Power Struggle
Improving the energy dialogue in Canada (and beyond) through honest, non-partisan, and fact- based conversations.
The energy conversation is personal: it’s in our homes, in our hands, and now, it’s in our ears. Power Struggle invites you to listen in on honest, non-partisan, and fact-based conversations between host Stewart Muir and the leaders and thinkers designing modern energy.
Watch videos at https://www.youtube.com/@PowerStrugglePod
Power Struggle
🇨🇦 Polls, Promises, and Politics | Election Special Ep.1 with John Ivison
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
I think the resource issue is a national issue. This time it's not just the West, because it's not just about Alberta's resources. It's about the diversification of those resources for the health, financial health of the country.
Stewart Muir:Welcome to Power Struggle. I'm the host, stuart Muir, and this is the first episode of a special federal election campaign series. We are going to be tackling the real issues that are shaping Canada's future. Through the current federal election, we're going to aim to cut through the noise of all the campaign promises we're hearing and we're going to get to the heart of the economic and political realities around our favorite subject, which is energy. That's why we're called Power Struggle. We need to ask questions when is Canada really headed? What does it mean when we hear certain pledges and promises from the different political leaders who are making them? Are they legit and what do they mean for the country? So let's find out.
Stewart Muir:Today, canada is at a crossroads, especially with the rapidly shifting political landscape in the United States. Resource development, energy security, indigenous economic partnerships these are some of the big issues that I'm watching, but there's other issues too and we're wondering who's shaping them. Joining me today is a veteran political journalist who I've known for a very long time. He has sharp political instincts, a deep understanding of how the country works John Iveson, ottawa political columnist for the National Post. John, welcome, hi, stuart, good to connect to you. We go back a long ways, don't we Back to the previous millennium, the late 1990s. We started working together for quite a spell.
John Ivison:Yeah Well, I do feel it's a bit like the jockey asking questions of the horse here, in that I should see John Iverson byline pop up that's something I'm going to stop and read.
Stewart Muir:I recommend it to everyone. The depth, but I think there's something beyond that. You're a writer's writer. I mean really your book on one of my favorite writers and I've been to his birthplace, robbie Burns. I mean, you're not just a political columnist, john, you are someone who really you're a poet, and I've appreciated your work over the years. But I didn't bring you on just to butter you up because I think let's get into it. You know, every election we hear campaign slogans and then it's your job to sort it out for us. And I'd like to ask this question from your vantage point what is this election all about?
John Ivison:In a word Trump. I mean I think at the moment you know there will be other issues and we're going to get into what the other issues are, but at the moment it's all about who do voters think can best handle Trump. I mean, I think we've seen almost an unprecedented rise in the Liberal Party's fortunes, from nearly rock bottom. They were at 16% at some polls when Justin Trudeau was there. Trudeau left, resigned.
John Ivison:In the last two months we've seen the Liberal fortunes rocket and as soon as Mark Carney looked like he was going to become the leader, they became turbocharged and most polls now have the two parties, the conservatives and the liberals, either neck and neck, which frankly gives the liberals the government because they would either win a minority or a majority and presumably the NDP would prop them up.
John Ivison:But in some polls now the momentum is continuing and there's clear blue water between the liberals and the conservatives and the main driver of that is that the polls suggest that people think Carney would be better at handling Trump than Pierre Poiliev. They think that this the conservative leader has used, even if he's not a mini Trump, which is the accusation from some people, and I don't think he is. I don't think he's a populist in the same way that Trump is, but he has used a lot of the same kind of language about Canada being broken and some of the other things that he said that are still needed to the media, the fact he's going to cut foreign aid, et cetera, et cetera, and so, fairly or unfairly, people think he would be more accommodating to Trump, and that, to me as a moment, is what is driving the vote, and it's Pauliev's job now to try and raise Carney's negatives and raise questions about things like energy.
Stewart Muir:Well, it's a fascinating situation where we have whole chunks of what Polyev has been talking about and put into his campaign platform for actually years now. Suddenly, Carney is adopting them. Is that because he likes those policies or because he wants to steal a march on Polyev and just sort of leave Polyev having to pivot to something else?
