April 22, 2025 • 51 mins
Donald Trump didn’t start the problem. But Jack Mintz knows how to fix it. In the latest episode of the Power Struggle special election series, Mintz tells host Stewart Muir that Canada’s declining productivity started long before the US President’s new tariff war. The solution isn’t slapping the United States with counter-tariffs. The solution is eliminating tariffs and non-trading barriers with as many other trading partners as possible.
Especially in the natural resource sector. That’s how we snub our noses at Trump. Canada needs to move forward on liberalizing trade with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand to name a few. Mintz explains his strategy while citing his recent Financial Post article that argues for streamlined regulations, liberal trade policies, and a simpler tax system.
And in the Trump era, building stronger trade relations with other countries is how Canada fixes its trade relationship with the United States. North America remains one of the strongest trade regions in the world. Even with trade diversification, our best market is still the United States. It may even be after Trump leaves that the trade relationship gets repaired.
In case anyone missed it, Mintz reminds the Power Struggle audience that Canada depends on a natural resource export economy. This isn’t lost on our political leaders. Both Liberal Leader and Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre are pushing for the acceleration of energy projects. Mintz argues that neither may be prepared to go far enough. Find out why in this episode.
🔔 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.
Jack Mintz (00:00):
Resources are still going to be needed, no matter
how the world gets reorderedafter what Trump is doing, and
we may want to trade with othercountries.
In fact, I had argued in myrecent piece that not only
should we look to try to tradewith other countries, but we
should actually go back to someof the trade agreements we've
(00:22):
had like with Europe and Asiancountries and even go further to
reduce tariffs and non-tradebarriers that we can, and I hope
that we can actually work outsomething with the United States
.
Maybe it will be after Trumpleaves.
Stewart Muir (00:52):
Welcome to Power Struggle.
I'm the host, Stewart Muir, andthis is the sixth episode of a
special federal electioncampaign series that we've been
doing.
We're tackling the big issuesshaping the election and really
Canada's future.
We're looking particularly atissues related to energy.
That's what we're all about atPower Struggle Today.
I'm pleased to be at issuesrelated to energy.
That's what we're all about atPower Struggle Today.
I'm pleased to be joined byJack Mintz.
Jack's an economist and he'salso the President's Fellow in
Public Policy at the Universityof Calgary's School of Public
(01:15):
Policy.
He's one of the mostdistinguished economists on the
scene.
I've had the chance tointerview him and I always
appreciate what he has to say.
Welcome to the show, jack.
Thank you, stuart, as anadvisor on economic policy over
your long career.
(01:35):
Tell me, jack, what's thebiggest win you've ever scored,
so to speak, over your career?
That one thing where youradvice was taken and something
happened.
Jack Mintz (01:44):
Oh dear.
There's probably a few goodexamples I can give of that, but
probably one of the mostimportant things I did was chair
a panel on business tax reformfor the Honorable Paul Martin
when he was Minister of Finance,and we had a very good group of
people.
We made some very significantrecommendations on business tax
(02:05):
reform and initially thegovernment was a bit slow in
trying to move ahead, but thenafter a year they did, and there
was very significant changedone to the corporate tax system
in Canada as a result of thatreport.
The provinces actually followedalong too and adopted a number
of the recommendations andphilosophy of the report, and so
(02:29):
it certainly had its impactthat I was very pleased with.
Stewart Muir (02:33):
So that was the government of Paul Martin, who
was a liberal prime minister ofCanada.
Have you advised primeministers or governments from
across the political spectrum inyour time or?
Jack Mintz (02:44):
governments from across the political spectrum in
your time.
Yes, I have.
I also advised Stephen Harperand his government during his
time.
I've also worked earlier on atfinance in the Department of
Finance from 1984 to 86, whenJohn Turner was just appointed
(03:10):
as the prime minister and thenwent into election and lost it,
and so the Mulroney governmentcame in and I was at the
Department of Finance working oncorporate tax reform and in
fact I wrote a document at thattime that came out with Michael
Wilson's 1985 budget onrestructuring the corporate tax,
and again a number of thingswere adopted out of that reform
(03:32):
as well.
So I had that experience.
I worked with the World Bank,the International Monetary Fund,
the OECD and others on taxreform, sometimes on federal
fiscal relations in some of thefederal countries, sometimes on
(03:56):
some aspects related to goodsand services taxes or
value-added taxes.
You know a host of things thatI've done over the years that
involve governments of differentstripes, and in Canada I worked
with a number of the provinces,including even giving advice to
whether it was the NDP inSaskatchewan or the liberals in
(04:18):
Prince Edward Island or theconservatives in some of the
other provinces as well.
So I've had a varied backgroundwhich I've enjoyed over the
years.
Stewart Muir (04:31):
So you're a great example of an impartial advisor
on information that youvalidated as a PhD economist yes
, I think I've always toldpeople how I felt.
Jack Mintz (04:41):
Yes, I think I've always told people how I felt,
and some people liked themessage, so they adopted it.
Some other people maybe didn'tlike it and so they didn't want
to have my advice.
But that was fine.
I told.
No matter who was in power orwho was seeking my advice, they
(05:01):
would hear the same thing fromme, no matter what.
Stewart Muir (05:04):
This will sound like a dumb question, so I hope
you will permit me, withoutmocking me what is the economy
and how does it work?
Jack Mintz (05:19):
Well, an economy, I guess, is defined as all the
value of all the transactionsthat are made in an economy
between households and firms.
Among firms, they're buying andselling goods and services.
Households are supplying laborand maybe capital to firms to
produce things.
It's a very circular picture inwhich money rolls around.
(05:43):
In which money rolls around and, of course, the important thing
about economics is that ittries to explain how decisions
are made to optimize the valueof things for households and for
firms as a result of peoplejust making their transactions
(06:03):
in their best interest.
Stewart Muir (06:04):
You're a PhD in economics.
You're from Edmonton, Alberta.
There's another PhD ineconomics from Edmonton, name of
Mark Carney, who's in the newsa lot, Probably why we're
talking today.
I mean, how many PhDs ineconomics come from Edmonton?
Is it a thing up there?
Jack Mintz (06:24):
Well of course there are PhDs.
I didn't get my PhD fromAlberta.
I was born and raised inEdmonton.
Right you come from Edmonton.
Stewart Muir (06:33):
And.
Jack Mintz (06:34):
I went to the University of Alberta for my
undergraduate degree and then Iwent on and did a master's at
Queen's University.
I worked a year at thenow-defunct Economic Council of
Canada and then met my wife atthe end of the year and we went
off to England where I did myPhD for three years.
And then I came back and Itaught at Queen's for 11 years
(06:57):
and University of Toronto for 18years and then I went out to
Calgary to start up the newschool of public policy at
University of Calgary.
To start up the new school ofpublic policy at University
Calgary.
Stewart Muir (07:07):
Now I heard that Mark Carney got the same
scholarship as you to get hisPhD in the UK.
Jack Mintz (07:12):
I understand he got a Commonwealth fellowship and so
did I.
It was a very competitiveprocess at that time.
They awarded Commonwealthfellowships the UK government
did did to a lot of the oldcolonies of the British Empire,
now referred to as theCommonwealth.
(07:33):
By that point Canada got 10 ofthem every year and so I was
very lucky to get one.
I was very pleased to get itand it was a tremendous support
to have.
In the first two years, in fact, I turned down a scholarship a
Canada Council scholarship,because I did get the
(07:53):
Commonwealth.
But then in my third year Itook the Canada Council one
because Commonwealth was goodfor two years.
Stewart Muir (08:01):
Jack, I must say you come across as calm and
rational, the epitome of ascholar in economics.
But in seeing your writings oflate and some of the things that
when we were on a stagetogether in Vancouver, I
detected a man frustrated bycircumstances that are around us
(08:24):
in the Canadian economy, canyou tell me about this
frustration you're experiencing?
Jack Mintz (08:30):
Well, I think it really goes back to, I think,
the past 10 years.
As I mentioned, I worked backin 1984 in my sixth year at
Queen's University.
I spent two years at theDepartment of Finance.
I saw the operation ofgovernment at that time.
The Mulroney government came in.
(08:51):
They had some big ideas,including tax reform, of which
the goods and services tax wasone of the pillars that later
came into being.
But also there was the freetrade agreement with the United
States.
That was done.
I think that was a tremendousmove forward.
Marwini also tried to deal withCanada's constitutional
(09:15):
problems and particularly triedto get through the Meech Lake, a
cord that didn't go through,and so he got two out of three
things done.
But uh, but you know, he, hecertainly had some success as a
prime minister and thegovernment at that time had
success.
And then I was around, uh, as aclifford clark visiting
(09:39):
economist at finance in 96, in1997.
Stewart Muir (09:44):
so jean chien, prime minister at that time.
Jack Mintz (09:47):
Yes, Chrétien was the prime minister and Paul
Martin was the minister offinance.
Stewart Muir (09:52):
Waiting in the wings.
Jack Mintz (09:53):
And I was brought in at a very high level to deal
with both budget issues as wellas chairing a business tax
reform panel that I mentionedearlier on, and there were a lot
of good things done during thatperiod, particularly dealing
with the terrible deficit thatwe had.
Tremendous progress that wasmade.
(10:14):
Tax reform was also done.
There were a number of verygood decisions that were made by
the government at that time,and so I was very pleased to see
that kind of progress.
And then when Stephen Harpergot elected in 2004, and he as a
minority government, then lateron as a majority in 2011, but
(10:35):
he also did some very goodthings.
I was on the Economic AdvisoryCouncil that Jim Flaherty
appointed when he was Ministerof Finance in 2008 to deal with
the financial crisis.
