienced an economiccrisis.
He was in the treasury UStreasury the day it was decided
(28:27):
that the world economic systemwas going to back up and they
were going to support the banks.
Backstop the banks.
Yeah, I think that there mightbe a sea change and we might be
seeing it first in Canada.
Stewart Muir (28:45):
Are you concerned about the anxiety that youth are
feeling housing affordability?
Certainly, in the polls, overquite a consistent period it's
been young Canadians who've beensaying Polyev is the change
that we want.
Do you think that while theirelders seemed more willing to be
fine with the liberals nomatter what I mean it didn't
(29:06):
seem to matter too much whatTrudeau was up to or what others
were saying about Trudeau.
For older voters who had beensettled in life and they've got
their financial pot in orderkind of indifferent to that.
John Ivison (29:21):
Yeah, you make a good point.
Well, you make a good pointbecause the polling I've seen
suggests that it is those peoplewho, even though many of them
were fed up with Trudeau and hadmoved, they wanted change.
They'd moved from the liberalsto the conservatives, but they
weren't set on Polyev.
Those are the people that moveback to the liberals.
It's the older voter, so theyounger voters are still, by and
(29:44):
large, I think, with theconservatives.
And yeah, I mean, I see itfirsthand.
I've got a 24-year-old and a20-year-old and they are the
only one in particular who'sleft university, struggling to
find a job, no prospect ofbuying a house anytime soon.
Yeah, there is a resentment anda disquiet among those people
(30:09):
that Poirier will continue totap into.
It's not clear whether thatoutweighs the sort of
existential threat to thecountry's existence which I
think is the predominant issuein this election.
Stewart Muir (30:25):
Well, it's the older people who vote in
greatest numbers typically, andthe young find it harder to get
to the voting booth, it wouldseem, and maybe that'll be
different this time.
John Ivison (30:36):
Well, trudeau tapped into that and in 2015,
that was a big, big reason whyhe swept the country.
It was the younger vote.
So you know, if those peopleturn out this time they're
motivated enough to turn outthen who knows?
Stewart Muir (30:48):
Yeah, I mean the tightening up, or even Carney
surpassing Poliev in somemethodologies.
Maybe isn't that bad a thingfor Poliev if it incites his
youth base to say, oh, we bettervote, whereas if it was that
huge gap, oh I don't need tovote, my vote doesn't count,
(31:09):
we're going to.
You know, my guy is going towin, so I'm going surfing.
John Ivison (31:14):
I think very rare is the campaign where you know
if we've seen Carly taking offnow very rare is the campaign
where he keeps taking off.
I mean, there's always troublesalong the way and there'll be
revelations and dramas that willhappen, if only because that's
(31:40):
the way the media likes it.
I mean, who wants to report ona campaign where Carney starts
off ahead and then gets furtherand further ahead?
You need a close horse race tomake this exciting and we
generally tend to produce that.
Stewart Muir (31:58):
If it's a blackface, as in I guess that
was 2019 or whatever it is,there's always something that
happens that produces dramaduring an election campaign, you
know just back to Trump, you'vemade the argument I think a
compelling one that Trump isreally the defining factor in
what's going to happen throughthis campaign, and I just want
(32:19):
to ask you this question becauseit's troubling me every single
day.
So, is Trump following strategyor something else going on?
And attached to that questionis like is there a bottom, a
basement, a floor to this ofwhat we see unfolding every day?
Because every day I'm surprisedby some new thing, I'm floored
(32:40):
by some new thing.
How about you?
John Ivison (32:47):
Well, I'm outraged by a new thing every day for
sure.
My own view is that I thinkTrudeau might have sparked this.
I mean, apparently he used tojoke about the 51st state thing
in his first administration, butit all seems to have started in
earnest when he asked Trudeauat Mar-a-Lago, when Trudeau had
gone down to the forelock, whatwould happen if we put tariffs
(33:13):
on, and Trudeau repliedtruthfully, it would be the end
of the country, and I thinkthat's what set his mind racing.
That this is, this would be theultimate.
If I could annex Canada,incorporate Canada into the
United States, then that's myMount Rushmore moment.
You know they'll put statues upto me.
(33:35):
So I think that's.
He's probably got a hierarchy ofwhat he wants, you know, and
the way I think his mind worksis that we pushed for the very
top, and the very top would be.
Mind works is that we pushedfor the very top and the very
top would be would they takeover Greenland, annex Canada and
they take control of the PanamaCanal Although I think that
(33:57):
actually might go away becauseBlackRock has now just bought
the Chinese company's ports ateither end of the canal.
But if you can get that, that'sthe best it could possibly be
short of that.
We want to raise revenues andtariffs.
You know he's talking now aboutsomehow killing aiken tax and
(34:19):
the internal revenue service andjust having external revenue
and the external revenue servicewith countries around the world
paying him tariffs for everygood that's brought in.
Somehow this would be donewithout firing up inflation.
But let's parlour for themoment.
Probably the next down in thehierarchy is that he starts
seeing companies move theirproduction back to the United
(34:42):
States.
I think 25% tariffs would dothat on the big car companies,
although it would take billionsand years to actually do it.
So maybe that's a longer termthing.
And then maybe your lowest tieron your wish list is that you
get concessions on whatever youask for, from killing the supply
(35:06):
management system in DA toincreased defense procurement,
whatever it is.
So I think that's the way hismind works.
I don't think it would be toomuch of a compliment to say it's
strategic, it's justinstinctive.
It seems to be that that's justhow his DNA works, that you
just push and push and push andmaybe you'll get something great
(35:29):
and maybe you'll get.
But if you don't get somethinggreat, you'll probably get
something good.
Stewart Muir (35:33):
Well, after decades of de-industrialization
and shipping manufacturing and,hey, emissions from
manufacturing to other countries, especially China, and
conditioning American consumersto be able to check that box,
hit that button and there it ison your doorstep within hours.
Maybe it's come a long way, ormaybe the reshoring of the
(35:57):
American manufacturing base willbring those suppliers back, but
maybe that will drive up thecost of labor and make those
things not cheap from Alibaba orTAMU, but rather expensive
because they're made in America.
I mean, there's interestingthings, but I do want to bring
it back to Canada because, okay,if Trump is pursuing a strategy
(36:17):
or he's pursuing a primal urgethat is persistent, maybe that's
his form of strategy and I takeyour point and maybe that's
going to be successful over thefull cycle of his presidency.
Right now it feels rather scaryfor anyone which is all of us
who's somehow exposed to the USstock market.
(36:37):
But we'll see.
But for Canada, you have a lotof people talking about
diversification.
Well, we just need to diversifythe economy.
Sounds like a sensible thing todo.
Is it something we can actuallymake a difference with?
John Ivison (36:52):
I think, when you know what is it, 80%, 75% of our
exports are going south.
We can never decouple from theUS, but you know, clearly we can
reduce our dependency andthat's what I think the holy
Grail is for both parties rightnow and we don't have a totally
(37:15):
weak hand to play.
I mean there are strengths thatwe have that can be leveraged
Critical minerals for one.
I mean, the reason that Trumpwants annexation is not, I think
, just because it would add tohis prestige.
All of that is, I think, hisdriving urge.
But obviously you would thenhave access to Canada's water,
to its raw materials, to theminerals, all of which the US
(37:41):
needs.