John Ivison:anything else. Well, I think there's a bit of the magpie in it in that apparently, yesterday I made a GST announcement on housing, which is something that Poilieva has been touting for a long time. But I think the circumstance whereby our main customer to the south now looks like it's an adversary and there's obviously whoever comes in has got to try and diversify the customer base. I think inevitably that pushes both parties in the same direction, like how do you do this? Um, that the? The accusation that the conservatives are leveling against carly is that his environmental considerations will mean that he can't pivot quickly enough, and I think, from the conservative point of view, they're going to be pushing everything they can to suggest that they are the party that will create opportunities in the resource industry more quickly. In fact, I announced something yesterday whereby areas would be designated as development zones and would be permitted ahead of time. So there is a bit of a rush in the same direction, but I'm not sure it's straight up stealing from the liberals. They're just circumstances dictate that they have to respond.
Stewart Muir:Now, as one who has devoted a very significant amount of his career to the climate cause in terms of international finance, when he was in the Bank of England and started the net zero finance initiative in Glasgow a number of years ago, which now is coming apart at the seams as Canadian and US banks leave this climate-oriented policy vehicle. Climate-oriented policy vehicle. Is it going to be credible to the voters that Carney's looking for that he actually is abandoning a lot of what he was talking about and taking up things that it was very clear he was not in favor of only a few years ago?
John Ivison:I think it's a difficult one. I mean, he's got to walk a tightrope there. There's not much he can do about resurrecting the sort of ESG and finance initiatives there. They're multilateral initiatives that are way beyond his current remit. So I think you know, at some stage he says, well, that was then, this is now. So I think he's, but he clearly believes much the same things. So how do you walk that tightrope? I mean to me. So Danielle Smith came out yesterday with a whole raft of not requests, demands that the federal government has got to respond to, and we can touch on that later.
John Ivison:I thought the tone was pretty appalling, given that we're a a national crisis. But, um, but some of them are, are are legitimate. And let's take the example of the oil and gas emissions cap, which carney's new environment minister apparently said yeah, we're still in favor of it. This is something that steven gabo brought in, and to me, carney could ditch that policy as long as he continues the federal backstop on the large emitter program in the provinces, which Pierre Poilievre this week said he was going to remove. I mean to me, if you've got a program like TIER in Alberta and you keep the stringency of credits fairly tight, and I would say at the moment they're probably too loose, because I think the credits are trading for around $40 and the price is $80.
John Ivison:So if you keep those credits tight and limited so that supply doesn't outweigh demand, then why do you also need a cap-and-trade system for an oil and gas emissions cap? I mean, you're sort of layering another layer of bureaucracy and regulation on top of one that exists already. And, from what I gather, there's not a huge amount of backlash against the larger emitter program. So why not keep those in place and make sure they work properly? And I think Carney has actually indicated that's what he wants to do, which is why it mystifies me why he would want to proceed with this oil and gas emissions cap. But that's the type of thing I'm talking about. As far as a title, he could do one and not the other.
Stewart Muir:Yes, you know, I think in recent years, even before it was known he was running for the leadership of the Liberals if you look back on some of the pronouncements from Mark Carney say in 2024, you know, I don't think anyone could look at it and say, oh, he's out to shut down the Canadian oil and gas sector or close the oil sands or even necessarily reduce them. But there would be the argument that well, the policies he is advocated for would be the effect that, in fact, rather than just reduce emissions, it would reduce the amount of oil produced, which is a thorny one. But the tone you mentioned, the tone 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 a letter. If you look at the five things they're asking for, it's actually very reasonable.
Stewart Muir:You know, the simplified regulation get some deadlines for approval who doesn't want that? You know, grow the amount of production as long as you're performing on the environmental front. I think the key thing there is the investments in indigenous participation in the economy. That's something the CEOs are calling for. Who wouldn't want that?
John Ivison:Well, just, touching on that. I mean, I think that's absolutely right. And in the last fiscal update, christopher Freeland finally brought in this policy whereby there would be loan guarantees for indigenous Canadians. And they've been calling for that for years and years and years and eventually there it is. That's an easy one for that for years and years and years and eventually there it is. That's an easy one for Carney to pick up and run with.
Stewart Muir:Yeah, he could grow that and should grow it in my view, but it's a very good start. I mean points well earned for that, but you know the tone of that, so I'd just like to dig into it, because you wrote a lovely column not long ago, john. I really appreciated it, because when there's so many divisive issues and these critical issues as you say, this is a Trump election we do need to unify. You know Mark Carney, I'm sure you know Pierre Poliev, but in this case you were just sharing some reflections. Maybe, as someone who knows both of them personally, could you give us a little bit of personal insight into who these men are. Could you give us a little bit of personal insight into who these men are?