I saw firsthand the work thatwas done, especially by the
Department of Finance, indealing with the financial
crisis, and also the Harvardgovernment made a number of very
(10:58):
good decisions, including somemovement on taxation.
Even further movement he gotrid of the Canada Canine Wheat
Board, which was a very poorinstitution to have in Canada.
It was there for years, but itwas certainly tremendous
(11:19):
progress that was made inimproving the distribution of
grain for Canadian farmers, plusa number of other reforms that
were done.
So you know very goodgovernment.
As a result, my real frustrationhas come since 2015, where I've
seen government decisions thathave been less focused on issues
like productivity and growth, amovement away from the kind of
(11:43):
fiscal discipline that westarted First under Mulroney,
although he didn't do a greatjob at it.
There were things that heshould have done, that he didn't
do with the deficit, but itcertainly was dealt with by the
liberals in the 90s.
The Harper government continuedit and even with the financial
(12:05):
crisis, harper ended uprestoring balance to the books
by 2015.
And so there were a lot of goodthings that were done, but then
I started seeing that unraveland I was getting very concerned
about Canada's productivity andits growth prospects as a
result of focus onredistributing income, which I
(12:26):
think is important to have asocial safety net, but not at
the expense of giving up ongrowth.
And here we are 10 years laterand I feel that my concerns are
justified in terms of what I'veseen over the past 10 years.
Stewart Muir (12:42):
So, jack, you were active as an economist and
advisor under John Turner, whenhe was head of the Liberal Party
, under Moroney, when he was theconservative prime minister,
under Jean Chrétien and thenPaul Martin.
As two successive Liberal primeministers, you thought things
were working.
You seem happy with the generaldrift of things, the program
(13:05):
review that you referred to,when government was just pared
back to what it needed to be wasunder a liberal government in
93 onwards, and then the otherreforms you initiated, and then
Harper came along, and it seemsto be a story of continuity
through all of those years until2015.
Would that be a fair summary?
Jack Mintz (13:27):
I think it would be a fair summary and I've written
about this.
There was a change in 1980.
Well, let me go back a bit whenI was a PhD student in England.
I saw the PhD student inEngland.
I saw the difficulties thatGreat Britain went through with
(13:49):
respect to having an economythat was really going downhill.
You know, there were a lot ofdifficulties.
Exchange rate dropped like astone.
In fact, when I first came toBritain in 1975, it was $2.30
Canadian for every British pound.
One year later it was down to$1.68.
(14:09):
I mean, that's a tremendouschange to happen in devaluation
and it was part and parcel ofwhat was going on.
I remember the coal strike thatwent on when I was there, the
bread strike where all of asudden you couldn't buy bread,
et cetera, et cetera.
All these things happened andtowards the end, that was the
(14:33):
time when I became, when I wasgoing back to Canada, but it was
also the time that MargaretThatcher got elected and then,
of course, reagan got elected in1980.
And there was a big switchactually in public policy in the
world, including Canada, whereit became a focus on trying to
grow the private sector byreducing the role of government
(14:58):
or the intervention thatgovernments had that impeded
growth.
Governments had that impededgrowth.
In fact, when I was at financein 1984, mickey Cohen, who was
the deputy minister at that time, prepared books for the new
government whoever it was goingto be, whether it was liberal or
(15:20):
conservative on removingobstacles to economic growth in
Canada and it had all the sortsof things that we saw later on.
You know privatization, taxreforms, a number, you know a
host of policies that wouldreally put a focus on economic
growth.
Because previous 15 years werenot very good years and from an
(15:42):
economic policy perspective wedidn't have very good growth and
governments inflated theeconomy.
We had very high inflationduring that period and there
were a lot of severe problems asa result of government spending
that went up much faster thantaxes and huge government
deficits and a pileup of debtduring that period.
(16:04):
And when the Mulroneygovernment took over it was to
start righting the situation andeven though he did make some
advancement during that period,it wasn't enough really and
really waited to the liberals in1993, when they got elected, to
(16:25):
start really dealing with thedeficit through a very difficult
1995 budget that led tosignificant cuts.
But it was all a way of tryingto right what was going wrong.
And of course the provinces alsocarried out similar changes,
particularly in Alberta and inOntario.
There was quite large changesthat were made, but even in
(16:45):
Saskatchewan trying to deal witha fiscal situation, but all
reflecting really a new way oflooking at things
philosophically in the world.
Going back to the Reagan andthe Thatcher revolution that
said we have to rely on themarket to help grow the economy.
(17:08):
We can't just have governmentstrying to lead it through this
through their various activities.
Stewart Muir (17:12):
And we have terms from then like Reaganism or, you
know, thatcherites doing theireconomic policy.
Those were used more asepithets because not everyone
was in favor of breaking up theold order, because there were
different oxes that had to begored there.
Do you think it was somethingthat when it came to Canada
(17:36):
through the actions of liberaland conservative governments,
that, because it had happenedelsewhere already, it was maybe
an easier transition for Canadajust to get with the program and
pare back excessive spendingand have a balance of growth and
also redistribution?
Jack Mintz (17:54):
I think the issue is balance, and that's what Canada
was good at is keeping thatbalance between making sure you
have good public services, asocial safety net for people,
but at the same time you havespending on those activities
that create growth.
I remember one thing I alwaysliked about Paul Martin's
(18:17):
budgets particularly is theywere very focused and everyone
was on a very specific thing andeveryone was on a very specific
thing, whether it was researchand development or education,
for example.
But those areproductivity-enhancing
expenditures that you know thatwas an emphasis during that time
, and so it wasn't just taxreform or deregulation or
(18:49):
privatization you know that wascarried out but it was also
really having a much betterfocus for government spending
that really put emphasis onareas that needed to be done and
it wasn't just displaying aspending that went on over.
Stewart Muir (18:59):
You know, at that time it feels like a different
era.
I remember, as a lowlyjournalist showing up at Paul
Martin's office.
We'd have a conversation almostlike this.
It would be like he wouldexplain his idea to me and I'd
go wow, that's fascinating.
And he actually took the timeto meet with me when I would
(19:20):
make my occasional forays out toOttawa from Vancouver.
I feel like we're in adifferent era now where if I did
that meeting, all I would getwould be some sort of bizarre
sound bites.
It feels like we're indifferent times.
Has it changed?
Maybe?
Before we go there, I just wantto say that you started talking
(19:42):
about 2015, forward and what'sdifferent.
I want to come back to that ina moment, but has something
changed in how people talk toeach other?
Jack Mintz (19:49):
Okay, I've written about this once before.
In fact, I gave a speech calledthe Princeton Lectures at
University of Alberta recentlyand I republished it in the
National Post.
But basically it's an argumentthat there's been a tremendous
change in philosophy publicpolicy philosophy over the past
(20:11):
25 years and when we go back tothe year 2000, it was really a
period of very good growth inthe world.
You actually had a sharpreduction in inequality in the
world, in the sense that Asiancountries grew a lot and their
per capita incomes grew a lot.
(20:32):
But it came at an expense, andthe expense was certain parts of
the population in the advancedcountries, where people lost
jobs because manufacturing wentto Asia and China and et cetera,
and so there became a kind ofresentment towards this
(20:59):
globalization and trade.
There became a view thatgovernments weren't controlling
the economy anymore well enoughand they needed to be more
directive of things.
And then the 2008 financialcrisis, where really bad banking
practices, partly as a resultof the regulatory system, led to
(21:19):
people losing their houses inEurope and in the United States
and a real feeling thatgovernments weren't doing their
job very well.
And it was after that period,plus the adoption of social
media, that really gave abullhorn to people, whether it
was Occupy Wall Street or lateron, to voice their criticisms of
(21:45):
what was happening.
To voice their criticisms ofwhat was happening.
And so in the past periods,especially since 2010, we
started seeing the shift inpolicy, where it became much
more nationalistic.
Governments had to control theeconomy, industrial policy
became in vogue, trade became abad thing, not a good thing,
(22:09):
even though it allowed people tohave more redistribution to
(22:32):
parts of the population.
People started talking aboutguaranteed incomes, all sorts of
other policies, but I think theconcern that I had was the
movement towards nationalism,and, in fact, we've now seen a
manifestation of that over thepast year, as the Trump
administration has brought intariffs that we haven't seen
(22:55):
before, very high levels oftariffs.
All that is part of an Americafirst strategy, which is a very
nationalistic strategy, which isa very nationalistic strategy.
There's also been more warshappening, as we've seen in
Europe and the Middle East, butnow we're starting to see
(23:17):
governments ramping up theirmilitary expenditure and, partly
pushed by the Americans, sayingwe no longer want to pay for it
all.
You're going to have to pay forit too, and so we're seeing a
very different world today.
That kind of reminds me,unfortunately, of what happened
before the first world war and,of course, we saw what happened
with the ugly side ofnationalism in the second world
(23:39):
war, when Hitler came to powerand carried out the most
terrible things that we stillhaven't forgotten about today.
Stewart Muir (23:48):
It almost sounds like Trump could be seen as a
historical inevitability.
Is that?
Jack Mintz (23:53):
possible.
I think it is an inevitability.
I think he's an extreme form ofit.
When he brought in thisreciprocal tariffs I would have
never thought he would bring in50% tariff rates and things like
that, but what we're seeingtoday in the United States and
in Europe and other countries isreally, I think, a
(24:15):
manifestation of this changethat I think began in 2008-9
with the financial crisis, whereall of a sudden it became
markets are bad.
Only governments can solveproblems and, of course, as soon
as you have only governmentscan solve problems, it increases
or moves more and more towardsnationalism, where governments
(24:38):
have to control the borders andthe country that they're running
.