I mean, his most ridiculousline is Canada's got nothing we
want or need.
We've got our own lumber.
We've got our own lumber.
We've got our own oil.
I mean, every stat I've readreads that shale oil is peaking
and that they're going to needmore oil, that they don't have
the forestry resources, thatCanada has to do it if, as
cheaply, he wants thoseresources.
If he didn't want them, whywould he make such a big fuss
(38:04):
about Canada becoming the 51ststate?
So I think you know thisultimately to me, gets resolved
in the United States whereenough people around him point
to the markets, I mean, you justraise the markets.
That, to me, is, if it becomes arecession of the US because of
(38:24):
these tariffs, then whatever hisprimal urge is, he doesn't have
the power to go out alone.
I mean, I think maybe we don'tunderstand the US system as well
, because we're in a Westminstersystem where essentially the
winner takes all and if you'reprime minister, you can pretty
(38:45):
much do what you want.
There's not the checks andbalances of you know, presumably
you have a majority government.
There's not the checks andbalances of the US system where,
with the judiciary and Congresswhich is, I mean, congress is
pretty tight.
It's not like he's got a totalhold on Congress.
So I think what we've got tohope for and I think this is
(39:08):
what any advice would be toprospective prime ministers be
patient, be resolute, berespectful and the American
system will probably sort itselfout.
Stewart Muir (39:21):
Well, have you noticed that, compared to 2016,
when suddenly a lot of Americanswere saying I'm moving to
Canada, I'm going to Mexico City, I'm going to Europe and
getting out of Dodge, we haven'treally seen that, even though
it's a very different dynamicand you think, oh, maybe people
would be more likely to want toflee America for some other
perceived safe harbor.
(39:41):
What do you think is going onthere?
John Ivison (39:44):
Well, it's clear it's not all going smoothly.
I mean we see regularly thereare clips of town halls with
Republican congressmen beingshouted down and people waving
Canadian flags and Americanswaving Canadian flags.
I mean they are not happy withwhat's happening to Canada.
Every poll shows it.
I mean Trump's approval ratingis the lowest of any president,
(40:06):
even below his own previous lowsfrom the first administration.
Clearly there are millions ofpeople who are still supporting
him, but this is causing greatdisruption in the United States
and great angst, great unrest.
I don't think, because wehaven't seen floods of people
crossing the border, thatthey're happy with what's going
(40:28):
on.
I'm sure the military is nothappy.
I mean the fact that theCanadian military is now having
to contemplate the idea ofdefending Canada along the
southern border is unbelievable.
I mean Americans regularly on Xand other social media pointing
out that they fought alongsideCanadians in Afghanistan and
(40:51):
elsewhere.
This is not going down well inthe States and I think the
tipping point to be the tippingpoint would be if he defied the
Supreme Court and the SupremeCourt this week wrapped him over
the knuckles for saying lowerlevel judge should be impeached.
(41:13):
I can't remember which case itwas, maybe it was USAID, but
whatever the case was, he'd beenreprimanded by the lower level
judge.
Trump had said the judge shouldbe impeached and the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Courtsaid you can't talk like that
about judges.
So even though the SupremeCourt is small C conservative, I
(41:39):
don't think they're going toroll over and let him do what he
wants to do and he's going tochallenge that.
I mean, this is the guy whosaid he who saves his country
can't defy any laws, which isvery, very scary talk, and if he
follows through on the logic ofthat, then America is really in
trouble and then I think you'regoing to see a flight of
capital, because at that pointyou're basically saying the rule
(42:03):
of law no longer applies here,and I think that at that point
then civil unrest is notunforeseeable.
Stewart Muir (42:15):
Yeah well, with a toddler, the rules need to be
articulated, because the toddlerdoesn't know, as every parent
realizes, trump seems to bearticulated because the toddler
doesn't know, as every parentrealizes.
Trump seems to be looking forthose boundaries in almost a
similar fashion and no one'ssaying no.
So who's going to be the firstto speak up against him?
John Ivison (42:34):
Yeah, well, I think it will be down to the courts
and the markets.
When he first brought in, whenhe first announced the
Canada-Mexico tariff, themarkets reacted really badly.
(43:02):
I mean, I think General Motorswas down 5% that day and Ford
was down and they were allscreaming.
But then he did it again thefollowing month and similar
effect, and he delayed it tillApril 2nd.
Let's see, I mean April 2nd, ifthere's a complete tanking on
the markets, he may be forced towithdraw again.
I mean, I think he just pusheshis luck every single time, but
if this one really really goesbadly, I mean this is Americans
did not vote for their 401ks tobe heading south.
(43:24):
I mean this did not vote fortheir 401ks to be heading south.
I mean this is people'sretirement money and even if
you're a hardline Trumpsupporter, you're not going to
be happy about that.
So he's always worried aboutthese kind of things.
I'm surprised he's stillpushing ahead with it, given
that we've already seen a coupleof scare on the market.
This April 2nd is going to be avery important date.
(43:45):
It will be the first tripwireand then I think the Supreme
Court would be the second.
Stewart Muir (43:50):
Let's come back to Canada.
A few quick things.
Is this election going to bewon or lost in the East?
John Ivison (43:56):
or the West.
Well, I don't think I see anymajor changes in Alberta.
Put it that way, that's prettymuch going to stay blue.
It really always comes down toOntario.
I mean just the sheer number ofseats and if you get to
somewhere like 35 plus percentin Ontario, you win most of
(44:17):
those seats and that means youprobably win.
I mean it matters what happensin the big cities, but if you've
done well in Ontario you'veprobably done well in most of
the big cities.
The echo of that is felt inMontreal.
So the Liberals would keep theisland of Montreal.
Other than that it doesn't muchmatter.
(44:38):
I mean, the Liberals have beenkept out of pretty much west of
the Ontario-Manitoba border,with the exception of some seats
in British Columbia, a coupleof seats in Winnipeg and one or
two it's only one, I think, atthe moment in Alberta.
So yeah, it will be one of theeast, as always.
But I think the resource issueis a national issue this time.
(45:00):
But I think the resource issueis a national issue this time.
It's not just the West, becauseit's not just about Alberta's
resources, it's about thediversification of those
resources for the financialhealth of the country, so maybe
it's a chance to be moreinfluential.
Stewart Muir (45:17):
Even if the West can't swing where the nation
goes, the West can be a muchbigger factor in defining what
the future looks like.
John Ivison (45:25):
I think that's right and that's what was so
dispiriting about DanielleSmith's statement.
To me it was kind of ragefarming.
She was just trying to harvestsome votes from her base rather
than thinking about the biggerpicture.
(45:46):
I mean, I know she's got toappeal to her base.
She's got her own politics toworry about, but you've got a
new prime minister there who inmany ways is on the same page as
you.
We want to develop new markets.
It didn't have to be aspartisan as it was and, like it
or not, Alberta is still part ofCanada and we should be doing
(46:09):
things in the national interest,and that includes being in
Alberta's interest.
I mean, I don't think we shouldbe.
I think that Alberta's had araw deal over the last nine
years and I've written on thatrepeatedly.
I mean, just think if we'd hadEnergy East and Northern Gateway
right now, not to mentionKeystone, it would be a very
(46:33):
different picture.
Stewart Muir (46:34):
Yeah, and Quebec would benefit.
John Ivison (46:36):
Quebec would benefit too.