John Ivison:What human factors come into this when you look at them through your eyes. Well, so I mean, so I do know Mark very well when you're in Ottawa. It's a small town and our daughters grew up as friends and I'm sure I coached at least two of his four daughters at soccer, um, so I got I know him pretty well. Uh, he keeps saying he's a pragmatist, and I think he is. I mean he has he has obviously has environmental convictions, but I don't think he's a zealot. I mean, I think stephen guilbeault is a zealot and I was very critical of him having Guilbeault as an endorsement. I thought it was not helpful to his cause and I'm surprised he's still in cabinet.
John Ivison:That was a man who was clearly out to shut down the Allsands. I don't think Carney is. I mean he is a Wesson long time removed but he still is, you know, in your formative years. Recall your formative year for a reason. I mean he went to high school in Alberta and he still feels like he's in Alberta. So I think he's not.
John Ivison:He said things in the past about leaving oil on the ground which will be cast up at him and he'll be reminded of that fact. But he's also talking now about pipelines to Churchill, pipelines somehow getting oil and gas to Ecalibur I'm not even sure how you would do that, but I guess there's and using deep ports in those two places to export to Europe. So you know, I don't think he's coming in with the idea that he wants to close it all down, and why would he? I mean, if he does that, there is absolutely no prospect of his government being a success. He has to create new alliances, find new customers and find a new way of doing things that is much quicker and much more effective than the last nine years.
Stewart Muir:Not that that would be hard, yeah it would be pretty difficult to go from what he portrayed before, that climate financier, to now this pro-oil and gas Canadian prime minister running for office. When he gains his mandate, if he's the winner, suddenly he goes back to what he was before, because that's what the liberal base in Ottawa demands. That sounds like a very unlikely shift to make, so I think the liberal base in Ottawa just demands that they be in power.
John Ivison:Right, If he can give them power, they will do. You won't hear a-.
Stewart Muir:The unifying principle of liberalism.
John Ivison:That's the unifying principle. Liberalism that's the unified principle. This is a brokerage party that is all about being being in power and just the one thing that, um, you know what, while he's not gonna um, I don't think he's gonna abandon either, cause he's not gonna abandon environmentalism completely and he's not gonna abandon economic development completely um, the one thing that he keeps mentioning is pathways. The pathways are lines, and I've talked to people who say this thing's dead right now, but he will bring it back. I think, if whatever it takes to make that thing happen presuming it works at scale I think that's a priority for him.
Stewart Muir:Well, if we have pathways, the carbon capture project that I think it's a $30 billion project, it's probably decadal in scope that would get the emissions from Edmonton and store them in Cold Lake and the geological storage and that way keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere. So that was good. If we can do that, it was a great outcome. But it's been a tough one, and if Trump is tearing up everything that he can get his hands on, including all the climate pledges in the U, some hope, john, that there's maybe a longer-term environmental dividend for doing the right thing, because we should be doing the right thing, shouldn't we?
John Ivison:Well, I think we've signed up to international agreements that say that Canada will try and do X and we're a country that lives up to its commitments. And I think that if we do nothing else but leave the large emitters carbon pricing system in place and make sure it works properly, then we're probably doing our bit. I mean, I think some of the other things are inevitably going to fall by the wayside, just as the consumer carbon tax is done, wayside, just as the consumer carbon tax is done. But, um, yeah, I think carney is, uh, he will try and live up to those commitments. I think, um, while he has shifted the goalposts a little bit, because he's basically now saying if so, he's removing the, the federal backstop on the, on the large emitters program, which essentially means that the provinces don't have to be as ambitious and that the carbon tax which is scheduled to go to, I think, a hundred and will you tell me a hundred and 70. 70, eventually by 2030. That would remove the need to hit that price. You could keep the system in place, but just not be quite as stringent in the pricing or in the supply of place, but just not be quite as stringent in the pricing or in the supply of credits, what needs to be covered by credits? So yeah, I think Kvaliev is essentially saying that's a tax on business.
John Ivison:At a time when Trump's going to tariff businesses more, that will probably resonate with a lot of people. But Carney is to answer your question. Carney is making the point point. Trump won't be there forever and we're already seeing a border adjustment mechanism being put in place in Europe which is essentially a tariff on countries that don't take climate seriously and put a carbon price on, and that at some point America will come back and we'll start addressing climate change again. And if we don't try and leapfrog them now, we will have a bigger problem down the road. I don't know whether I think people 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 said we won't be able to export to Asia if we don't have stringent carbon pricing. I don't know if that's true. I don't think China or India are too fussed about it.