Stewart Muir (24:43):
So how was this experienced in Canada starting
in 2015?
I mean, of course, we know thatwas when the Trudeau government
took office, but we're pointinghere you are pointing to some
patterns as well that are biggerthan one country.
Jack Mintz (25:02):
Yeah, well, it partly started in the Harper
government had to deal withtakeovers by state-owned
enterprises in in the energyarea, uh, particularly uh in
Canada, and and started usingnational security as as a way of
, you know, blocking uh certaintypes of of uh takeovers and and
I didn't have a major issue onthe national security side by
(25:27):
side.
But I did have a concern aboutstate-owned enterprises taking
over Canadian businesses,because here we went to a lot of
length to privatize companiesin Canada from crown
corporations, to great successactually in many cases and then
all of a sudden we're gettingstate-owned enterprises buying
up Canadian businesses and I hadmy concerns with that
(25:49):
particularly.
Stewart Muir (25:50):
I thought one of Canada's problems as a country
is that we have a pretty smallpopulation, vast landmass.
It's very hard to get theamount of capital required to
develop industry.
So we have to go to foreignersto say bring us your capital and
help us develop this thing herein Canada.
So if it's a rich person fromEurope or it's a state-owned
enterprise from Asia or whateverit is, it's just someone with
(26:14):
money.
Isn't that a good thing if wewant to develop our economy,
regardless of who has that money?
Jack Mintz (26:20):
I have always written that foreign direct
investment is a good thing.
It can improve management, itcan bring new technology.
But I've also written aboutgoing back actually to my PhD
thesis.
I've also written aboutstate-owned enterprises aren't
all that successful.
In fact, my whole PhD thesiswas about public-private mixed
enterprises companies that arejointly owned by governments and
(26:45):
private investors and, in fact,jointly owned by governments
and private investors.
And in fact, when Chinastate-owned enterprises came in
and bought Nexen and some othercompanies in Canada, I couldn't
believe that my PhD thesis camealive again, because the
(27:05):
state-owned enterprises fromChina would say oh no, no, we're
just like commercialenterprises, we're no different
and in fact we sell shares.
Some of our ownership is soldoff in the market in Hong Kong
or New York, so we behave justlike commercial enterprises,
which was exactly opposite towhat I showed in my PhD thesis
(27:27):
30 years earlier.
And several other countriesthere became this view that all
of a sudden we should havestate-owned enterprises, should
partly sell their shares off ortheir ownership off to have some
market discipline and theywould perform better as
companies.
But that actually didn't happen.
(27:48):
In fact, it's a very difficultrelationship between government
and private investors becausegovernments want to pursue
objectives that are not justprofitability, and then they
start bringing in requirementsthat are needed.
So I didn't object to foreigninvestment coming into Canada.
I'm quite agreeable to it.
My bigger problem wasstate-owned enterprise
(28:10):
investments coming into Canada.
Stewart Muir (28:12):
Look, we're in the middle of the federal election
race.
I just want to get at some ofthe issues that seem to be
consistently at the core of whatpeople are talking about, and
I'm really surprised that in2025, energy is a huge topic,
not just before and in the earlydays of the race, but for weeks
(28:34):
.
It's maintained.
Pipelines, building pipelines.
Candidates are being asked howwould they build pipelines?
Would they build pipelines?
And we're getting somedifferent answers.
I'm not clear whether we'regetting straight answers from
everybody and I'd like you tohelp me find that out.
(28:54):
So, mark Carney, leader of theliberals, pierre Poliev,
conservatives their solution.
In a way, they have the samesolution streamline
infrastructure and energyprojects.
They're both talking about that.
Do you think that they aresaying the right things to get
(29:16):
those things done?
Do you think?
Jack Mintz (29:17):
that they are saying the right things to get those
things done.
I'm actually kind of gratifiedthat both the liberals and the
conservatives are focused muchmore on growth this election.
If you notice, there's hardlyany discussion about starting up
new programs for redistribution.
For redistribution, I thinkpeople are now very worried
(29:40):
about economic growth because ifyou don't have economic growth,
you can't afford theredistribution programs you want
, and that's why I've alwaysbeen worried myself about
economic growth and,unfortunately, the past decade
we have really hurt ourselves interms of not just the oil and
gas sector, in terms of gettingthings done, but also even in
mining and other resourcesectors where we could do a much
(30:04):
better job.
Because Canada, regardless ofwhat anyone wants to say, is
basically a resource-basedeconomy.
It's given us huge comparativeadvantage and opportunities to
create wealth, and so bothparties seem to be much more
(30:25):
focused on especially on energyand trying to get things going.
However, there is, I think, anunclear statement from the
liberals and Mark Carneyvis-a-vis the oil and gas sector
.
They talk about havingelectrical transmission across
(30:46):
the country, and there's beensome discussion about maybe a
pipeline from east to west,maybe to displace the imported
oil that we bring from abroad,but I don't see a real
commitment towards liquefiednatural gas being sold
internationally or more oilbeing sold internationally by
(31:06):
the liberals, although it's veryclear that the conservatives
would be willing to go in thatdirection, and so I still think
that's a major wedge issue inthis election campaign, in that
we really don't have a clearview from the liberals whether
they support more oil and gasdevelopment.
Stewart Muir (31:27):
Jack, there's a policy from the Trudeau time,
the emissions cap.
And recently another economistthis one, the parliamentary
budget officer said it's not acap, it's a production cap.
It's not an emissions cap.
It will reduce the GDP from theoil and gas sector by 5%.
It'll cost, I think, 40,000 or42,000 jobs.
(31:50):
It's definitely a cap onproduction and that's going to
result in a specific economicdecline.
I noticed that was brushedaside almost staringly by Mark
Carney, as if.
Who's this parliamentary budgetofficer?
What does he know?
It's an emissions cap, not aproduction cap.
I mean, what do you make ofthis?
(32:11):
Which is it?
Jack Mintz (32:12):
Oh, it's definitely.
It's an emissions cap that willlead to a production cap.
There's no question in my mind.
It's not just the PVO analysis,but it's also other analyses
that make this very clear.
But it's not just that.
Also, the concern made clearthat they want to revamp the
regulatory system Bill C-69,which, by the way, not only
(32:35):
makes it very difficult to buildoil and gas infrastructure, but
it's also very difficult to getmining projects off the ground
too.
Supposed to take a short periodto get approvals done, but they
(33:00):
.
It has only been one or twoprojects that have actually
gotten through the whole systemand it's took years to get them
approved.
And and there's a whole bunchof projects that are, that are
in the in the line, but they've.
They've gone well past thefirst stage where there was
supposed to be approvals by acertain point in time.
Uh, and it hasn't been done yet.
But that's not the only issue.
(33:20):
There's not just only theemissions cap, the oil and gas
emissions cap and Bill C-69,which has really hampered the
development of regulationbecause of all the requirements
that are required and that arepart of that system, but also
(33:41):
the carbon plan that is beingproposed by the liberals, and
I've read that plan in quitedetail.
It includes new mandates, forexample, for industrial
emissions.
It has new requirements thatare going to be under the
(34:03):
so-called industrial carbon tax.
That will be a lot stiffer.
It includes the idea thatbusinesses will sell credits or
buy credits from not just otherfirms but from the private
sector, which I find reallyconcerning because I suspect
(34:28):
that's going to be full of abusein the end.
And then there's a carbontariff that's being proposed,
which is very complicated orborder adjustments as it's
called and that could have avery significant impact,
especially since the UnitedStates is not going in that
direction, and I can imagine ustrying to tariff manufactured
(34:50):
goods coming in from the UnitedStates because it has too much
carbon associated with them.
Stewart Muir (34:55):
So there's a couple of policies there where
there's a very stark contrastbetween Mark Carney for the
liberals and Pierre Poliev, andthose first two are in that
category.
The emissions cap Carney willnot get rid of, poliev will.
Bill C-69, carney keeps, polievgets rid of it.
Now they differ in this respect, but they're both saying oh, we
(35:20):
want to build pipelines.
Well, polyev has some ideasabout an energy corridor.
That's an interesting idea, andwhen he's in Calgary and maybe
Edmonton, mark Carney is infavor of pipelines.
But I noticed he was in Quebecand he said something different
that left it open tointerpretation.
(35:41):
Maybe pipelines aren't what'sneeded.
Is this confusing?
Jack Mintz (35:48):
It's confusing, but it also makes you question what
is the real stance of theliberals and can you really
trust what they're saying?
And I think that's one of theconcerns I have is there's a lot
of promises that have been madein this election campaign and
it's kind of interesting thatyou know governments that do get
(36:09):
elected often like to carry outtheir campaign promises.
You know, sometimes there'ssome that might get dropped,
mainly because they'reunrealistic in the first place,
but I do worry that actually.
You know, we've seen theliberals try to move back to the
center, but they've beencopying a lot of conservative
(36:29):
ideas.
You know, for example, notgoing ahead with a capital gains
tax increase, but who knows,maybe that will change.
Ahead with a capital gains taxincrease, but who knows, maybe
that will change.
Getting rid of the fuel charge,carbon tax but it actually
hasn't been killed bylegislation Because of these
flip-flops that are done by theliberals, for example, on the
(36:51):
oil and gas missions.
Cap is a good example.
First Mr Carney said he wasn'tgoing to move ahead with caps
and then two days later he saidOK, I'm going to be doing it,
because his minister ofenvironment said that, and I
think part of that reflectswhat's happened to the Liberal
Party.
The Liberal Party moved verymuch to the left over the past
decade.
It's not the same Liberal Partythat I knew in the 1990s and
(37:14):
worked with at that time.
While a leader may try to shiftsome of that back to the center
, he doesn't necessarily havefull control over the party, and
there's the same people thatare going to be elected if they
end up winning power.
