Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson, and every weekday I host a news podcast called FrontBurner. We do one story a day, and we try to give you a deep but not overwhelming amount of information and context. Lately, there has been a ton of political news to keep on top of. Canada is facing a pivotal election, there's a power struggle at the heart of the Liberal Party, and the uncertainty of Trump's second term looms over all of this. So if you want to keep up with what's happening, follow FrontBurner.
This is a CBC Podcast. Team Canada has rotating team members, it seems. Are we striking back with retaliatory tariffs or are we holding off? We're getting a lot of competing messaging from the premiers this week. Well, we had a good discussion with Premier Smith, and she understands we need to be united. And I understand that she wants to protect, you know, her main commodity. But country comes first.
Export tariffs put on by our own national government on products that we might produce here in Saskatchewan or anywhere else in Canada, Saskatchewan most certainly is not supportive of. What I will say is that the unified Team Canada approach that was evident today on the First Minister's call is the right approach. It has to be strategic. It has to be well thought out. It has to be reactive and responsive, but responsible.
And I think that that's what Canadians can be assured of from a coast-to-coast-to-coast approach. Premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland saying different things. Doug Ford says Daniel Smith is moving closer to his position. Smith says her position hasn't changed. What's undeniable is the source of all this disorder, and it started, yes, at the inauguration.
Welcome to West of Center. I'm Kathleen Petty. Trump has been sworn in as the 47th president of the U.S. And from day one, day one, he's back out at signing executive orders, issuing threats against Canada and doubling down at Davos. We have a tremendous deficit with Canada. We're not going to have that anymore. We can't do it. I don't know if it's good for them. As you probably know, I say you can always become a state.
This week on the pod, we have Debra Yedlin from the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, Adam Lake from the Business Council of Alberta, both fresh or maybe just exhausted from Washington, D.C., where they had a front row seat. And plus, we're joined by Jetende Silva, Alberta's former senior representative to the U.S. during Trump's first administration, and she's making her debut on West of Centre.
Thanks, Kathleen. Thanks for having us. So Deb and Adam, you're back from D.C. I don't know if you've gone into therapy since you returned. But Deb, start us off. What was the experience like generally? It was like something I've never experienced before in terms of the celebration of inauguration of a president and being around a lot of people who obviously supported the president. There were MAGA hats everywhere. There was a lot of merch and there was a lot of uplifting conversation.
from people who had supported President Trump. There was a lot of excitement about the fact that he was back in office. You know, there were t-shirts that said, Daddy's back. It was, and more. That was probably one of the tamer ones. So it was just, it was a very different experience. And I think, you know, being at the embassy, everybody was very curious to see what the tone would be of his speech. And of course, we were all waiting to hear whether Canada was going to be mentioned. Canada wasn't mentioned in the speech. And then the conversation turned to, well,
That's a good sign. Let's take that as a positive. And then a few hours later that all went sideways as he started talking about tariffs again. And so it was definitely a roller coaster in terms of as a Canadian how I was feeling and feeling very vulnerable in terms of what could happen as far as the economy and what he could try and do to make things difficult for us. Okay. And Adam, for you? I would echo what –
Deb said, I mean it was the energy around him being back and that America is going to be its best golden era was just – was palpable. And you couldn't walk 10 feet without … seeing some merch or hats and shirts and hoodies. Did you buy anything? I bought nothing. No, no. I'll stick to buying Canadian merch if I can. But no, it was a roller coaster and, you know, I think there's a...
At least in the crowd at DC, there was a pride for what he was about to try and launch and accomplish. And despite the fact that I had several meetings and conversations since then, even in DC and some since I got back. We have people who are allies who don't agree with the trade policies but do see what he's trying to create for America and are behind him in that. So I think it's a real challenging time for Canada. What's it like, Jetan, to look at it from a distance?