Stewart Muir:Yes, Well, I saw that. I was wondering whether you know. I looked at the number of LNG cargos that the Americans have sent to Europe recently. It's a lot, and they don't have a mandatory industrial price on carbon in the US, or consumer national carbon pricing either, for that matter. But of course they've become in a very short time the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, LNG, and they've done so without this issue that Mr Carney raises being an impediment whatsoever. And now Trump is out to become the North American or the American energy dominator, or the world dominator, dominator of everything. So it hasn't held them back. I mean, I'm just curious. Maybe Kenner should just not worry about the international issues of emissions, because we do know that getting natural gas to where it's wanted today, it's wanted because people around the world want to have lower emissions in their local economies. That's why they're choosing natural gas and LNG.
John Ivison:Well, that's Paulieff's point is that if we export more LNG to India and China, they will use less coal and therefore the planet benefits. And I think that's a fair argument 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 or oil if we get it there, just because there's no carbon price. They want it and they'll take it, and they're not going to risk us saying, well, we can get a better price elsewhere. So, yeah, that is going to be. I mean, we talked about what are going to be the issues of the election that's going to be a big issue.
Stewart Muir:Yeah, well, the opening days might have a lot of energy in them, but probably that's going to recede into the past. There's going to be other issues. Where do you think those issues are that come up?
John Ivison:Well, it's hard to see at the moment. I mean, trump just predominates so much. I mean, housing and cost of living are still there. The things that Kuala Lumpur still has the cost of living concerns are still there. He scores well on them, but they are receding below the Trump issue as the thing that most concerns people. People still want change.
John Ivison:If you look at the, is it time for a change? And the numbers were in the 90% Now, but about a third of those people didn't think there was a good alternative when it was Kvaliev versus Trudeau. Now that Carney's come along, a lot of those people have shifted their vote to the Liberals because they see Trudeau as a good alternative, which suggests that Carney has positioned himself as an agent of change. So I think that this is what's going to come up as well. Carney has positioned himself as an agent of change. So I think that this is what's going to come up as well.
John Ivison:Is Carney essentially a new government, or is he the fourth mandate for a little bit, which is obviously what he is, but can he present himself as an agent of change? I think when he brought in his cabinet and it was all the same people that was a bit of a gift to Poilievre. It wasn't really realistic to suggest that he was going to change the you know, remove Dominique Leblanc or Melanie Jolie or François-Philippe Chopin or any of these people, but their experience and they're probably the best that Carney's got to pick from, yeah, but that question about change is still way up there and it's not clear to me that Carney has succeeded yet in saying, yeah, this is a whole new ballgame.
Stewart Muir:Yeah, I mean the lot who are still in there, and it's fewer of them. So we know these are the ones who are really important to Carney and he looks managerially responsible. He's reduced the payroll of cabinet because it was bloated, so that looks confident. But then, as you say, I mean the residue we have is really the same old thing and these are the brand managers of liberalism of this time. So they have a figurehead today. Maybe they'll have a different figurehead in the future, but they'll still be on the scene is kind of the impression maybe we get In terms of the pivot that Poliev is trying to do or will, I'm sure have to do, because so many of his ideas have been adopted by Carney.
Stewart Muir:I mean that's a compliment. But then it leaves the problem of, ok, how am I going to differentiate myself to the voter? Then it leaves the problem of, okay, how am I going to differentiate myself to the voter? Do you think that the window has kind of moved in some particular direction or they're pulling, you know, the Overton window of trying to create the norms that you hope, as a political movement leader, the public will agree with you are the norms. I mean that window has been moving around. It seems to have moved in the direction of what I would call energy realism. A year ago we weren't talking about that phrase. We were talking about, you know, climate realism, and maybe it was starting to move. But now, at recent places where people gather in the energy industry, they're talking about things very differently, and that's because of Trump, but nevertheless they are talking about things differently. So to make that a question for you, john, in trying to move that window around of what's the normal discourse space, who's winning?
John Ivison:Well. So the broader picture, not specific to issues, I think at the moment is Zucconi gets elected liberal leader. The next day he goes to Paris and London and meets Macron and Keir Starmer and King Charles and then he's in Iqaluit making announcements. He looked and sounded prime ministerial and credible. Frankly, I mean he looked like an international statesman. I mean he knows these people, he's been in that game. I mean I think he an international statesman, I mean he knows these people, he's been in that game. I mean I think he's a far better statesman than he is a politician.