It's going to be the very samepeople that are going to be back
in the cabinet that were duringthe turtle years, and so I
(37:36):
don't know and I'm not convincedthat we are actually going to
see a major change in policy bythe liberals if they win this
after this election.
Stewart Muir (37:47):
There's a term they use in the Quebec press
Trudeauism.
You don't really see that forwhatever reason, in Anglo-Canada
, although it's a pretty gooddescription of something that
was around for 10 years andvoters by the end got pretty
sick of and then they got rid ofthe guy called Trudeau but not,
it would seem, Trudeauism.
So is Carney just acontinuation of Trudeauism,
(38:09):
based on what we're seeing oncampaign?
Jack Mintz (38:11):
One thing you know, and I do know Mark Carney and
you know he is an intelligentperson and I don't doubt that he
will probably make some betterdecisions as a prime minister.
But he does have his ideology,particularly over climate change
, which again will go contraryto resource development,
(38:34):
especially in oil and gas.
But also there'll be issuesaround agriculture and when you
read his book Values and some ofthe things that he said in the
past and using the financialsector to influence the way
capital is going to be spent oncompanies that cause emissions
or don't cause emissions,there'll be an allocation
(38:56):
towards those companies thatreduce emissions.
So I think a lot of that is thesort of thing that we've seen
over the past decade.
That I think will continue.
And of course, this will havenot only major issues vis-a-vis
the economy and growth of oureconomy, because the oil and gas
sector, the agricultural sector, generally the resource sector,
(39:17):
is so important to Canada thatit also will have some
implications for national unity,because we might see a
continuing alienation in WesternCanada.
That will continue.
That could have ramificationsdown the road in terms of what
(39:38):
happens to Canada as a country.
Stewart Muir (39:40):
Well, I see an economist who I came to
associate over the last decadewith that kind of a green
conservative movement of carbonpricing conservatives,
christopher Reagan from McGillMcGill, and he's out saying well
(40:01):
, you know, the submissions capcould provoke Western separatism
in a way that we might not beready for.
You know, the cap is causing alot of agitation, not just in
Calgary, where you might say, ohyeah, what else is new?
But in Toronto.
I mean, we saw business leaderswho wouldn't normally be
putting statements out of apartisan nature to say vote for
this party To me.
I was surprised to see like 30names of the titans of business
(40:24):
of Bay Street saying you know,we're really concerned about
these policies, so much so we'reasking you to place your vote
over here.
This seems like new territory.
Things have been turned upsidedown.
Jack Mintz (40:37):
Oh, that's right, and I think that's why this is a
very important election in thatsense.
And you know, I think the youknow, and I wrote about this a
while ago after the carbon plan,that was one of the first
things that Mark Horningpublished was this carbon plan.
It came out very quickly and Isaid, you know, and I went
(40:58):
through that plan, I said here,this is really replacing one
carbon tax with another biggercarbon tax on big emitters, and
plus, there was a lot more addedto it in terms of what the
carbon plan would be.
And I said this will be a wedgeissue, no doubt.
(41:18):
And I think the reason why youhave business leaders here in
Toronto that are very concernedis you look at the story of
Trans Mountain Pipelines.
That could have been built injust a few years' time if it had
gone away, but instead it tookyears to get developed.
It took years to get developedand now that it's finally
working, which gives us anoption vis-a-vis the United
(41:39):
States in terms of selling ouroil somewhere else besides the
United States, it has added also0.25 percentage points to
Canada's GDP, and that's not asmall number.
And so, you know, add up allthese different projects that
haven't been able to go throughall these years is a very good
(42:01):
example of kind of the problemsthat we've missed out on or
we've made and the opportunitiesthat we have.
Stewart Muir (42:19):
Trans Mountain Project.
Now we have a government thatsays you know what, let's tax
that out of existence, let's puta cap on the production of that
, even though we just spent $32billion of taxpayer money to
build that project.
That gets that very product tomarket.
You know what?
I don't want to seem like we'rejust singling out Carney.
Let's look at Poliev here.
He's talked about this Nationalenergy corridor.
Is this a panacea?
(42:39):
Is it a quick fix that soundsgreat but will fall apart as
soon as you look into thedetails?
Jack Mintz (42:45):
Well, I think it's going to be a different way of
regulation.
I actually, when I was directorof the School of Public Policy,
we actually started a series ofresearch on the national
corridor, and I look at it notjust in terms of energy but in
terms of other infrastructure,and my favorite example is
Australia, but there's been someother countries that followed
(43:06):
this type of approach where youhave a corridor that's created
that deals with some of thecommon issues that would be
found with any project thatwould go into it, whether it's
an electrical transmission line,a railway, a pipeline or
whatever, and the issues thatyou deal with with the corridor
(43:29):
are the kinds of things that arevery important, such as the
indigenous claims, some of themaybe major environmental issues
that are common to all projects, things like that.
But once a corridor is approved,then the next step is if
somebody wants to put in arailway, or if they want to put
in a pipeline or electricaltransmission line, they just
(43:52):
need to get the project approvedwithout adding all the things.
In fact, under Bill C-69 todayand the Australians have a very
fast way of getting projectsapproved.
In fact, when I was on theboard of Barefield, we were able
to get in one year a railwayput in Western Australia in a
pre-approved corridor as anexample, and I know that
(44:17):
TransAlta was able to get anelectric transmission line
quickly done within a year inAustralia, but in Canada we've
taken years to get these thingsapproved, and so I think there
is something to the concept ofnational corridor, but I
wouldn't want it to be just anenergy corridor that the
Conservatives have mentioned.
I like it to be something thatwould apply to any type of
(44:40):
infrastructure that we want inorder to transport goods or
energy or for whatever crosslines.
Stewart Muir (44:47):
A year ago you wrote a paper it was called or
you co-wrote Resources Are StillOur Golden Goose, and I read
that paper.
I thought it was full ofinsights Too many to mention
here, because you see, naturalresources, that's what resources
are, and natural resources aremining and forestry and energy,
(45:08):
and maybe we've missed some.
But things that come out of theground in some form are grown
or mined or cut down.
Why do you see them as sofoundational to the Canadian
story Jack?
Jack Mintz (45:20):
Well, of course, it goes in history back to the fur
trade.
In fact, we sold lumber fishand other things at the
beginning when Canada firststarted off.
But it's a huge comparativeadvantage for Canada the
resources and one of the thingsin preparation of that paper I
spent a lot of time looking atwas the trade literature.
(45:43):
And sure enough, the areaswhere you have comparative
advantage are the ones that youend up exporting and you
actually end up creating a lotof wealth for a country and a
lot of economic progress.
And we were blessed withresources.
It was kind of like mana thatfell from heaven and we should
(46:07):
be taking advantage of that andwe shouldn't believe that.
In fact, there was a view JustinTrudeau even said it himself
that we're not a country ofresources, we're going to be a
country of resourceful people.
Well, that's all very nice, butin fact I was really shocked.
(46:28):
I was looking at a website ofthe federal government a couple
of years ago and they talkedabout all the advantages of
Canada, but the one thing theydidn't mention was resources.
And yet we built this countryon the resource sector.
And so when you look at ourexports, our major exports,
except for the auto, trade isall associated with resources,
(46:50):
whether it's oil and gas, mining, agricultural goods, mining
agricultural goods all thesethings are resource-based.
When you look at the importanceof the energy sector, as well as
the resource sector in general,to Canada's GDP, which includes
all the related industries thatare at both the manufacturing
(47:13):
and the distribution state, andrelated being in the sense that
a significant part of theirvalue added is based on
resources of some sort, it'slike 25% of Canada's GDP in
total.
So it's a huge industry.
It's a huge part of our life inCanada and it's paid for a lot
(47:35):
of the things that people want.
They've gotten good salaries,so they have money in their
pocket to go and buy goods andservices.
We've gotten taxes out of theindustries.
That has allowed governments toprovide all sorts of social
services, which kind of goesback to my long-run view about
(47:55):
how important it is to have astrong economy so that you could
have real prosperity in societyat the same time, and that's
why I've always been veryfocused on economic growth as a
very important thing forcountries like Canada.
Stewart Muir (48:10):
Now, these things were true before January 20th,
but 86 days into Trump 2.0,should we be thinking even more
about the importance of thatpoint?
Jack Mintz (48:21):
Yes, I think that it's very important that we
think about what kind of worldorder we're going to have in the
future.
Resources are still going to beneeded, no matter how the world
gets reordered after what Trumpis doing, and we may want to
(48:42):
trade with other countries.
In fact, I had argued in myrecent piece that not only
should we look to try to tradewith other countries, but we
should actually go back to someof the trade agreements we've
had like with Europe and Asiancountries and even go further to
reduce tariffs and non-tradebarriers that we can, and I hope
that we can actually work outsomething with the United States
(49:04):
.
Maybe it will be after Trumpleaves.
I think we'll be dealing withwhatever we have in the United
States to deal with, because, inthe end, we're a continent that
has benefited from the strongties that we've had between
Canada, the United States andMexico, and so I think we need
(49:25):
to restore that wealth and thinkof North America as a very
strong region in the world.
That is very important, and Ithink even Trump has a view that
the continent itself, the NorthAmerican continent itself, is
(49:46):
really the American playpen in asense, and of course, we don't
want the United States takingover Canada, or nor do we want
the United States taking overMexico.
That would be not somethingthat would be even conceivable,
I think.
But certainly working togetherwill probably still be required
(50:08):
because even with tradediversification, our best
economics lie with trading withthe United States.
Stewart Muir (50:16):
What if we fail in reaching the promise of getting
resources to market?