I mean, maybe the bigdifference now is Quebec is on
site for some of these things,at least nominally.
We'll see once they're proposed.
But I think the existentialthreat has brought.
Quebec into more alignment.
I mean, Quebec will never betotally in alignment, but you
expect that of Quebec and I saythat advisedly, having lived
(46:58):
there for many years.
I would just expect Alberta orits premier to know better.
Stewart Muir (47:05):
And she does know better.
You know, her predecessor,jason Kenney, had.
I think, a method, knowingly,deliberately, in terms of the
outdoor voice and the indoorvoice.
You know there were very goodrelations, back channels to the
right people in Ottawa.
Those conversations neverstopped and outside it was
really situational.
(47:25):
He could go up or down, hecould choose the moment and the
language and I think maybe thatcomes from his Ottawa experience
and just his own personalsensibility on things, so it's
possible to have that from theWest.
Maybe none of it.
John Ivison (47:39):
It was constructive and that's because he's a
rounded politician and areasonable person and I'm not
sure the previous Right.
I will now get flooded withhate mail, but bring it on.
There you go.
Stewart Muir (47:52):
Okay.
Well, we're going to have a newprime minister, or a newly
sworn in prime minister, who isthe same or a different person,
in a few weeks.
What will your words of advicebe when you maybe get a chance
to talk to that person?
John Ivison (48:06):
I'm not sure I have any great words of wisdom, but
I mean both of them have saidwe've got to build more quicker,
and I think that that is thebottom line.
You've got to live up to yourelection promise build more
quicker.
Let's get pipelines to.
I think when we initiated thisconversation was about the
(48:27):
potential of building a spur ofthe TMX through KittyMut.
Yes, which is a plan which isalready almost fully formed.
The drives are there.
The drives are there.
I mean you get indigenoussupport and away we go.
That could be done.
I spoke to Ian Anderson, whowas TMX's former chief executive
.
He said it could be done in twoor three years.
Let's get on these.
(48:48):
What's the easiest thing to doquickly, what makes most sense?
Let's just do it.
And you know, of course youhave to be mindful of the
environment, but we're in acrisis.
Stewart Muir (49:00):
Yep, have a big picture plan and then carry it
out.
I'm really happy this has beenthe scene center for what will
be my weekly podcast in PowerStruggle.
Next week I will be in StJohn's, Newfoundland, to do
number two and get acoast-to-coast feel.
So that will then lead to.
I haven't even figured outwhere exactly I'm going to be,
(49:22):
I'm just going to go to whereI'm needed.
I might be needed back here atthe base in Vancouver in the
studio.
It's a little easier to filmhere, but I'm also going to be
ready to go lots of places overthe next five, six weeks.
So this has been such avaluable foundation conversation
for everything that's going tofollow.
So I really appreciate yourtime today.
John Ivison (49:41):
No problem, have fun.
Thank you, john.
I think the resource issue is a national
issue.
This time it's not just theWest, because it's not just
about Alberta's resources.
It's about the diversificationof those resources for the
health, financial health of thecountry.
Stewart Muir (00:30):
Welcome to Power Struggle.
I'm the host, stuart Muir, andthis is the first episode of a
special federal electioncampaign series.
We are going to be tackling thereal issues that are shaping
Canada's future.
Through the current federalelection, we're going to aim to
cut through the noise of all thecampaign promises we're hearing
and we're going to get to theheart of the economic and
political realities around ourfavorite subject, which is
energy.
That's why we're called PowerStruggle.
(00:51):
We need to ask questions whenis Canada really headed?
What does it mean when we hearcertain pledges and promises
from the different politicalleaders who are making them?
Are they legit and what do theymean for the country?
So let's find out.
Today, canada is at a crossroads, especially with the rapidly
shifting political landscape inthe United States.
(01:13):
Resource development, energysecurity, indigenous economic
partnerships these are some ofthe big issues that I'm watching
, but there's other issues tooand we're wondering who's
shaping them.
Joining me today is a veteranpolitical journalist who I've
known for a very long time.
He has sharp politicalinstincts, a deep understanding
of how the country works JohnIveson, ottawa political
(01:35):
columnist for the National Post.
John, welcome, hi, stuart, goodto connect to you.
We go back a long ways, don'twe Back to the previous
millennium, the late 1990s.
We started working together forquite a spell.
John Ivison (01:48):
Yeah Well, I do feel it's a bit like the jockey
asking questions of the horsehere, in that I should see John
Iverson byline pop up that'ssomething I'm going to stop and
(02:12):
read.
Stewart Muir (02:13):
I recommend it to everyone.
The depth, but I think there'ssomething beyond that.
You're a writer's writer.
I mean really your book on oneof my favorite writers and I've
been to his birthplace, robbieBurns.
I mean, you're not just apolitical columnist, john, you
are someone who really you're apoet, and I've appreciated your
work over the years.
But I didn't bring you on justto butter you up because I think
(02:34):
let's get into it.
You know, every election wehear campaign slogans and then
it's your job to sort it out forus.
And I'd like to ask thisquestion from your vantage point
what is this election all about?
John Ivison (02:46):
In a word Trump.
I mean I think at the momentyou know there will be other
issues and we're going to getinto what the other issues are,
but at the moment it's all aboutwho do voters think can best
handle Trump.
I mean, I think we've seenalmost an unprecedented rise in
(03:08):
the Liberal Party's fortunes,from nearly rock bottom.
They were at 16% at some pollswhen Justin Trudeau was there.
Trudeau left, resigned.
In the last two months we'veseen the Liberal fortunes rocket
and as soon as Mark Carneylooked like he was going to
become the leader, they becameturbocharged and most polls now
(03:31):
have the two parties, theconservatives and the liberals,
either neck and neck, whichfrankly gives the liberals the
government because they wouldeither win a minority or a
majority and presumably the NDPwould prop them up.
But in some polls now themomentum is continuing and
there's clear blue water betweenthe liberals and the
(03:52):
conservatives and the maindriver of that is that the polls
suggest that people thinkCarney would be better at
handling Trump than PierrePoiliev.
They think that this theconservative leader has used,
even if he's not a mini Trump,which is the accusation from
some people, and I don't thinkhe is.
I don't think he's a populistin the same way that Trump is,
but he has used a lot of thesame kind of language about
(04:14):
Canada being broken and some ofthe other things that he said
that are still needed to themedia, the fact he's going to
cut foreign aid, et cetera, etcetera, and so, fairly or
unfairly, people think he wouldbe more accommodating to Trump,
and that, to me as a moment, iswhat is driving the vote, and
it's Pauliev's job now to tryand raise Carney's negatives and
(04:37):
raise questions about thingslike energy.
Stewart Muir (04:40):
Well, it's a fascinating situation where we
have whole chunks of what Polyevhas been talking about and put
into his campaign platform foractually years now.
Suddenly, Carney is adoptingthem.
Is that because he likes thosepolicies or because he wants to
steal a march on Polyev and justsort of leave Polyev having to
pivot to something else?
John Ivison (05:06):
anything else.
Well, I think there's a bit ofthe magpie in it in that
apparently, yesterday I made aGST announcement on housing,
which is something that Poilievahas been touting for a long
time.
But I think the circumstancewhereby our main customer to the
south now looks like it's anadversary and there's obviously
whoever comes in has got to tryand diversify the customer base.