Well, I was there. Because you were there. That's my point is, you know, you have that sort of that contrast in perspective. Yeah, I mean, I was there for his first inauguration. And I think that sense of American pride is consistent. I mean, if you're there, anytime a president is inaugurated, the people that the supporters are very excited. I think what was different this time is the size of the Canadian business delegation, right? Canadians are really out in full force. And I saw them at a variety of events, which I thought was very positive, right? Typically, the embassy is the...
place where everybody goes, but people who are the Republican governors, like there were any number of different venues, I think really working those connections. And I think that is interesting and important and a positive sign, right? This is something that is really an all hands on deck type of scenario where everybody who's got those contacts is going to have to lean in to protect Canada's interests the best possible. Although I was struck, Adam, by what you said.
Because you spoke with people like the US Chamber of Commerce. I know you were speaking with them before I last talked to you. So you're saying they understand the concerns of Canada and maybe even agree with them. But they're so on board with Trump that it sounds like they're prepared to, yeah, but he's our guy. It's interesting. The conversations I've had since the inauguration.
Lead me to believe that actually we do have a contingency of support. They believe free trade has benefited both countries. Many of their members or constituents in the US rely on trade with Canada for the benefit of their economy, jobs, activity, value add, profit, etc. But a consistent thing I'm hearing is they're saying we're on side with you, but we don't want to start the administration by putting our head up.
and challenging some of the ideas that he's got. So we've got a lot of support, but I'm not seeing anyone willing to say, okay, we'll be your advocate internally in the United States, which part of the whole strategy we've all been talking about is let's do some friend raising in the US, get some internal champions. I think the challenge is no one's willing yet because we're day three or four to put their head up and support us. Feels longer. Feels like day 300.
So I think the challenge for us now is how do we – they need to have some other priorities that they can advance with him. The trade with Canada is important but it's not their number one agenda. I heard that from the US chamber. I've heard that from a few state chambers. So they're saying let's just wait and see what he does on the tariffs and then we'll kind of rally and see how we can engage.
So I worry that this friend-raising strategy may not be activated for some time because everybody's afraid of putting their head up and then getting blacklisted for four years. And was that your experience, Deb? I think that's generally, you know, there's a frustration there because we know if you look at just the pure economics of it.
It makes absolutely no sense. The tariffs are a race to the bottom. It's going to be inflationary in terms of increasing prices to both Canadians and Americans. That does not achieve a, you know, that's not something that President Trump wants to deal with. And certainly that's not something we need to deal with, having just come through an inflationary period. And what seems to be missing in just the conversation is just from an energy perspective.
understanding what the economics are of the industry and how, on the one hand, he says, you know, the U.S. is going to drill, baby, drill. We're going to see more production. And yet, on the other hand, he wants OPEC to increase production so the prices fall.
Wall Street dictates who's going to do what in terms of investment. It's not President Trump. And if the numbers work, they work. If they don't, that's not happening. And so there's a real disconnect in terms of what the economics and the markets want versus what he thinks can happen. Are any of you circling February 1st on your calendar? Yeah, but I think it's just one of those deadlines. But see, it feels arbitrary because he's got to set up his external revenue service and he's got to do a trade review. And that's a date.
I think people are going to take it as seriously as they can, but we don't know what could happen. And is there consensus? Do you get the sense there's consensus on what needs to happen with terrorists? You mentioned the trade review. The deadline for that, I think, is April 1st, because I get the impression from what I've read that within his orbit, there is disagreement about terrorists.
He's always loved tariffs. I mean, that's not new. He's always loved tariffs. Yeah, it's a beautiful word. I think he forgot to go to economics class when he was at Wharton or maybe they, you know. But I would say this. So I was in Mexico City a couple of weeks ago. I'm also a global fellow with the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center out of Washington, D.C. And they brought together a group of people to have this conversation. Essentially, will NAFTA, USMC survive Trump 2.0?