Jack Mintz (50:23):
I think that you know, even though we have very
good education system,well-trained workforce and we're
a peaceful society here inCanada, but you know, the
resource sector has given us thekind of comparative advantage
that you don't find elsewhere,because there are other
societies that haveinfrastructure, they have a good
(50:44):
education system, you know, etcetera.
But unless we find analternative, if we're just doing
what everybody else is doing,we don't have any comparative
advantage in doing that, and soit's going to hurt our
prosperity quite a bit if weshut down that resource sector.
Stewart Muir (51:06):
Jacques Mitz, thanks for your insights.
Jack Mintz (51:08):
My pleasure.
Resources are still going to be needed, no matter
how the world gets reorderedafter what Trump is doing, and
we may want to trade with othercountries.
In fact, I had argued in myrecent piece that not only
should we look to try to tradewith other countries, but we
should actually go back to someof the trade agreements we've
(00:22):
had like with Europe and Asiancountries and even go further to
reduce tariffs and non-tradebarriers that we can, and I hope
that we can actually work outsomething with the United States
.
Maybe it will be after Trumpleaves.
Stewart Muir (00:52):
Welcome to Power Struggle.
I'm the host, Stewart Muir, andthis is the sixth episode of a
special federal electioncampaign series that we've been
doing.
We're tackling the big issuesshaping the election and really
Canada's future.
We're looking particularly atissues related to energy.
That's what we're all about atPower Struggle Today.
I'm pleased to be at issuesrelated to energy.
That's what we're all about atPower Struggle Today.
I'm pleased to be joined byJack Mintz.
Jack's an economist and he'salso the President's Fellow in
Public Policy at the Universityof Calgary's School of Public
(01:15):
Policy.
He's one of the mostdistinguished economists on the
scene.
I've had the chance tointerview him and I always
appreciate what he has to say.
Welcome to the show, jack.
Thank you, stuart, as anadvisor on economic policy over
your long career.
(01:35):
Tell me, jack, what's thebiggest win you've ever scored,
so to speak, over your career?
That one thing where youradvice was taken and something
happened.
Jack Mintz (01:44):
Oh dear.
There's probably a few goodexamples I can give of that, but
probably one of the mostimportant things I did was chair
a panel on business tax reformfor the Honorable Paul Martin
when he was Minister of Finance,and we had a very good group of
people.
We made some very significantrecommendations on business tax
(02:05):
reform and initially thegovernment was a bit slow in
trying to move ahead, but thenafter a year they did, and there
was very significant changedone to the corporate tax system
in Canada as a result of thatreport.
The provinces actually followedalong too and adopted a number
of the recommendations andphilosophy of the report, and so
(02:29):
it certainly had its impactthat I was very pleased with.
Stewart Muir (02:33):
So that was the government of Paul Martin, who
was a liberal prime minister ofCanada.
Have you advised primeministers or governments from
across the political spectrum inyour time or?
Jack Mintz (02:44):
governments from across the political spectrum in
your time.
Yes, I have.
I also advised Stephen Harperand his government during his
time.
I've also worked earlier on atfinance in the Department of
Finance from 1984 to 86, whenJohn Turner was just appointed
(03:10):
as the prime minister and thenwent into election and lost it,
and so the Mulroney governmentcame in and I was at the
Department of Finance working oncorporate tax reform and in
fact I wrote a document at thattime that came out with Michael
Wilson's 1985 budget onrestructuring the corporate tax,
and again a number of thingswere adopted out of that reform
(03:32):
as well.
So I had that experience.
I worked with the World Bank,the International Monetary Fund,
the OECD and others on taxreform, sometimes on federal
fiscal relations in some of thefederal countries, sometimes on
(03:56):
some aspects related to goodsand services taxes or
value-added taxes.
You know a host of things thatI've done over the years that
involve governments of differentstripes, and in Canada I worked
with a number of the provinces,including even giving advice to
whether it was the NDP inSaskatchewan or the liberals in
(04:18):
Prince Edward Island or theconservatives in some of the
other provinces as well.
So I've had a varied backgroundwhich I've enjoyed over the
years.
Stewart Muir (04:31):
So you're a great example of an impartial advisor
on information that youvalidated as a PhD economist yes
, I think I've always toldpeople how I felt.
Jack Mintz (04:41):
Yes, I think I've always told people how I felt,
and some people liked themessage, so they adopted it.
Some other people maybe didn'tlike it and so they didn't want
to have my advice.
But that was fine.
I told.
No matter who was in power orwho was seeking my advice, they
(05:01):
would hear the same thing fromme, no matter what.
Stewart Muir (05:04):
This will sound like a dumb question, so I hope
you will permit me, withoutmocking me what is the economy
and how does it work?
Jack Mintz (05:19):
Well, an economy, I guess, is defined as all the
value of all the transactionsthat are made in an economy
between households and firms.
Among firms, they're buying andselling goods and services.
Households are supplying laborand maybe capital to firms to
produce things.
It's a very circular picture inwhich money rolls around.
(05:43):
In which money rolls around and, of course, the important thing
about economics is that ittries to explain how decisions
are made to optimize the valueof things for households and for
firms as a result of peoplejust making their transactions
(06:03):
in their best interest.
Stewart Muir (06:04):
You're a PhD in economics.
You're from Edmonton, Alberta.
There's another PhD ineconomics from Edmonton, name of
Mark Carney, who's in the newsa lot, Probably why we're
talking today.
I mean, how many PhDs ineconomics come from Edmonton?
Is it a thing up there?
Jack Mintz (06:24):
Well of course there are PhDs.
I didn't get my PhD fromAlberta.
I was born and raised inEdmonton.
Right you come from Edmonton.
Stewart Muir (06:33):
And.
Jack Mintz (06:34):
I went to the University of Alberta for my
undergraduate degree and then Iwent on and did a master's at
Queen's University.
I worked a year at thenow-defunct Economic Council of
Canada and then met my wife atthe end of the year and we went
off to England where I did myPhD for three years.
And then I came back and Itaught at Queen's for 11 years
(06:57):
and University of Toronto for 18years and then I went out to
Calgary to start up the newschool of public policy at
University of Calgary.
To start up the new school ofpublic policy at University
Calgary.
Stewart Muir (07:07):
Now I heard that Mark Carney got the same
scholarship as you to get hisPhD in the UK.
Jack Mintz (07:12):
I understand he got a Commonwealth fellowship and so
did I.
It was a very competitiveprocess at that time.
They awarded Commonwealthfellowships the UK government
did did to a lot of the oldcolonies of the British Empire,
now referred to as theCommonwealth.
(07:33):
By that point Canada got 10 ofthem every year and so I was
very lucky to get one.
I was very pleased to get itand it was a tremendous support
to have.
In the first two years, in fact, I turned down a scholarship a
Canada Council scholarship,because I did get the
(07:53):
Commonwealth.
But then in my third year Itook the Canada Council one
because Commonwealth was goodfor two years.
Stewart Muir (08:01):
Jack, I must say you come across as calm and
rational, the epitome of ascholar in economics.
But in seeing your writings oflate and some of the things that
when we were on a stagetogether in Vancouver, I
detected a man frustrated bycircumstances that are around us
(08:24):
in the Canadian economy, canyou tell me about this
frustration you're experiencing?
Jack Mintz (08:30):
Well, I think it really goes back to, I think,
the past 10 years.
As I mentioned, I worked backin 1984 in my sixth year at
Queen's University.
I spent two years at theDepartment of Finance.
I saw the operation ofgovernment at that time.
The Mulroney government came in.
(08:51):
They had some big ideas,including tax reform, of which
the goods and services tax wasone of the pillars that later
came into being.
But also there was the freetrade agreement with the United
States.
That was done.
I think that was a tremendousmove forward.
Marwini also tried to deal withCanada's constitutional
(09:15):
problems and particularly triedto get through the Meech Lake, a
cord that didn't go through,and so he got two out of three
things done.
But uh, but you know, he, hecertainly had some success as a
prime minister and thegovernment at that time had
success.
And then I was around, uh, as aclifford clark visiting
(09:39):
economist at finance in 96, in1997.
Stewart Muir (09:44):
so jean chien, prime minister at that time.
Jack Mintz (09:47):
Yes, Chrétien was the prime minister and Paul
Martin was the minister offinance.
Stewart Muir (09:52):
Waiting in the wings.
Jack Mintz (09:53):
And I was brought in at a very high level to deal
with both budget issues as wellas chairing a business tax
reform panel that I mentionedearlier on, and there were a lot
of good things done during thatperiod, particularly dealing
with the terrible deficit thatwe had.
Tremendous progress that wasmade.
(10:14):
Tax reform was also done.
There were a number of verygood decisions that were made by
the government at that time,and so I was very pleased to see
that kind of progress.
And then when Stephen Harpergot elected in 2004, and he as a
minority government, then lateron as a majority in 2011, but
(10:35):
he also did some very goodthings.
I was on the Economic AdvisoryCouncil that Jim Flaherty
appointed when he was Ministerof Finance in 2008 to deal with
the financial crisis.
I saw firsthand the work thatwas done, especially by the
Department of Finance, indealing with the financial
crisis, and also the Harvardgovernment made a number of very
(10:58):
good decisions, including somemovement on taxation.
Even further movement he gotrid of the Canada Canine Wheat
Board, which was a very poorinstitution to have in Canada.
It was there for years, but itwas certainly tremendous
(11:19):
progress that was made inimproving the distribution of
grain for Canadian farmers, plusa number of other reforms that
were done.
So you know very goodgovernment.
As a result, my real frustrationhas come since 2015, where I've
seen government decisions thathave been less focused on issues
like productivity and growth, amovement away from the kind of
(11:43):
fiscal discipline that westarted First under Mulroney,
although he didn't do a greatjob at it.