(05:26):
I think inevitably that pushesboth parties in the same
direction, like how do you dothis?
Um, that the?
The accusation that theconservatives are leveling
against carly is that hisenvironmental considerations
will mean that he can't pivotquickly enough, and I think,
from the conservative point ofview, they're going to be
(05:48):
pushing everything they can tosuggest that they are the party
that will create opportunitiesin the resource industry more
quickly.
In fact, I announced somethingyesterday whereby areas would be
designated as development zonesand would be permitted ahead of
time.
So there is a bit of a rush inthe same direction, but I'm not
(06:09):
sure it's straight up stealingfrom the liberals.
They're just circumstancesdictate that they have to
respond.
Stewart Muir (06:17):
Now, as one who has devoted a very significant
amount of his career to theclimate cause in terms of
international finance, when hewas in the Bank of England and
started the net zero financeinitiative in Glasgow a number
of years ago, which now iscoming apart at the seams as
Canadian and US banks leave thisclimate-oriented policy vehicle
(06:42):
.
Climate-oriented policy vehicle.
Is it going to be credible tothe voters that Carney's looking
for that he actually isabandoning a lot of what he was
talking about and taking upthings that it was very clear he
was not in favor of only a fewyears ago?
John Ivison (06:57):
I think it's a difficult one.
I mean, he's got to walk atightrope there.
There's not much he can doabout resurrecting the sort of
ESG and finance initiativesthere.
They're multilateralinitiatives that are way beyond
his current remit.
So I think you know, at somestage he says, well, that was
then, this is now.
So I think he's, but he clearlybelieves much the same things.
(07:20):
So how do you walk thattightrope?
I mean to me.
So Danielle Smith came outyesterday with a whole raft of
not requests, demands that thefederal government has got to
respond to, and we can touch onthat later.
I thought the tone was prettyappalling, given that we're a a
(07:42):
national crisis.
But, um, but some of them are,are are legitimate.
And let's take the example ofthe oil and gas emissions cap,
which carney's new environmentminister apparently said yeah,
we're still in favor of it.
This is something that stevengabo brought in, and to me,
(08:04):
carney could ditch that policyas long as he continues the
federal backstop on the largeemitter program in the provinces
, which Pierre Poilievre thisweek said he was going to remove
.
I mean to me, if you've got aprogram like TIER in Alberta and
(08:26):
you keep the stringency ofcredits fairly tight, and I
would say at the moment they'reprobably too loose, because I
think the credits are tradingfor around $40 and the price is
$80.
So if you keep those creditstight and limited so that supply
doesn't outweigh demand, thenwhy do you also need a
(08:49):
cap-and-trade system for an oiland gas emissions cap?
I mean, you're sort of layeringanother layer of bureaucracy
and regulation on top of onethat exists already.
And, from what I gather,there's not a huge amount of
backlash against the largeremitter program.
(09:09):
So why not keep those in placeand make sure they work properly
?
And I think Carney has actuallyindicated that's what he wants
to do, which is why it mystifiesme why he would want to proceed
with this oil and gas emissionscap.
But that's the type of thingI'm talking about.
As far as a title, he could doone and not the other.
Stewart Muir (09:27):
Yes, you know, I think in recent years, even
before it was known he wasrunning for the leadership of
the Liberals if you look back onsome of the pronouncements from
Mark Carney say in 2024, youknow, I don't think anyone could
look at it and say, oh, he'sout to shut down the Canadian
oil and gas sector or close theoil sands or even necessarily
(09:49):
reduce them.
But there would be the argumentthat well, the policies he is
advocated for would be theeffect that, in fact, rather
than just reduce emissions, itwould reduce the amount of oil
(10:13):
produced, which is a thorny one.
But the tone you mentioned, thetone of Alberta, I think it's
fascinating to see the oil sands, or the oil and gas and
pipeline CEOs.
I think 14 of them signed aletter.
If you look at the five thingsthey're asking for, it's
actually very reasonable.
You know, the simplifiedregulation get some deadlines
(10:33):
for approval who doesn't wantthat?
You know, grow the amount ofproduction as long as you're
performing on the environmentalfront.
I think the key thing there isthe investments in indigenous
participation in the economy.
That's something the CEOs arecalling for.
Who wouldn't want that?
John Ivison (10:49):
Well, just, touching on that.
I mean, I think that'sabsolutely right.
And in the last fiscal update,christopher Freeland finally
brought in this policy wherebythere would be loan guarantees
for indigenous Canadians.
And they've been calling forthat for years and years and
years and eventually there it is.
That's an easy one for that foryears and years and years and
eventually there it is.
That's an easy one for Carneyto pick up and run with.
Stewart Muir (11:09):
Yeah, he could grow that and should grow it in
my view, but it's a very goodstart.
I mean points well earned forthat, but you know the tone of
that, so I'd just like to diginto it, because you wrote a
lovely column not long ago, john.
I really appreciated it,because when there's so many
divisive issues and thesecritical issues as you say, this
is a Trump election we do needto unify.
(11:30):
You know Mark Carney, I'm sureyou know Pierre Poliev, but in
this case you were just sharingsome reflections.
Maybe, as someone who knowsboth of them personally, could
you give us a little bit ofpersonal insight into who these
men are.
Could you give us a little bitof personal insight into who
these men are?
John Ivison (11:51):
What human factors come into this when you look at
them through your eyes.
Well, so I mean, so I do knowMark very well when you're in
Ottawa.
It's a small town and ourdaughters grew up as friends and
I'm sure I coached at least twoof his four daughters at soccer
, um, so I got I know him prettywell.
Uh, he keeps saying he's apragmatist, and I think he is.
(12:11):
I mean he has he has obviouslyhas environmental convictions,
but I don't think he's a zealot.
I mean, I think stephenguilbeault is a zealot and I was
very critical of him havingGuilbeault as an endorsement.
I thought it was not helpful tohis cause and I'm surprised
(12:31):
he's still in cabinet.
That was a man who was clearlyout to shut down the Allsands.
I don't think Carney is.
I mean he is a Wesson long timeremoved but he still is, you
know, in your formative years.
Recall your formative year fora reason.
I mean he went to high schoolin Alberta and he still feels
(12:52):
like he's in Alberta.
So I think he's not.
He said things in the past aboutleaving oil on the ground which
will be cast up at him andhe'll be reminded of that fact.
But he's also talking now aboutpipelines to Churchill,
pipelines somehow getting oiland gas to Ecalibur I'm not even
(13:15):
sure how you would do that, butI guess there's and using deep
ports in those two places toexport to Europe.
So you know, I don't think he'scoming in with the idea that he
wants to close it all down, andwhy would he?
I mean, if he does that, thereis absolutely no prospect of his
government being a success.
He has to create new alliances,find new customers and find a
(13:41):
new way of doing things that ismuch quicker and much more
effective than the last nineyears.
Stewart Muir (13:49):
Not that that would be hard, yeah it would be
pretty difficult to go from whathe portrayed before, that
climate financier, to now thispro-oil and gas Canadian prime
minister running for office.
When he gains his mandate, ifhe's the winner, suddenly he
goes back to what he was before,because that's what the liberal
(14:09):
base in Ottawa demands.
That sounds like a veryunlikely shift to make, so I
think the liberal base in Ottawajust demands that they be in
power.