John Ivison:He kind of lost his cool a bit with reporters in London when they were asking him about his assets and I think he's still got a lot to learn about retail politics and dealing with the media. I mean, the media covering central bank governors are very respectful and don't start prying at your personal life. But I think by and large he looked prime ministerial. And now, well, the other problem is that for years and years now he's been. For two and a half years he's been the leader of the opposition, and when you're the leader of the opposition, you oppose and you nitpick and you are angry and hostile almost. But now he's in a campaign. We're already in the campaign, even though it's not formally declared.
John Ivison:Now he's in a campaign to be prime minister and he has to look more prime ministerial and he not only has to change his demeanor, he has to change his message and I think it has to change his demeanor. He has to change his message and I think it has to be far more hopeful. And we saw that to some extent with his Ring of Fire announcement, where he started talking about developing the Ring of Fire and getting on with it. I mean, I started covering the Ring of Fire 25 years ago Still a pipe dream at the moment. 25 years ago, still a pipe dream at the moment, or I hope it's not a pipe dream, but it's still not a reality. So I think he's pivoting right now and that's the bigger picture is that he has to not be angry, he has to be hopeful and he has to sound and look a bit more like Carney than himself as of last year.
Stewart Muir:Well, every campaign is a test of the personalities and capabilities of the candidates, and it sounds like we're going to have a crucible to see what qualities exist in these individuals who want to lead us.
John Ivison:Yeah, I mean it's just cliche, but it's a cliche for a reason. Campaigns matter. I mean it's just cliche, but it's a cliche for a reason. Campaigns matter. I mean I was talking to somebody yesterday who was saying well, the last time that the polls moved like this was in favor of Kim Campbell in 1993. And it was a total blowout at the end of the day. You know, there was this sort of exhilaration among conservatives. The poll numbers went through the roof and then when Canadians got a really good look at her, they decided no thanks. And is there a prospect that could happen to Carney? I think there is a prospect. He could totally flame out Well.
Stewart Muir:We had a term back in the newsroom for company stocks that behave this way. We called it the dead cat bounce, and it's yet to be known whether Carney's surge is in that category or the miracle comeback for his party.
John Ivison:Yeah, I mean, if I had to bet now, I think he's got more substance and resilience than Ken Campbell, for example. I also think the circumstances are so extraordinary that Canadians are harking their suspicions and disillusionment with experts. I mean, we've seen as populism has developed. We've seen these characters come along, trump being the main one, with simple solutions to complex problems, slogans, no real depth about any of it and, you know, castigating elites who have caused all these problems.
John Ivison:I get a sense that the backlash against that might start in Canada, where Carney is clearly not a populist, but there seems to be a sort of momentum towards shelter and safety and expertise and I think when you stack up his resume against Poiliev's, there's only one winner. I mean, he's just when it comes to if you've got an economic crisis. He has experienced an economic crisis. He was in the treasury US treasury the day it was decided that the world economic system was going to back up and they were going to support the banks. Backstop the banks. Yeah, I think that there might be a sea change and we might be seeing it first in Canada.
Stewart Muir:Are you concerned about the anxiety that youth are feeling housing affordability? Certainly, in the polls, over quite a consistent period it's been young Canadians who've been saying Polyev is the change that we want. Do you think that while their elders seemed more willing to be fine with the liberals no matter what I mean it didn't seem to matter too much what Trudeau was up to or what others were saying about Trudeau. For older voters who had been settled in life and they've got their financial pot in order kind of indifferent to that.
John Ivison:Yeah, you make a good point. Well, you make a good point because the polling I've seen suggests that it is those people who, even though many of them were fed up with Trudeau and had moved, they wanted change. They'd moved from the liberals to the conservatives, but they weren't set on Polyev. Those are the people that move back to the liberals. It's the older voter, so the younger voters are still, by and large, I think, with the conservatives. And yeah, I mean, I see it firsthand. I've got a 24-year-old and a 20-year-old and they are the only one in particular who's left university, struggling to find a job, no prospect of buying a house anytime soon. Yeah, there is a resentment and a disquiet among those people that Poirier will continue to tap into. It's not clear whether that outweighs the sort of existential threat to the country's existence which I think is the predominant issue in this election.