There were things that heshould have done, that he didn't
do with the deficit, but itcertainly was dealt with by the
liberals in the 90s.
The Harper government continuedit and even with the financial
(12:05):
crisis, harper ended uprestoring balance to the books
by 2015.
And so there were a lot of goodthings that were done, but then
I started seeing that unraveland I was getting very concerned
about Canada's productivity andits growth prospects as a
result of focus onredistributing income, which I
(12:26):
think is important to have asocial safety net, but not at
the expense of giving up ongrowth.
And here we are 10 years laterand I feel that my concerns are
justified in terms of what I'veseen over the past 10 years.
Stewart Muir (12:42):
So, jack, you were active as an economist and
advisor under John Turner, whenhe was head of the Liberal Party
, under Moroney, when he was theconservative prime minister,
under Jean Chrétien and thenPaul Martin.
As two successive Liberal primeministers, you thought things
were working.
You seem happy with the generaldrift of things, the program
(13:05):
review that you referred to,when government was just pared
back to what it needed to be wasunder a liberal government in
93 onwards, and then the otherreforms you initiated, and then
Harper came along, and it seemsto be a story of continuity
through all of those years until2015.
Would that be a fair summary?
Jack Mintz (13:27):
I think it would be a fair summary and I've written
about this.
There was a change in 1980.
Well, let me go back a bit whenI was a PhD student in England.
I saw the PhD student inEngland.
I saw the difficulties thatGreat Britain went through with
(13:49):
respect to having an economythat was really going downhill.
You know, there were a lot ofdifficulties.
Exchange rate dropped like astone.
In fact, when I first came toBritain in 1975, it was $2.30
Canadian for every British pound.
One year later it was down to$1.68.
(14:09):
I mean, that's a tremendouschange to happen in devaluation
and it was part and parcel ofwhat was going on.
I remember the coal strike thatwent on when I was there, the
bread strike where all of asudden you couldn't buy bread,
et cetera, et cetera.
All these things happened andtowards the end, that was the
(14:33):
time when I became, when I wasgoing back to Canada, but it was
also the time that MargaretThatcher got elected and then,
of course, reagan got elected in1980.
And there was a big switchactually in public policy in the
world, including Canada, whereit became a focus on trying to
grow the private sector byreducing the role of government
(14:58):
or the intervention thatgovernments had that impeded
growth.
Governments had that impededgrowth.
In fact, when I was at financein 1984, mickey Cohen, who was
the deputy minister at that time, prepared books for the new
government whoever it was goingto be, whether it was liberal or
(15:20):
conservative on removingobstacles to economic growth in
Canada and it had all the sortsof things that we saw later on.
You know privatization, taxreforms, a number, you know a
host of policies that wouldreally put a focus on economic
growth.
Because previous 15 years werenot very good years and from an
(15:42):
economic policy perspective wedidn't have very good growth and
governments inflated theeconomy.
We had very high inflationduring that period and there
were a lot of severe problems asa result of government spending
that went up much faster thantaxes and huge government
deficits and a pileup of debtduring that period.
(16:04):
And when the Mulroneygovernment took over it was to
start righting the situation andeven though he did make some
advancement during that period,it wasn't enough really and
really waited to the liberals in1993, when they got elected, to
(16:25):
start really dealing with thedeficit through a very difficult
1995 budget that led tosignificant cuts.
But it was all a way of tryingto right what was going wrong.
And of course the provinces alsocarried out similar changes,
particularly in Alberta and inOntario.
There was quite large changesthat were made, but even in
(16:45):
Saskatchewan trying to deal witha fiscal situation, but all
reflecting really a new way oflooking at things
philosophically in the world.
Going back to the Reagan andthe Thatcher revolution that
said we have to rely on themarket to help grow the economy.
(17:08):
We can't just have governmentstrying to lead it through this
through their various activities.
Stewart Muir (17:12):
And we have terms from then like Reaganism or, you
know, thatcherites doing theireconomic policy.
Those were used more asepithets because not everyone
was in favor of breaking up theold order, because there were
different oxes that had to begored there.
Do you think it was somethingthat when it came to Canada
(17:36):
through the actions of liberaland conservative governments,
that, because it had happenedelsewhere already, it was maybe
an easier transition for Canadajust to get with the program and
pare back excessive spendingand have a balance of growth and
also redistribution?
Jack Mintz (17:54):
I think the issue is balance, and that's what Canada
was good at is keeping thatbalance between making sure you
have good public services, asocial safety net for people,
but at the same time you havespending on those activities
that create growth.
I remember one thing I alwaysliked about Paul Martin's
(18:17):
budgets particularly is theywere very focused and everyone
was on a very specific thing andeveryone was on a very specific
thing, whether it was researchand development or education,
for example.
But those areproductivity-enhancing
expenditures that you know thatwas an emphasis during that time
, and so it wasn't just taxreform or deregulation or
(18:49):
privatization you know that wascarried out but it was also
really having a much betterfocus for government spending
that really put emphasis onareas that needed to be done and
it wasn't just displaying aspending that went on over.
Stewart Muir (18:59):
You know, at that time it feels like a different
era.
I remember, as a lowlyjournalist showing up at Paul
Martin's office.
We'd have a conversation almostlike this.
It would be like he wouldexplain his idea to me and I'd
go wow, that's fascinating.
And he actually took the timeto meet with me when I would
(19:20):
make my occasional forays out toOttawa from Vancouver.
I feel like we're in adifferent era now where if I did
that meeting, all I would getwould be some sort of bizarre
sound bites.
It feels like we're indifferent times.
Has it changed?
Maybe?
Before we go there, I just wantto say that you started talking
(19:42):
about 2015, forward and what'sdifferent.
I want to come back to that ina moment, but has something
changed in how people talk toeach other?
Jack Mintz (19:49):
Okay, I've written about this once before.
In fact, I gave a speech calledthe Princeton Lectures at
University of Alberta recentlyand I republished it in the
National Post.
But basically it's an argumentthat there's been a tremendous
change in philosophy publicpolicy philosophy over the past
(20:11):
25 years and when we go back tothe year 2000, it was really a
period of very good growth inthe world.
You actually had a sharpreduction in inequality in the
world, in the sense that Asiancountries grew a lot and their
per capita incomes grew a lot.
(20:32):
But it came at an expense, andthe expense was certain parts of
the population in the advancedcountries, where people lost
jobs because manufacturing wentto Asia and China and et cetera,
and so there became a kind ofresentment towards this
(20:59):
globalization and trade.
There became a view thatgovernments weren't controlling
the economy anymore well enoughand they needed to be more
directive of things.
And then the 2008 financialcrisis, where really bad banking
practices, partly as a resultof the regulatory system, led to
(21:19):
people losing their houses inEurope and in the United States
and a real feeling thatgovernments weren't doing their
job very well.
And it was after that period,plus the adoption of social
media, that really gave abullhorn to people, whether it
was Occupy Wall Street or lateron, to voice their criticisms of
(21:45):
what was happening.
To voice their criticisms ofwhat was happening.
And so in the past periods,especially since 2010, we
started seeing the shift inpolicy, where it became much
more nationalistic.
Governments had to control theeconomy, industrial policy
became in vogue, trade became abad thing, not a good thing,
(22:09):
even though it allowed people tohave more redistribution to
(22:32):
parts of the population.
People started talking aboutguaranteed incomes, all sorts of
other policies, but I think theconcern that I had was the
movement towards nationalism,and, in fact, we've now seen a
manifestation of that over thepast year, as the Trump
administration has brought intariffs that we haven't seen
(22:55):
before, very high levels oftariffs.
All that is part of an Americafirst strategy, which is a very
nationalistic strategy, which isa very nationalistic strategy.
There's also been more warshappening, as we've seen in
Europe and the Middle East, butnow we're starting to see
(23:17):
governments ramping up theirmilitary expenditure and, partly
pushed by the Americans, sayingwe no longer want to pay for it
all.
You're going to have to pay forit too, and so we're seeing a
very different world today.
That kind of reminds me,unfortunately, of what happened
before the first world war and,of course, we saw what happened
with the ugly side ofnationalism in the second world
(23:39):
war, when Hitler came to powerand carried out the most
terrible things that we stillhaven't forgotten about today.
Stewart Muir (23:48):
It almost sounds like Trump could be seen as a
historical inevitability.
Is that?
Jack Mintz (23:53):
possible.
I think it is an inevitability.
I think he's an extreme form ofit.
When he brought in thisreciprocal tariffs I would have
never thought he would bring in50% tariff rates and things like
that, but what we're seeingtoday in the United States and
in Europe and other countries isreally, I think, a
(24:15):
manifestation of this changethat I think began in 2008-9
with the financial crisis, whereall of a sudden it became
markets are bad.
Only governments can solveproblems and, of course, as soon
as you have only governmentscan solve problems, it increases
or moves more and more towardsnationalism, where governments
(24:38):
have to control the borders andthe country that they're running
.
Stewart Muir (24:43):
So how was this experienced in Canada starting
in 2015?
I mean, of course, we know thatwas when the Trudeau government
took office, but we're pointinghere you are pointing to some
patterns as well that are biggerthan one country.
Jack Mintz (25:02):
Yeah, well, it partly started in the Harper
government had to deal withtakeovers by state-owned
enterprises in in the energyarea, uh, particularly uh in
Canada, and and started usingnational security as as a way of
, you know, blocking uh certaintypes of of uh takeovers and and
I didn't have a major issue onthe national security side by
(25:27):
side.