John Ivison (14:18):
Right, If he can give them power, they will do.
You won't hear a-.
Stewart Muir (14:22):
The unifying principle of liberalism.
John Ivison (14:24):
That's the unifying principle.
Liberalism that's the unifiedprinciple.
This is a brokerage party thatis all about being being in
power and just the one thingthat, um, you know what, while
he's not gonna um, I don't thinkhe's gonna abandon either,
cause he's not gonna abandonenvironmentalism completely and
he's not gonna abandon economicdevelopment completely um, the
one thing that he keepsmentioning is pathways.
(14:44):
The pathways are lines, andI've talked to people who say
this thing's dead right now, buthe will bring it back.
I think, if whatever it takesto make that thing happen
presuming it works at scale Ithink that's a priority for him.
Stewart Muir (15:00):
Well, if we have pathways, the carbon capture
project that I think it's a $30billion project, it's probably
decadal in scope that would getthe emissions from Edmonton and
store them in Cold Lake and thegeological storage and that way
keep the CO2 out of theatmosphere.
So that was good.
If we can do that, it was agreat outcome.
But it's been a tough one, andif Trump is tearing up
(15:24):
everything that he can get hishands on, including all the
climate pledges in the U, somehope, john, that there's maybe a
longer-term environmentaldividend for doing the right
(15:51):
thing, because we should bedoing the right thing, shouldn't
we?
John Ivison (15:53):
Well, I think we've signed up to international
agreements that say that Canadawill try and do X and we're a
country that lives up to itscommitments.
And I think that if we donothing else but leave the large
emitters carbon pricing systemin place and make sure it works
properly, then we're probablydoing our bit.
(16:14):
I mean, I think some of theother things are inevitably
going to fall by the wayside,just as the consumer carbon tax
is done, wayside, just as theconsumer carbon tax is done.
But, um, yeah, I think carneyis, uh, he will try and live up
(16:35):
to those commitments.
I think, um, while he hasshifted the goalposts a little
bit, because he's basically nowsaying if so, he's removing the,
the federal backstop on the, onthe large emitters program,
which essentially means that theprovinces don't have to be as
ambitious and that the carbontax which is scheduled to go to,
I think, a hundred and will youtell me a hundred and 70.
70, eventually by 2030.
(16:56):
That would remove the need tohit that price.
You could keep the system inplace, but just not be quite as
stringent in the pricing or inthe supply of place, but just
not be quite as stringent in thepricing or in the supply of
credits, what needs to becovered by credits?
So yeah, I think Kvaliev isessentially saying that's a tax
on business.
At a time when Trump's going totariff businesses more, that
(17:18):
will probably resonate with alot of people.
But Carney is to answer yourquestion.
Carney is making the pointpoint.
Trump won't be there foreverand we're already seeing a
border adjustment mechanismbeing put in place in Europe
which is essentially a tariff oncountries that don't take
climate seriously and put acarbon price on, and that at
(17:39):
some point America will comeback and we'll start addressing
climate change again.
And if we don't try andleapfrog them now, we will have
a bigger problem down the road.
I don't know whether I thinkpeople might buy that as far as
Europe is concerned.
I don't think they buy it.
As far as Asia is concerned,which he mentioned in his press
conversation that day, he saidwe won't be able to export to
(18:02):
Asia if we don't have stringentcarbon pricing.
I don't know if that's true.
I don't think China or Indiaare too fussed about it.
Stewart Muir (18:10):
Yes, Well, I saw that.
I was wondering whether youknow.
I looked at the number of LNGcargos that the Americans have
sent to Europe recently.
It's a lot, and they don't havea mandatory industrial price on
(18:31):
carbon in the US, or consumernational carbon pricing either,
for that matter.
But of course they've become ina very short time the world's
largest exporter of liquefiednatural gas, LNG, and they've
done so without this issue thatMr Carney raises being an
impediment whatsoever.
And now Trump is out to becomethe North American or the
American energy dominator, orthe world dominator, dominator
of everything.
(18:51):
So it hasn't held them back.
I mean, I'm just curious.
Maybe Kenner should just notworry about the international
issues of emissions, because wedo know that getting natural gas
to where it's wanted today,it's wanted because people
(19:13):
around the world want to havelower emissions in their local
economies.
That's why they're choosingnatural gas and LNG.
John Ivison (19:18):
Well, that's Paulieff's point is that if we
export more LNG to India andChina, they will use less coal
and therefore the planetbenefits.
And I think that's a fairargument and that might be the
argument that prevails, because,as you say, people are not
going to in Europe, for example,impose a tariff on Canadian LNG
(19:44):
or oil if we get it there, justbecause there's no carbon price
.
They want it and they'll takeit, and they're not going to
risk us saying, well, we can geta better price elsewhere.
So, yeah, that is going to be.
I mean, we talked about whatare going to be the issues of
the election that's going to bea big issue.
Stewart Muir (20:04):
Yeah, well, the opening days might have a lot of
energy in them, but probablythat's going to recede into the
past.
There's going to be otherissues.
Where do you think those issuesare that come up?
John Ivison (20:12):
Well, it's hard to see at the moment.
I mean, trump just predominatesso much.
I mean, housing and cost ofliving are still there.
The things that Kuala Lumpurstill has the cost of living
concerns are still there.
He scores well on them, butthey are receding below the
Trump issue as the thing thatmost concerns people.
(20:33):
People still want change.
If you look at the, is it timefor a change?
And the numbers were in the 90%Now, but about a third of those
people didn't think there was agood alternative when it was
Kvaliev versus Trudeau.
Now that Carney's come along, alot of those people have
(20:56):
shifted their vote to theLiberals because they see
Trudeau as a good alternative,which suggests that Carney has
positioned himself as an agentof change.
So I think that this is what'sgoing to come up as well.
Carney has positioned himselfas an agent of change.
So I think that this is what'sgoing to come up as well.
Is Carney essentially a newgovernment, or is he the fourth
mandate for a little bit, whichis obviously what he is, but can
(21:19):
he present himself as an agentof change?
I think when he brought in hiscabinet and it was all the same
people that was a bit of a giftto Poilievre.
It wasn't really realistic tosuggest that he was going to
change the you know, removeDominique Leblanc or Melanie
Jolie or François-PhilippeChopin or any of these people,
(21:43):
but their experience and they'reprobably the best that Carney's
got to pick from, yeah, butthat question about change is
still way up there and it's notclear to me that Carney has
succeeded yet in saying, yeah,this is a whole new ballgame.
Stewart Muir (22:00):
Yeah, I mean the lot who are still in there, and
it's fewer of them.
So we know these are the oneswho are really important to
Carney and he looks manageriallyresponsible.
He's reduced the payroll ofcabinet because it was bloated,
so that looks confident.
But then, as you say, I meanthe residue we have is really
the same old thing and these arethe brand managers of
liberalism of this time.
(22:21):
So they have a figurehead today.
Maybe they'll have a differentfigurehead in the future, but
they'll still be on the scene iskind of the impression maybe we
get In terms of the pivot thatPoliev is trying to do or will,
I'm sure have to do, because somany of his ideas have been
adopted by Carney.
I mean that's a compliment.
(22:41):
But then it leaves the problemof, ok, how am I going to
differentiate myself to thevoter?
Then it leaves the problem of,okay, how am I going to
differentiate myself to thevoter?