And it was a Chatham House rule conversation, but there were some people there, Americans there, who are in the trade world, who are used to advocating for free trade, who, despite all the economic arguments.
are not focused on that. They're focused on what the president is trying to achieve. So they have bought the line that the U.S. has subsidized Canada to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars. It keeps going up, by the way. It keeps going up every time it gets bigger. But I think that's where Canada actually needs to focus, right? I don't know that data or facts matter in this conversation, frankly, right? So instead, I think we need to spend our time to understand the narrative that his supporters have bought.
If you look at this argument that it's hundreds of millions of dollars, that has to do with the US expenditures on their military to protect and defend Canada, right? It has to do with any variety of other things, like this number that is bigger. So if you actually understand how, for them, intricately linked trade and security are.
Then – because Americans tie issues. Canadians don't when we negotiate. We negotiate independently on everything. Americans put it all in a basket and they use pressure on one to get movement on another. So I don't know how much the facts of the trade relationship are actually going to move the needle. I think it's those areas around American security where we can contribute, where we will have greater ability to protect our own interests. Okay. So given that, you're all nodding. So I assume you agree with that analysis.
then what do we do? Like, then what is the conversation to be had? Well, I think Chetan's bang on. I think we have to wrap everything in the next four years around security. And I think we have to just sort of forget about talking about Canada with them and say, tie everything that we are doing, whether it is...
energy or food or technology or critical minerals as a critical aspect of their national security. That is, I think, the key point that will really resonate with them. I agree with Jatan. I think we have to, as bizarre and unrealistic as they may seem, we have to tackle the issues he keeps raising. And frankly, I know Canada's issues with drugs and illegal immigration are sort of a...
Tuesday afternoon in Mexico in terms of the flows there. But if that's what he wants to talk about, then we have to demonstrate that. If he's talked about defense spending, we have to demonstrate progress on that. So I think we have to tackle the irritants that are being raised.
Wrap it in a blanket of security because he makes his own weather with respect to everything he wants to do and every fact that he wants to rely upon. Isn't that broadly what Daniel Smith has been doing? Well, I think she has. And I also think just to continue the conversation for a second, I think the U.S. has been –
call it the world's policeman for a long time. And I think he looks at it and says, we don't want to pay the whole bill. And he's also saying yesterday, earlier this week, he was at the World Economic Forum and he was saying, I'm also going to ask all NATO nations to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, which is what it should have been years ago. 5%, I mean, no, that's just completely unrealistic for anyone.
I mean, the U.S. doesn't do that. So I think it's really important to recognize. I mean, that's partly where this is all coming from. And so how do you wrap up the security conversation? And I think it's also relative to how he sees China and what's going on. And, you know, do you build a fortress America? I don't know how that plays out. But certainly energy security is something that...
It's all-encompassing. It's a macro piece, and it's also food security. And so how do we make sure that this side of the world is as strong as it can be and make sure that the U.S. is not footing the entire bill for it? I think that's part of what he's looking at. How do you think Daniel Smith has handled the conversation? Because it's been interesting, the evolution, right? A lot of people have been criticizing her. Now I sense some movement.
And we've got Doug Ford saying she's sort of moving to his position. But in fact, she's saying she hasn't. And it's more like Scott Moe is now moving to her. Francois Legault is moving to her. I see this sort of evolution. And it seems to me that she's been the one talking about addressing security concerns as the way through this.
Yeah, Tuesday I put out a note on LinkedIn that I said – because I saw her earlier that day at a roundtable and I told her, Premier, I think your instincts are right and I think you're doing exactly what needs to be done. So I communicated that on LinkedIn. I think her instincts are bang on. I think this whole tit for tat, hit them as hard as they've hit us is just dead wrong. I think it's an old –
The last war strategy, trying to apply to this one, and I think the game is totally different. He's different. The people around him are different. The situation is different. So I totally agree. Diplomacy should be plan A, focusing on the element of security, focusing on relationship building, and as long as it takes and however many we have to talk to to somehow slowly garner some internal champions and advocates.