But I did have a concern aboutstate-owned enterprises taking
over Canadian businesses,because here we went to a lot of
length to privatize companiesin Canada from crown
corporations, to great successactually in many cases and then
all of a sudden we're gettingstate-owned enterprises buying
up Canadian businesses and I hadmy concerns with that
(25:49):
particularly.
Stewart Muir (25:50):
I thought one of Canada's problems as a country
is that we have a pretty smallpopulation, vast landmass.
It's very hard to get theamount of capital required to
develop industry.
So we have to go to foreignersto say bring us your capital and
help us develop this thing herein Canada.
So if it's a rich person fromEurope or it's a state-owned
enterprise from Asia or whateverit is, it's just someone with
(26:14):
money.
Isn't that a good thing if wewant to develop our economy,
regardless of who has that money?
Jack Mintz (26:20):
I have always written that foreign direct
investment is a good thing.
It can improve management, itcan bring new technology.
But I've also written aboutgoing back actually to my PhD
thesis.
I've also written aboutstate-owned enterprises aren't
all that successful.
In fact, my whole PhD thesiswas about public-private mixed
enterprises companies that arejointly owned by governments and
(26:45):
private investors and, in fact,jointly owned by governments
and private investors.
And in fact, when Chinastate-owned enterprises came in
and bought Nexen and some othercompanies in Canada, I couldn't
believe that my PhD thesis camealive again, because the
(27:05):
state-owned enterprises fromChina would say oh no, no, we're
just like commercialenterprises, we're no different
and in fact we sell shares.
Some of our ownership is soldoff in the market in Hong Kong
or New York, so we behave justlike commercial enterprises,
which was exactly opposite towhat I showed in my PhD thesis
(27:27):
30 years earlier.
And several other countriesthere became this view that all
of a sudden we should havestate-owned enterprises, should
partly sell their shares off ortheir ownership off to have some
market discipline and theywould perform better as
companies.
But that actually didn't happen.
(27:48):
In fact, it's a very difficultrelationship between government
and private investors becausegovernments want to pursue
objectives that are not justprofitability, and then they
start bringing in requirementsthat are needed.
So I didn't object to foreigninvestment coming into Canada.
I'm quite agreeable to it.
My bigger problem wasstate-owned enterprise
(28:10):
investments coming into Canada.
Stewart Muir (28:12):
Look, we're in the middle of the federal election
race.
I just want to get at some ofthe issues that seem to be
consistently at the core of whatpeople are talking about, and
I'm really surprised that in2025, energy is a huge topic,
not just before and in the earlydays of the race, but for weeks
(28:34):
.
It's maintained.
Pipelines, building pipelines.
Candidates are being asked howwould they build pipelines?
Would they build pipelines?
And we're getting somedifferent answers.
I'm not clear whether we'regetting straight answers from
everybody and I'd like you tohelp me find that out.
(28:54):
So, mark Carney, leader of theliberals, pierre Poliev,
conservatives their solution.
In a way, they have the samesolution streamline
infrastructure and energyprojects.
They're both talking about that.
Do you think that they aresaying the right things to get
(29:16):
those things done?
Do you think?
Jack Mintz (29:17):
that they are saying the right things to get those
things done.
I'm actually kind of gratifiedthat both the liberals and the
conservatives are focused muchmore on growth this election.
If you notice, there's hardlyany discussion about starting up
new programs for redistribution.
For redistribution, I thinkpeople are now very worried
(29:40):
about economic growth because ifyou don't have economic growth,
you can't afford theredistribution programs you want
, and that's why I've alwaysbeen worried myself about
economic growth and,unfortunately, the past decade
we have really hurt ourselves interms of not just the oil and
gas sector, in terms of gettingthings done, but also even in
mining and other resourcesectors where we could do a much
(30:04):
better job.
Because Canada, regardless ofwhat anyone wants to say, is
basically a resource-basedeconomy.
It's given us huge comparativeadvantage and opportunities to
create wealth, and so bothparties seem to be much more
(30:25):
focused on especially on energyand trying to get things going.
However, there is, I think, anunclear statement from the
liberals and Mark Carneyvis-a-vis the oil and gas sector
.
They talk about havingelectrical transmission across
(30:46):
the country, and there's beensome discussion about maybe a
pipeline from east to west,maybe to displace the imported
oil that we bring from abroad,but I don't see a real
commitment towards liquefiednatural gas being sold
internationally or more oilbeing sold internationally by
(31:06):
the liberals, although it's veryclear that the conservatives
would be willing to go in thatdirection, and so I still think
that's a major wedge issue inthis election campaign, in that
we really don't have a clearview from the liberals whether
they support more oil and gasdevelopment.
Stewart Muir (31:27):
Jack, there's a policy from the Trudeau time,
the emissions cap.
And recently another economistthis one, the parliamentary
budget officer said it's not acap, it's a production cap.
It's not an emissions cap.
It will reduce the GDP from theoil and gas sector by 5%.
It'll cost, I think, 40,000 or42,000 jobs.
(31:50):
It's definitely a cap onproduction and that's going to
result in a specific economicdecline.
I noticed that was brushedaside almost staringly by Mark
Carney, as if.
Who's this parliamentary budgetofficer?
What does he know?
It's an emissions cap, not aproduction cap.
I mean, what do you make ofthis?
(32:11):
Which is it?
Jack Mintz (32:12):
Oh, it's definitely.
It's an emissions cap that willlead to a production cap.
There's no question in my mind.
It's not just the PVO analysis,but it's also other analyses
that make this very clear.
But it's not just that.
Also, the concern made clearthat they want to revamp the
regulatory system Bill C-69,which, by the way, not only
(32:35):
makes it very difficult to buildoil and gas infrastructure, but
it's also very difficult to getmining projects off the ground
too.
Supposed to take a short periodto get approvals done, but they
(33:00):
.
It has only been one or twoprojects that have actually
gotten through the whole systemand it's took years to get them
approved.
And and there's a whole bunchof projects that are, that are
in the in the line, but they've.
They've gone well past thefirst stage where there was
supposed to be approvals by acertain point in time.
Uh, and it hasn't been done yet.
But that's not the only issue.
(33:20):
There's not just only theemissions cap, the oil and gas
emissions cap and Bill C-69,which has really hampered the
development of regulationbecause of all the requirements
that are required and that arepart of that system, but also
(33:41):
the carbon plan that is beingproposed by the liberals, and
I've read that plan in quitedetail.
It includes new mandates, forexample, for industrial
emissions.
It has new requirements thatare going to be under the
(34:03):
so-called industrial carbon tax.
That will be a lot stiffer.
It includes the idea thatbusinesses will sell credits or
buy credits from not just otherfirms but from the private
sector, which I find reallyconcerning because I suspect
(34:28):
that's going to be full of abusein the end.
And then there's a carbontariff that's being proposed,
which is very complicated orborder adjustments as it's
called and that could have avery significant impact,
especially since the UnitedStates is not going in that
direction, and I can imagine ustrying to tariff manufactured
(34:50):
goods coming in from the UnitedStates because it has too much
carbon associated with them.
Stewart Muir (34:55):
So there's a couple of policies there where
there's a very stark contrastbetween Mark Carney for the
liberals and Pierre Poliev, andthose first two are in that
category.
The emissions cap Carney willnot get rid of, poliev will.
Bill C-69, carney keeps, polievgets rid of it.
Now they differ in this respect, but they're both saying oh, we
(35:20):
want to build pipelines.
Well, polyev has some ideasabout an energy corridor.
That's an interesting idea, andwhen he's in Calgary and maybe
Edmonton, mark Carney is infavor of pipelines.
But I noticed he was in Quebecand he said something different
that left it open tointerpretation.
(35:41):
Maybe pipelines aren't what'sneeded.
Is this confusing?
Jack Mintz (35:48):
It's confusing, but it also makes you question what
is the real stance of theliberals and can you really
trust what they're saying?
And I think that's one of theconcerns I have is there's a lot
of promises that have been madein this election campaign and
it's kind of interesting thatyou know governments that do get
(36:09):
elected often like to carry outtheir campaign promises.
You know, sometimes there'ssome that might get dropped,
mainly because they'reunrealistic in the first place,
but I do worry that actually.
You know, we've seen theliberals try to move back to the
center, but they've beencopying a lot of conservative
(36:29):
ideas.
You know, for example, notgoing ahead with a capital gains
tax increase, but who knows,maybe that will change.
Ahead with a capital gains taxincrease, but who knows, maybe
that will change.
Getting rid of the fuel charge,carbon tax but it actually
hasn't been killed bylegislation Because of these
flip-flops that are done by theliberals, for example, on the
(36:51):
oil and gas missions.
Cap is a good example.
First Mr Carney said he wasn'tgoing to move ahead with caps
and then two days later he saidOK, I'm going to be doing it,
because his minister ofenvironment said that, and I
think part of that reflectswhat's happened to the Liberal
Party.
The Liberal Party moved verymuch to the left over the past
decade.
It's not the same Liberal Partythat I knew in the 1990s and
(37:14):
worked with at that time.
While a leader may try to shiftsome of that back to the center
, he doesn't necessarily havefull control over the party, and
there's the same people thatare going to be elected if they
end up winning power.
It's going to be the very samepeople that are going to be back
in the cabinet that were duringthe turtle years, and so I
(37:36):
don't know and I'm not convincedthat we are actually going to
see a major change in policy bythe liberals if they win this
after this election.
Stewart Muir (37:47):
There's a term they use in the Quebec press
Trudeauism.
You don't really see that forwhatever reason, in Anglo-Canada
, although it's a pretty gooddescription of something that
was around for 10 years andvoters by the end got pretty
sick of and then they got rid ofthe guy called Trudeau but not,
it would seem, Trudeauism.