Do you think that the windowhas kind of moved in some
particular direction or they'repulling, you know, the Overton
window of trying to create thenorms that you hope, as a
political movement leader, thepublic will agree with you are
the norms.
I mean that window has beenmoving around.
(23:03):
It seems to have moved in thedirection of what I would call
energy realism.
A year ago we weren't talkingabout that phrase.
We were talking about, you know, climate realism, and maybe it
was starting to move.
But now, at recent places wherepeople gather in the energy
industry, they're talking aboutthings very differently, and
that's because of Trump, butnevertheless they are talking
(23:23):
about things differently.
So to make that a question foryou, john, in trying to move
that window around of what's thenormal discourse space, who's
winning?
John Ivison (23:34):
Well.
So the broader picture, notspecific to issues, I think at
the moment is Zucconi getselected liberal leader.
The next day he goes to Parisand London and meets Macron and
Keir Starmer and King Charlesand then he's in Iqaluit making
(23:56):
announcements.
He looked and sounded primeministerial and credible.
Frankly, I mean he looked likean international statesman.
I mean he knows these people,he's been in that game.
I mean I think he aninternational statesman, I mean
he knows these people, he's beenin that game.
I mean I think he's a farbetter statesman than he is a
politician.
He kind of lost his cool a bitwith reporters in London when
they were asking him about hisassets and I think he's still
(24:20):
got a lot to learn about retailpolitics and dealing with the
media.
I mean, the media coveringcentral bank governors are very
respectful and don't startprying at your personal life.
But I think by and large helooked prime ministerial.
And now, well, the otherproblem is that for years and
years now he's been.
For two and a half years he'sbeen the leader of the
(24:42):
opposition, and when you're theleader of the opposition, you
oppose and you nitpick and youare angry and hostile almost.
But now he's in a campaign.
We're already in the campaign,even though it's not formally
declared.
Now he's in a campaign to beprime minister and he has to
look more prime ministerial andhe not only has to change his
(25:07):
demeanor, he has to change hismessage and I think it has to
change his demeanor.
He has to change his messageand I think it has to be far
more hopeful.
And we saw that to some extentwith his Ring of Fire
announcement, where he startedtalking about developing the
Ring of Fire and getting on withit.
I mean, I started covering theRing of Fire 25 years ago Still
a pipe dream at the moment.
25 years ago, still a pipedream at the moment, or I hope
it's not a pipe dream, but it'sstill not a reality.
(25:29):
So I think he's pivoting rightnow and that's the bigger
picture is that he has to not beangry, he has to be hopeful and
he has to sound and look a bitmore like Carney than himself as
of last year.
Stewart Muir (25:49):
Well, every campaign is a test of the
personalities and capabilitiesof the candidates, and it sounds
like we're going to have acrucible to see what qualities
exist in these individuals whowant to lead us.
John Ivison (26:04):
Yeah, I mean it's just cliche, but it's a cliche
for a reason.
Campaigns matter.
I mean it's just cliche, butit's a cliche for a reason.
Campaigns matter.
I mean I was talking tosomebody yesterday who was
saying well, the last time thatthe polls moved like this was in
favor of Kim Campbell in 1993.
And it was a total blowout atthe end of the day.
You know, there was this sortof exhilaration among
(26:26):
conservatives.
The poll numbers went throughthe roof and then when Canadians
got a really good look at her,they decided no thanks.
And is there a prospect thatcould happen to Carney?
I think there is a prospect.
He could totally flame out Well.
Stewart Muir (26:41):
We had a term back in the newsroom for company
stocks that behave this way.
We called it the dead catbounce, and it's yet to be known
whether Carney's surge is inthat category or the miracle
comeback for his party.
John Ivison (26:56):
Yeah, I mean, if I had to bet now, I think he's got
more substance and resiliencethan Ken Campbell, for example.
I also think the circumstancesare so extraordinary that
Canadians are harking theirsuspicions and disillusionment
(27:22):
with experts.
I mean, we've seen as populismhas developed.
We've seen these characterscome along, trump being the main
one, with simple solutions tocomplex problems, slogans, no
real depth about any of it and,you know, castigating elites who
(27:47):
have caused all these problems.
I get a sense that the backlashagainst that might start in
Canada, where Carney is clearlynot a populist, but there seems
to be a sort of momentum towardsshelter and safety and
(28:07):
expertise and I think when youstack up his resume against
Poiliev's, there's only onewinner.
I mean, he's just when it comesto if you've got an economic
crisis.
He has experienced an economiccrisis.
He was in the treasury UStreasury the day it was decided
(28:27):
that the world economic systemwas going to back up and they
were going to support the banks.
Backstop the banks.
Yeah, I think that there mightbe a sea change and we might be
seeing it first in Canada.
Stewart Muir (28:45):
Are you concerned about the anxiety that youth are
feeling housing affordability?
Certainly, in the polls, overquite a consistent period it's
been young Canadians who've beensaying Polyev is the change
that we want.
Do you think that while theirelders seemed more willing to be
fine with the liberals nomatter what I mean it didn't
(29:06):
seem to matter too much whatTrudeau was up to or what others
were saying about Trudeau.
For older voters who had beensettled in life and they've got
their financial pot in orderkind of indifferent to that.
John Ivison (29:21):
Yeah, you make a good point.
Well, you make a good pointbecause the polling I've seen
suggests that it is those peoplewho, even though many of them
were fed up with Trudeau and hadmoved, they wanted change.
They'd moved from the liberalsto the conservatives, but they
weren't set on Polyev.
Those are the people that moveback to the liberals.
It's the older voter, so theyounger voters are still, by and
(29:44):
large, I think, with theconservatives.
And yeah, I mean, I see itfirsthand.
I've got a 24-year-old and a20-year-old and they are the
only one in particular who'sleft university, struggling to
find a job, no prospect ofbuying a house anytime soon.
Yeah, there is a resentment anda disquiet among those people
(30:09):
that Poirier will continue totap into.
It's not clear whether thatoutweighs the sort of
existential threat to thecountry's existence which I
think is the predominant issuein this election.
Stewart Muir (30:25):
Well, it's the older people who vote in
greatest numbers typically, andthe young find it harder to get
to the voting booth, it wouldseem, and maybe that'll be
different this time.
John Ivison (30:36):
Well, trudeau tapped into that and in 2015,
that was a big, big reason whyhe swept the country.
It was the younger vote.
So you know, if those peopleturn out this time they're
motivated enough to turn outthen who knows?
Stewart Muir (30:48):
Yeah, I mean the tightening up, or even Carney
surpassing Poliev in somemethodologies.
Maybe isn't that bad a thingfor Poliev if it incites his
youth base to say, oh, we bettervote, whereas if it was that
huge gap, oh I don't need tovote, my vote doesn't count,
(31:09):
we're going to.
You know, my guy is going towin, so I'm going surfing.
John Ivison (31:14):
I think very rare is the campaign where you know
if we've seen Carly taking offnow very rare is the campaign
where he keeps taking off.
I mean, there's always troublesalong the way and there'll be
revelations and dramas that willhappen, if only because that's
(31:40):
the way the media likes it.
I mean, who wants to report ona campaign where Carney starts
off ahead and then gets furtherand further ahead?
You need a close horse race tomake this exciting and we
generally tend to produce that.