Stewart Muir:Well, it's the older people who vote in greatest numbers typically, and the young find it harder to get to the voting booth, it would seem, and maybe that'll be different this time.
John Ivison:Well, trudeau tapped into that and in 2015, that was a big, big reason why he swept the country. It was the younger vote. So you know, if those people turn out this time they're motivated enough to turn out then who knows?
Stewart Muir:Yeah, I mean the tightening up, or even Carney surpassing Poliev in some methodologies. Maybe isn't that bad a thing for Poliev if it incites his youth base to say, oh, we better vote, whereas if it was that huge gap, oh I don't need to vote, my vote doesn't count, we're going to. You know, my guy is going to win, so I'm going surfing.
John Ivison:I think very rare is the campaign where you know if we've seen Carly taking off now very rare is the campaign where he keeps taking off. I mean, there's always troubles along the way and there'll be revelations and dramas that will happen, if only because that's the way the media likes it. I mean, who wants to report on a campaign where Carney starts off ahead and then gets further and further ahead? You need a close horse race to make this exciting and we generally tend to produce that.
Stewart Muir:If it's a blackface, as in I guess that was 2019 or whatever it is, there's always something that happens that produces drama during an election campaign, you know just back to Trump, you've made the argument I think a compelling one that Trump is really the defining factor in what's going to happen through this campaign, and I just want to ask you this question because it's troubling me every single day. So, is Trump following strategy or something else going on? And attached to that question is like is there a bottom, a basement, a floor to this of what we see unfolding every day? Because every day I'm surprised by some new thing, I'm floored by some new thing. How about you?
John Ivison:Well, I'm outraged by a new thing every day for sure. My own view is that I think Trudeau might have sparked this. I mean, apparently he used to joke about the 51st state thing in his first administration, but it all seems to have started in earnest when he asked Trudeau at Mar-a-Lago, when Trudeau had gone down to the forelock, what would happen if we put tariffs on, and Trudeau replied truthfully, it would be the end of the country, and I think that's what set his mind racing. That this is, this would be the ultimate. If I could annex Canada, incorporate Canada into the United States, then that's my Mount Rushmore moment. You know they'll put statues up to me. So I think that's.
John Ivison:He's probably got a hierarchy of what he wants, you know, and the way I think his mind works is that we pushed for the very top, and the very top would be. Mind works is that we pushed for the very top and the very top would be would they take over Greenland, annex Canada and they take control of the Panama Canal Although I think that actually might go away because BlackRock has now just bought the Chinese company's ports at either end of the canal. But if you can get that, that's the best it could possibly be short of that. We want to raise revenues and tariffs. You know he's talking now about somehow killing aiken tax and the internal revenue service and just having external revenue and the external revenue service with countries around the world paying him tariffs for every good that's brought in. Somehow this would be done without firing up inflation. But let's parlour for the moment.
John Ivison:Probably the next down in the hierarchy is that he starts seeing companies move their production back to the United States. I think 25% tariffs would do that on the big car companies, although it would take billions and years to actually do it. So maybe that's a longer term thing. And then maybe your lowest tier on your wish list is that you get concessions on whatever you ask for, from killing the supply management system in DA to increased defense procurement, whatever it is. So I think that's the way his mind works. I don't think it would be too much of a compliment to say it's strategic, it's just instinctive. It seems to be that that's just how his DNA works, that you just push and push and push and maybe you'll get something great and maybe you'll get. But if you don't get something great, you'll probably get something good.
Stewart Muir:Well, after decades of de-industrialization and shipping manufacturing and, hey, emissions from manufacturing to other countries, especially China, and conditioning American consumers to be able to check that box, hit that button and there it is on your doorstep within hours. Maybe it's come a long way, or maybe the reshoring of the American manufacturing base will bring those suppliers back, but maybe that will drive up the cost of labor and make those things not cheap from Alibaba or TAMU, but rather expensive because they're made in America. I mean, there's interesting things, but I do want to bring it back to Canada because, okay, if Trump is pursuing a strategy or he's pursuing a primal urge that is persistent, maybe that's his form of strategy and I take your point and maybe that's going to be successful over the full cycle of his presidency. Right now it feels rather scary for anyone which is all of us who's somehow exposed to the US stock market. But we'll see.
Stewart Muir:But for Canada, you have a lot of people talking about diversification. Well, we just need to diversify the economy. Sounds like a sensible thing to do. Is it something we can actually make a difference with?