So is Carney just acontinuation of Trudeauism,
(38:09):
based on what we're seeing oncampaign?
Jack Mintz (38:11):
One thing you know, and I do know Mark Carney and
you know he is an intelligentperson and I don't doubt that he
will probably make some betterdecisions as a prime minister.
But he does have his ideology,particularly over climate change
, which again will go contraryto resource development,
(38:34):
especially in oil and gas.
But also there'll be issuesaround agriculture and when you
read his book Values and some ofthe things that he said in the
past and using the financialsector to influence the way
capital is going to be spent oncompanies that cause emissions
or don't cause emissions,there'll be an allocation
(38:56):
towards those companies thatreduce emissions.
So I think a lot of that is thesort of thing that we've seen
over the past decade.
That I think will continue.
And of course, this will havenot only major issues vis-a-vis
the economy and growth of oureconomy, because the oil and gas
sector, the agricultural sector, generally the resource sector,
(39:17):
is so important to Canada thatit also will have some
implications for national unity,because we might see a
continuing alienation in WesternCanada.
That will continue.
That could have ramificationsdown the road in terms of what
(39:38):
happens to Canada as a country.
Stewart Muir (39:40):
Well, I see an economist who I came to
associate over the last decadewith that kind of a green
conservative movement of carbonpricing conservatives,
christopher Reagan from McGillMcGill, and he's out saying well
(40:01):
, you know, the submissions capcould provoke Western separatism
in a way that we might not beready for.
You know, the cap is causing alot of agitation, not just in
Calgary, where you might say, ohyeah, what else is new?
But in Toronto.
I mean, we saw business leaderswho wouldn't normally be
putting statements out of apartisan nature to say vote for
this party To me.
I was surprised to see like 30names of the titans of business
(40:24):
of Bay Street saying you know,we're really concerned about
these policies, so much so we'reasking you to place your vote
over here.
This seems like new territory.
Things have been turned upsidedown.
Jack Mintz (40:37):
Oh, that's right, and I think that's why this is a
very important election in thatsense.
And you know, I think the youknow, and I wrote about this a
while ago after the carbon plan,that was one of the first
things that Mark Horningpublished was this carbon plan.
It came out very quickly and Isaid, you know, and I went
(40:58):
through that plan, I said here,this is really replacing one
carbon tax with another biggercarbon tax on big emitters, and
plus, there was a lot more addedto it in terms of what the
carbon plan would be.
And I said this will be a wedgeissue, no doubt.
(41:18):
And I think the reason why youhave business leaders here in
Toronto that are very concernedis you look at the story of
Trans Mountain Pipelines.
That could have been built injust a few years' time if it had
gone away, but instead it tookyears to get developed.
It took years to get developedand now that it's finally
working, which gives us anoption vis-a-vis the United
(41:39):
States in terms of selling ouroil somewhere else besides the
United States, it has added also0.25 percentage points to
Canada's GDP, and that's not asmall number.
And so, you know, add up allthese different projects that
haven't been able to go throughall these years is a very good
(42:01):
example of kind of the problemsthat we've missed out on or
we've made and the opportunitiesthat we have.
Stewart Muir (42:19):
Trans Mountain Project.
Now we have a government thatsays you know what, let's tax
that out of existence, let's puta cap on the production of that
, even though we just spent $32billion of taxpayer money to
build that project.
That gets that very product tomarket.
You know what?
I don't want to seem like we'rejust singling out Carney.
Let's look at Poliev here.
He's talked about this Nationalenergy corridor.
Is this a panacea?
(42:39):
Is it a quick fix that soundsgreat but will fall apart as
soon as you look into thedetails?
Jack Mintz (42:45):
Well, I think it's going to be a different way of
regulation.
I actually, when I was directorof the School of Public Policy,
we actually started a series ofresearch on the national
corridor, and I look at it notjust in terms of energy but in
terms of other infrastructure,and my favorite example is
Australia, but there's been someother countries that followed
(43:06):
this type of approach where youhave a corridor that's created
that deals with some of thecommon issues that would be
found with any project thatwould go into it, whether it's
an electrical transmission line,a railway, a pipeline or
whatever, and the issues thatyou deal with with the corridor
(43:29):
are the kinds of things that arevery important, such as the
indigenous claims, some of themaybe major environmental issues
that are common to all projects, things like that.
But once a corridor is approved,then the next step is if
somebody wants to put in arailway, or if they want to put
in a pipeline or electricaltransmission line, they just
(43:52):
need to get the project approvedwithout adding all the things.
In fact, under Bill C-69 todayand the Australians have a very
fast way of getting projectsapproved.
In fact, when I was on theboard of Barefield, we were able
to get in one year a railwayput in Western Australia in a
pre-approved corridor as anexample, and I know that
(44:17):
TransAlta was able to get anelectric transmission line
quickly done within a year inAustralia, but in Canada we've
taken years to get these thingsapproved, and so I think there
is something to the concept ofnational corridor, but I
wouldn't want it to be just anenergy corridor that the
Conservatives have mentioned.
I like it to be something thatwould apply to any type of
(44:40):
infrastructure that we want inorder to transport goods or
energy or for whatever crosslines.
Stewart Muir (44:47):
A year ago you wrote a paper it was called or
you co-wrote Resources Are StillOur Golden Goose, and I read
that paper.
I thought it was full ofinsights Too many to mention
here, because you see, naturalresources, that's what resources
are, and natural resources aremining and forestry and energy,
(45:08):
and maybe we've missed some.
But things that come out of theground in some form are grown
or mined or cut down.
Why do you see them as sofoundational to the Canadian
story Jack?
Jack Mintz (45:20):
Well, of course, it goes in history back to the fur
trade.
In fact, we sold lumber fishand other things at the
beginning when Canada firststarted off.
But it's a huge comparativeadvantage for Canada the
resources and one of the thingsin preparation of that paper I
spent a lot of time looking atwas the trade literature.
(45:43):
And sure enough, the areaswhere you have comparative
advantage are the ones that youend up exporting and you
actually end up creating a lotof wealth for a country and a
lot of economic progress.
And we were blessed withresources.
It was kind of like mana thatfell from heaven and we should
(46:07):
be taking advantage of that andwe shouldn't believe that.
In fact, there was a view JustinTrudeau even said it himself
that we're not a country ofresources, we're going to be a
country of resourceful people.
Well, that's all very nice, butin fact I was really shocked.
(46:28):
I was looking at a website ofthe federal government a couple
of years ago and they talkedabout all the advantages of
Canada, but the one thing theydidn't mention was resources.
And yet we built this countryon the resource sector.
And so when you look at ourexports, our major exports,
except for the auto, trade isall associated with resources,
(46:50):
whether it's oil and gas, mining, agricultural goods, mining
agricultural goods all thesethings are resource-based.
When you look at the importanceof the energy sector, as well as
the resource sector in general,to Canada's GDP, which includes
all the related industries thatare at both the manufacturing
(47:13):
and the distribution state, andrelated being in the sense that
a significant part of theirvalue added is based on
resources of some sort, it'slike 25% of Canada's GDP in
total.
So it's a huge industry.
It's a huge part of our life inCanada and it's paid for a lot
(47:35):
of the things that people want.
They've gotten good salaries,so they have money in their
pocket to go and buy goods andservices.
We've gotten taxes out of theindustries.
That has allowed governments toprovide all sorts of social
services, which kind of goesback to my long-run view about
(47:55):
how important it is to have astrong economy so that you could
have real prosperity in societyat the same time, and that's
why I've always been veryfocused on economic growth as a
very important thing forcountries like Canada.
Stewart Muir (48:10):
Now, these things were true before January 20th,
but 86 days into Trump 2.0,should we be thinking even more
about the importance of thatpoint?
Jack Mintz (48:21):
Yes, I think that it's very important that we
think about what kind of worldorder we're going to have in the
future.
Resources are still going to beneeded, no matter how the world
gets reordered after what Trumpis doing, and we may want to
(48:42):
trade with other countries.
In fact, I had argued in myrecent piece that not only
should we look to try to tradewith other countries, but we
should actually go back to someof the trade agreements we've
had like with Europe and Asiancountries and even go further to
reduce tariffs and non-tradebarriers that we can, and I hope
that we can actually work outsomething with the United States
(49:04):
.
Maybe it will be after Trumpleaves.
I think we'll be dealing withwhatever we have in the United
States to deal with, because, inthe end, we're a continent that
has benefited from the strongties that we've had between
Canada, the United States andMexico, and so I think we need
(49:25):
to restore that wealth and thinkof North America as a very
strong region in the world.
That is very important, and Ithink even Trump has a view that
the continent itself, the NorthAmerican continent itself, is
(49:46):
really the American playpen in asense, and of course, we don't
want the United States takingover Canada, or nor do we want
the United States taking overMexico.
That would be not somethingthat would be even conceivable,
I think.
But certainly working togetherwill probably still be required
(50:08):
because even with tradediversification, our best
economics lie with trading withthe United States.
Stewart Muir (50:16):
What if we fail in reaching the promise of getting
resources to market?
Jack Mintz (50:23):
I think that you know, even though we have very
good education system,well-trained workforce and we're
a peaceful society here inCanada, but you know, the
resource sector has given us thekind of comparative advantage
that you don't find elsewhere,because there are other
societies that haveinfrastructure, they have a good
(50:44):
education system, you know, etcetera.
But unless we find analternative, if we're just doing
what everybody else is doing,we don't have any comparative
advantage in doing that, and soit's going to hurt our
prosperity quite a bit if weshut down that resource sector.
Stewart Muir (51:06):
Jacques Mitz, thanks for your insights.
Jack Mintz (51:08):
My pleasure.
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.