Stewart Muir (31:58):
If it's a blackface, as in I guess that
was 2019 or whatever it is,there's always something that
happens that produces dramaduring an election campaign, you
know just back to Trump, you'vemade the argument I think a
compelling one that Trump isreally the defining factor in
what's going to happen throughthis campaign, and I just want
(32:19):
to ask you this question becauseit's troubling me every single
day.
So, is Trump following strategyor something else going on?
And attached to that questionis like is there a bottom, a
basement, a floor to this ofwhat we see unfolding every day?
Because every day I'm surprisedby some new thing, I'm floored
(32:40):
by some new thing.
How about you?
John Ivison (32:47):
Well, I'm outraged by a new thing every day for
sure.
My own view is that I thinkTrudeau might have sparked this.
I mean, apparently he used tojoke about the 51st state thing
in his first administration, butit all seems to have started in
earnest when he asked Trudeauat Mar-a-Lago, when Trudeau had
gone down to the forelock, whatwould happen if we put tariffs
(33:13):
on, and Trudeau repliedtruthfully, it would be the end
of the country, and I thinkthat's what set his mind racing.
That this is, this would be theultimate.
If I could annex Canada,incorporate Canada into the
United States, then that's myMount Rushmore moment.
You know they'll put statues upto me.
(33:35):
So I think that's.
He's probably got a hierarchy ofwhat he wants, you know, and
the way I think his mind worksis that we pushed for the very
top, and the very top would be.
Mind works is that we pushedfor the very top and the very
top would be would they takeover Greenland, annex Canada and
they take control of the PanamaCanal Although I think that
(33:57):
actually might go away becauseBlackRock has now just bought
the Chinese company's ports ateither end of the canal.
But if you can get that, that'sthe best it could possibly be
short of that.
We want to raise revenues andtariffs.
You know he's talking now aboutsomehow killing aiken tax and
(34:19):
the internal revenue service andjust having external revenue
and the external revenue servicewith countries around the world
paying him tariffs for everygood that's brought in.
Somehow this would be donewithout firing up inflation.
But let's parlour for themoment.
Probably the next down in thehierarchy is that he starts
seeing companies move theirproduction back to the United
(34:42):
States.
I think 25% tariffs would dothat on the big car companies,
although it would take billionsand years to actually do it.
So maybe that's a longer termthing.
And then maybe your lowest tieron your wish list is that you
get concessions on whatever youask for, from killing the supply
(35:06):
management system in DA toincreased defense procurement,
whatever it is.
So I think that's the way hismind works.
I don't think it would be toomuch of a compliment to say it's
strategic, it's justinstinctive.
It seems to be that that's justhow his DNA works, that you
just push and push and push andmaybe you'll get something great
(35:29):
and maybe you'll get.
But if you don't get somethinggreat, you'll probably get
something good.
Stewart Muir (35:33):
Well, after decades of de-industrialization
and shipping manufacturing and,hey, emissions from
manufacturing to other countries, especially China, and
conditioning American consumersto be able to check that box,
hit that button and there it ison your doorstep within hours.
Maybe it's come a long way, ormaybe the reshoring of the
(35:57):
American manufacturing base willbring those suppliers back, but
maybe that will drive up thecost of labor and make those
things not cheap from Alibaba orTAMU, but rather expensive
because they're made in America.
I mean, there's interestingthings, but I do want to bring
it back to Canada because, okay,if Trump is pursuing a strategy
(36:17):
or he's pursuing a primal urgethat is persistent, maybe that's
his form of strategy and I takeyour point and maybe that's
going to be successful over thefull cycle of his presidency.
Right now it feels rather scaryfor anyone which is all of us
who's somehow exposed to the USstock market.
(36:37):
But we'll see.
But for Canada, you have a lotof people talking about
diversification.
Well, we just need to diversifythe economy.
Sounds like a sensible thing todo.
Is it something we can actuallymake a difference with?
John Ivison (36:52):
I think, when you know what is it, 80%, 75% of our
exports are going south.
We can never decouple from theUS, but you know, clearly we can
reduce our dependency andthat's what I think the holy
Grail is for both parties rightnow and we don't have a totally
(37:15):
weak hand to play.
I mean there are strengths thatwe have that can be leveraged
Critical minerals for one.
I mean, the reason that Trumpwants annexation is not, I think
, just because it would add tohis prestige.
All of that is, I think, hisdriving urge.
But obviously you would thenhave access to Canada's water,
to its raw materials, to theminerals, all of which the US
(37:41):
needs.
I mean, his most ridiculousline is Canada's got nothing we
want or need.
We've got our own lumber.
We've got our own lumber.
We've got our own oil.
I mean, every stat I've readreads that shale oil is peaking
and that they're going to needmore oil, that they don't have
the forestry resources, thatCanada has to do it if, as
cheaply, he wants thoseresources.
If he didn't want them, whywould he make such a big fuss
(38:04):
about Canada becoming the 51ststate?
So I think you know thisultimately to me, gets resolved
in the United States whereenough people around him point
to the markets, I mean, you justraise the markets.
That, to me, is, if it becomes arecession of the US because of
(38:24):
these tariffs, then whatever hisprimal urge is, he doesn't have
the power to go out alone.
I mean, I think maybe we don'tunderstand the US system as well
, because we're in a Westminstersystem where essentially the
winner takes all and if you'reprime minister, you can pretty
(38:45):
much do what you want.
There's not the checks andbalances of you know, presumably
you have a majority government.
There's not the checks andbalances of the US system where,
with the judiciary and Congresswhich is, I mean, congress is
pretty tight.
It's not like he's got a totalhold on Congress.
So I think what we've got tohope for and I think this is
(39:08):
what any advice would be toprospective prime ministers be
patient, be resolute, berespectful and the American
system will probably sort itselfout.
Stewart Muir (39:21):
Well, have you noticed that, compared to 2016,
when suddenly a lot of Americanswere saying I'm moving to
Canada, I'm going to Mexico City, I'm going to Europe and
getting out of Dodge, we haven'treally seen that, even though
it's a very different dynamicand you think, oh, maybe people
would be more likely to want toflee America for some other
perceived safe harbor.
(39:41):
What do you think is going onthere?
John Ivison (39:44):
Well, it's clear it's not all going smoothly.
I mean we see regularly thereare clips of town halls with
Republican congressmen beingshouted down and people waving
Canadian flags and Americanswaving Canadian flags.
I mean they are not happy withwhat's happening to Canada.
Every poll shows it.
I mean Trump's approval ratingis the lowest of any president,
(40:06):
even below his own previous lowsfrom the first administration.
Clearly there are millions ofpeople who are still supporting
him, but this is causing greatdisruption in the United States
and great angst, great unrest.
I don't think, because wehaven't seen floods of people
crossing the border, thatthey're happy with what's going
(40:28):
on.
I'm sure the military is nothappy.
I mean the fact that theCanadian military is now having
to contemplate the idea ofdefending Canada along the
southern border is unbelievable.
I mean Americans regularly on Xand other social media pointing
out that they fought alongsideCanadians in Afghanistan and
(40:51):
elsewhere.
This is not going down well inthe States and I think the
tipping point to be the tippingpoint would be if he defied the
Supreme Court and the SupremeCourt this week wrapped him over
the knuckles for saying lowerlevel judge should be impeached.