John Ivison:I think, when you know what is it, 80%, 75% of our exports are going south. We can never decouple from the US, but you know, clearly we can reduce our dependency and that's what I think the holy Grail is for both parties right now and we don't have a totally weak hand to play. I mean there are strengths that we have that can be leveraged Critical minerals for one. I mean, the reason that Trump wants annexation is not, I think, just because it would add to his prestige. All of that is, I think, his driving urge. But obviously you would then have access to Canada's water, to its raw materials, to the minerals, all of which the US needs. I mean, his most ridiculous line 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 read reads that shale oil is peaking and that they're going to need more oil, that they don't have the forestry resources, that Canada has to do it if, as cheaply, he wants those resources. If he didn't want them, why would he make such a big fuss about Canada becoming the 51st state? So I think you know this ultimately to me, gets resolved in the United States where enough people around him point to the markets, I mean, you just raise the markets.
John Ivison:That, to me, is, if it becomes a recession of the US because of these tariffs, then whatever his primal urge is, he doesn't have the power to go out alone. I mean, I think maybe we don't understand the US system as well, because we're in a Westminster system where essentially the winner takes all and if you're prime minister, you can pretty much do what you want. There's not the checks and balances of you know, presumably you have a majority government. There's not the checks and balances of the US system where, with the judiciary and Congress which is, I mean, congress is pretty tight. It's not like he's got a total hold on Congress. So I think what we've got to hope for and I think this is what any advice would be to prospective prime ministers be patient, be resolute, be respectful and the American system will probably sort itself out.
Stewart Muir:Well, have you noticed that, compared to 2016, when suddenly a lot of Americans were saying I'm moving to Canada, I'm going to Mexico City, I'm going to Europe and getting out of Dodge, we haven't really seen that, even though it's a very different dynamic and you think, oh, maybe people would be more likely to want to flee America for some other perceived safe harbor. What do you think is going on there?
John Ivison:Well, it's clear it's not all going smoothly. I mean we see regularly there are clips of town halls with Republican congressmen being shouted down and people waving Canadian flags and Americans waving Canadian flags. I mean they are not happy with what's happening to Canada. Every poll shows it. I mean Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president, even below his own previous lows from the first administration. Clearly there are millions of people who are still supporting him, but this is causing great disruption in the United States and great angst, great unrest. I don't think, because we haven't seen floods of people crossing the border, that they're happy with what's going on. I'm sure the military is not happy. I mean the fact that the Canadian military is now having to contemplate the idea of defending Canada along the southern border is unbelievable. I mean Americans regularly on X and other social media pointing out that they fought alongside Canadians in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
John Ivison:This is not going down well in the States and I think the tipping point to be the tipping point would be if he defied the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court this week wrapped him over the knuckles for saying lower level judge should be impeached.
John Ivison:I can't remember which case it was, maybe it was USAID, but whatever the case was, he'd been reprimanded by the lower level judge. Trump had said the judge should be impeached and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said you can't talk like that about judges. So even though the Supreme Court is small C conservative, I don't think they're going to roll over and let him do what he wants to do and he's going to challenge that. I mean, this is the guy who said he who saves his country can't defy any laws, which is very, very scary talk, and if he follows through on the logic of that, then America is really in trouble and then I think you're going to see a flight of capital, because at that point you're basically saying the rule of law no longer applies here, and I think that at that point then civil unrest is not unforeseeable.
Stewart Muir:Yeah well, with a toddler, the rules need to be articulated, because the toddler doesn't know, as every parent realizes, trump seems to be articulated because the toddler doesn't know, as every parent realizes. Trump seems to be looking for those boundaries in almost a similar fashion and no one's saying no. So who's going to be the first to speak up against him?
John Ivison:Yeah, well, I think it will be down to the courts and the markets. When he first brought in, when he first announced the Canada-Mexico tariff, the markets reacted really badly. I mean, I think General Motors was down 5% that day and Ford was down and they were all screaming. But then he did it again the following month and similar effect, and he delayed it till April 2nd. Let's see, I mean April 2nd, if there's a complete tanking on the markets, he may be forced to withdraw again.
John Ivison:I mean, I think he just pushes his luck every single time, but if this one really really goes badly, I mean this is Americans did not vote for their 401ks to be heading south. I mean this did not vote for their 401ks to be heading south. I mean this is people's retirement money and even if you're a hardline Trump supporter, you're not going to be happy about that. So he's always worried about these kind of things. I'm surprised he's still pushing ahead with it, given that we've already seen a couple of scare on the market. This April 2nd is going to be a very important date. It will be the first tripwire and then I think the Supreme Court would be the second.