(41:13):
I can't remember which case itwas, maybe it was USAID, but
whatever the case was, he'd beenreprimanded by the lower level
judge.
Trump had said the judge shouldbe impeached and the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Courtsaid you can't talk like that
about judges.
So even though the SupremeCourt is small C conservative, I
(41:39):
don't think they're going toroll over and let him do what he
wants to do and he's going tochallenge that.
I mean, this is the guy whosaid he who saves his country
can't defy any laws, which isvery, very scary talk, and if he
follows through on the logic ofthat, then America is really in
trouble and then I think you'regoing to see a flight of
capital, because at that pointyou're basically saying the rule
(42:03):
of law no longer applies here,and I think that at that point
then civil unrest is notunforeseeable.
Stewart Muir (42:15):
Yeah well, with a toddler, the rules need to be
articulated, because the toddlerdoesn't know, as every parent
realizes, trump seems to bearticulated because the toddler
doesn't know, as every parentrealizes.
Trump seems to be looking forthose boundaries in almost a
similar fashion and no one'ssaying no.
So who's going to be the firstto speak up against him?
John Ivison (42:34):
Yeah, well, I think it will be down to the courts
and the markets.
When he first brought in, whenhe first announced the
Canada-Mexico tariff, themarkets reacted really badly.
(43:02):
I mean, I think General Motorswas down 5% that day and Ford
was down and they were allscreaming.
But then he did it again thefollowing month and similar
effect, and he delayed it tillApril 2nd.
Let's see, I mean April 2nd, ifthere's a complete tanking on
the markets, he may be forced towithdraw again.
I mean, I think he just pusheshis luck every single time, but
if this one really really goesbadly, I mean this is Americans
did not vote for their 401ks tobe heading south.
(43:24):
I mean this did not vote fortheir 401ks to be heading south.
I mean this is people'sretirement money and even if
you're a hardline Trumpsupporter, you're not going to
be happy about that.
So he's always worried aboutthese kind of things.
I'm surprised he's stillpushing ahead with it, given
that we've already seen a coupleof scare on the market.
This April 2nd is going to be avery important date.
(43:45):
It will be the first tripwireand then I think the Supreme
Court would be the second.
Stewart Muir (43:50):
Let's come back to Canada.
A few quick things.
Is this election going to bewon or lost in the East?
John Ivison (43:56):
or the West.
Well, I don't think I see anymajor changes in Alberta.
Put it that way, that's prettymuch going to stay blue.
It really always comes down toOntario.
I mean just the sheer number ofseats and if you get to
somewhere like 35 plus percentin Ontario, you win most of
(44:17):
those seats and that means youprobably win.
I mean it matters what happensin the big cities, but if you've
done well in Ontario you'veprobably done well in most of
the big cities.
The echo of that is felt inMontreal.
So the Liberals would keep theisland of Montreal.
Other than that it doesn't muchmatter.
(44:38):
I mean, the Liberals have beenkept out of pretty much west of
the Ontario-Manitoba border,with the exception of some seats
in British Columbia, a coupleof seats in Winnipeg and one or
two it's only one, I think, atthe moment in Alberta.
So yeah, it will be one of theeast, as always.
But I think the resource issueis a national issue this time.
(45:00):
But I think the resource issueis a national issue this time.
It's not just the West, becauseit's not just about Alberta's
resources, it's about thediversification of those
resources for the financialhealth of the country, so maybe
it's a chance to be moreinfluential.
Stewart Muir (45:17):
Even if the West can't swing where the nation
goes, the West can be a muchbigger factor in defining what
the future looks like.
John Ivison (45:25):
I think that's right and that's what was so
dispiriting about DanielleSmith's statement.
To me it was kind of ragefarming.
She was just trying to harvestsome votes from her base rather
than thinking about the biggerpicture.
(45:46):
I mean, I know she's got toappeal to her base.
She's got her own politics toworry about, but you've got a
new prime minister there who inmany ways is on the same page as
you.
We want to develop new markets.
It didn't have to be aspartisan as it was and, like it
or not, Alberta is still part ofCanada and we should be doing
(46:09):
things in the national interest,and that includes being in
Alberta's interest.
I mean, I don't think we shouldbe.
I think that Alberta's had araw deal over the last nine
years and I've written on thatrepeatedly.
I mean, just think if we'd hadEnergy East and Northern Gateway
right now, not to mentionKeystone, it would be a very
(46:33):
different picture.
Stewart Muir (46:34):
Yeah, and Quebec would benefit.
John Ivison (46:36):
Quebec would benefit too.
I mean, maybe the bigdifference now is Quebec is on
site for some of these things,at least nominally.
We'll see once they're proposed.
But I think the existentialthreat has brought.
Quebec into more alignment.
I mean, Quebec will never betotally in alignment, but you
expect that of Quebec and I saythat advisedly, having lived
(46:58):
there for many years.
I would just expect Alberta orits premier to know better.
Stewart Muir (47:05):
And she does know better.
You know, her predecessor,jason Kenney, had.
I think, a method, knowingly,deliberately, in terms of the
outdoor voice and the indoorvoice.
You know there were very goodrelations, back channels to the
right people in Ottawa.
Those conversations neverstopped and outside it was
really situational.
(47:25):
He could go up or down, hecould choose the moment and the
language and I think maybe thatcomes from his Ottawa experience
and just his own personalsensibility on things, so it's
possible to have that from theWest.
Maybe none of it.
John Ivison (47:39):
It was constructive and that's because he's a
rounded politician and areasonable person and I'm not
sure the previous Right.
I will now get flooded withhate mail, but bring it on.
There you go.
Stewart Muir (47:52):
Okay.
Well, we're going to have a newprime minister, or a newly
sworn in prime minister, who isthe same or a different person,
in a few weeks.
What will your words of advicebe when you maybe get a chance
to talk to that person?
John Ivison (48:06):
I'm not sure I have any great words of wisdom, but
I mean both of them have saidwe've got to build more quicker,
and I think that that is thebottom line.
You've got to live up to yourelection promise build more
quicker.
Let's get pipelines to.
I think when we initiated thisconversation was about the
(48:27):
potential of building a spur ofthe TMX through KittyMut.
Yes, which is a plan which isalready almost fully formed.
The drives are there.
The drives are there.
I mean you get indigenoussupport and away we go.
That could be done.
I spoke to Ian Anderson, whowas TMX's former chief executive
.
He said it could be done in twoor three years.
Let's get on these.
(48:48):
What's the easiest thing to doquickly, what makes most sense?
Let's just do it.
And you know, of course youhave to be mindful of the
environment, but we're in acrisis.
Stewart Muir (49:00):
Yep, have a big picture plan and then carry it
out.
I'm really happy this has beenthe scene center for what will
be my weekly podcast in PowerStruggle.
Next week I will be in StJohn's, Newfoundland, to do
number two and get acoast-to-coast feel.
So that will then lead to.
I haven't even figured outwhere exactly I'm going to be,
(49:22):
I'm just going to go to whereI'm needed.
I might be needed back here atthe base in Vancouver in the
studio.
It's a little easier to filmhere, but I'm also going to be
ready to go lots of places overthe next five, six weeks.
So this has been such avaluable foundation conversation
for everything that's going tofollow.
So I really appreciate yourtime today.
John Ivison (49:41):
No problem, have fun.
Thank you, john.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.