Stewart Muir:Let's come back to Canada. A few quick things. Is this election going to be won or lost in the East?
John Ivison:or the West. Well, I don't think I see any major changes in Alberta. Put it that way, that's pretty much going to stay blue. It really always comes down to Ontario. I mean just the sheer number of seats and if you get to somewhere like 35 plus percent in Ontario, you win most of those seats and that means you probably win. I mean it matters what happens in the big cities, but if you've done well in Ontario you've probably done well in most of the big cities.
John Ivison:The echo of that is felt in Montreal. So the Liberals would keep the island of Montreal. Other than that it doesn't much matter. I mean, the Liberals have been kept out of pretty much west of the Ontario-Manitoba border, with the exception of some seats in British Columbia, a couple of seats in Winnipeg and one or two it's only one, I think, at the moment in Alberta. So yeah, it will be one of the east, as always. But I think the resource issue is a national issue this time. But I think the resource issue is a national issue this time. It's not just the West, because it's not just about Alberta's resources, it's about the diversification of those resources for the financial health of the country, so maybe it's a chance to be more influential.
Stewart Muir:Even if the West can't swing where the nation goes, the West can be a much bigger factor in defining what the future looks like.
John Ivison:I think that's right and that's what was so dispiriting about Danielle Smith's statement. To me it was kind of rage farming. She was just trying to harvest some votes from her base rather than thinking about the bigger picture. I mean, I know she's got to appeal to her base. She's got her own politics to worry about, but you've got a new prime minister there who in many ways is on the same page as you. We want to develop new markets. It didn't have to be as partisan as it was and, like it or not, Alberta is still part of Canada and we should be doing things in the national interest, and that includes being in Alberta's interest. I mean, I don't think we should be. I think that Alberta's had a raw deal over the last nine years and I've written on that repeatedly. I mean, just think if we'd had Energy East and Northern Gateway right now, not to mention Keystone, it would be a very different picture.
Stewart Muir:Yeah, and Quebec would benefit.
John Ivison:Quebec would benefit too. I mean, maybe the big difference 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 existential threat has brought. Quebec into more alignment. I mean, Quebec will never be totally in alignment, but you expect that of Quebec and I say that advisedly, having lived there for many years. I would just expect Alberta or its premier to know better.
Stewart Muir: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 indoor voice. You know there were very good relations, back channels to the right people in Ottawa. Those conversations never stopped and outside it was really situational. He could go up or down, he could choose the moment and the language and I think maybe that comes from his Ottawa experience and just his own personal sensibility on things, so it's possible to have that from the West. Maybe none of it.
John Ivison:It was constructive and that's because he's a rounded politician and a reasonable person and I'm not sure the previous Right. I will now get flooded with hate mail, but bring it on. There you go.
Stewart Muir:Okay. Well, we're going to have a new prime minister, or a newly sworn in prime minister, who is the same or a different person, in a few weeks. What will your words of advice be when you maybe get a chance to talk to that person?
John Ivison:I'm not sure I have any great words of wisdom, but I mean both of them have said we've got to build more quicker, and I think that that is the bottom line. You've got to live up to your election promise build more quicker. Let's get pipelines to. I think when we initiated this conversation was about the potential of building a spur of the TMX through KittyMut. Yes, which is a plan which is already almost fully formed. The drives are there. The drives are there. I mean you get indigenous support and away we go. That could be done. I spoke to Ian Anderson, who was TMX's former chief executive. He said it could be done in two or three years. Let's get on these. What's the easiest thing to do quickly, what makes most sense? Let's just do it. And you know, of course you have to be mindful of the environment, but we're in a crisis.
Stewart Muir:Yep, have a big picture plan and then carry it out. I'm really happy this has been the scene center for what will be my weekly podcast in Power Struggle. Next week I will be in St John's, Newfoundland, to do number two and get a coast-to-coast feel. So that will then lead to. I haven't even figured out where exactly I'm going to be, I'm just going to go to where I'm needed. I might be needed back here at the base in Vancouver in the studio. It's a little easier to film here, but I'm also going to be ready to go lots of places over the next five, six weeks. So this has been such a valuable foundation conversation for everything that's going to follow. So I really appreciate your time today.
John Ivison:No problem, have fun. Thank you, john.