And addressing the irritants. And then if that doesn't work and he still goes forward with some tariffs, then I think we have, frankly, I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction. I think it is a pause and evaluate. I don't think we can hit them. Other than shutting off electricity in the East Coast or turning off the taps here, I don't think there's anything that would deal a death blow to the United States. I think they can do this all day long. I think it would hurt.
Canada more to do retaliation. And I think it would be softwood lumber applied across the whole economy for four years. So I think this is a whole strategy. I don't really know how much or where we go past sort of plan A. I think we have to read the room and understand what's going on and how successful certain arguments have been and how others haven't been successful. But plan A, I think, is diplomacy.
engagement, narrative of security, and addressing irritants, and then we'll have a better base of knowing what worked and what didn't, and we can evaluate what plan B might look like. Okay. Jetan, what is your take? Because, I mean, you know Trump better than most people. So how do you think the political conversation has helped or hurt? And I'm thinking specifically about Daniel Smith because she's been accused of appeasing, essentially.
more or less agreeing with everything he says, he's right, so we've got to do something about it. And others are saying, you know, he's not right and we shouldn't be framing it that way. What's your view? So he's not really that difficult to understand, right? I mean, he's pretty transparent. And so he's definitely the type of person where, yes, he is a bully. And so the instinct is to stand up, but he actually responds well to flattery, right? And so I think this is an instance where Canada needs to very much...
We need to park our ego. Excuse me. And while we know that facts don't matter in the U.S. conversation, they matter in Canada, right? So we need to actually be pragmatic and understand where we sit. According to international law, yes, Canada and the United States are equals.
We're not really. It's a very deeply asymmetrical relationship. Their sticks are so much bigger than ours, right? And so how we respond needs to be mindful of the reality in which we live. So would it be better if we had a unified Team Canada approach? Yes. Would it be better if we were not airing our dirty family laundry in public? Absolutely.
This is something that's going to take everybody leaning in with their relationships that they have. And I fully agree, Puma Smith is doing what she should to build those relationships, to work those relationships, to defend Alberta's interests, which are Canada's interests, right? And we've all read Trevor Toome's article this week about the importance of oil to Canada's economy and how counterproductive it would be to our own economy and jobs in Canada if we were to stop exporting oil to the United States. So we need to actually be strong.
like take a breath, don't be reactive. And yes, we do need to try to plan two steps ahead, but it is a bit of a choose your own adventure to Adam's point, right? It's like, let's see what happens. And if A, then B, if B, then X, right? We don't really know what's going to happen, but we actually need to better understand our own economy first and what would be beneficial to us. And let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting off something that is so crucial to jobs all across the country. Well, and if I could just add to that, I mean, it's feeling a bit rich on the one hand, you know, when we look at some of the legislation.
that the government federally has passed that has stymied our ability to produce and grow the energy sector, whether it's Northern Gateway, whether it's the tanker ban and LNG. We're getting there, but we're still behind where we could have been. We've never heard any support.
in terms of why this didn't make sense from an economic standpoint from any of the provinces other than Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. Everybody else has sat quietly. They've never said anything. All of a sudden, there's a threat that we might, you know, oh, no, we can't, you know, let's turn off the tax. All of a sudden, it's great to use Alberta as the foil. But wait a second, you haven't supported us before. So how can you get away with this now? Like we're not, you can't hide behind our screen. It's just, it's not. Deeply offensive. Deeply offensive. It's just.
Unbelievable. Although there seems to be an opening for pipelines again is what I would suggest. It's kind of interesting how that conversation has evolved. Evan Dyer has a great analysis, if I say so myself, on CBC on pipelines and refineries, but it's primarily focused on pipelines and, you know, and a focus on our interconnectedness.
And, you know, he mentions that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers website is still littered with references to the notion that increasing interdependence with the U.S. would make Canada safer. But now there's a new conversation about whether we should have done a better job within our own borders building pipelines. And Energy East is obviously the one that comes to mind. I think it's an end piece, Kathleen. I don't think it's a let's trade off the U.S. for Canada.
continue to solidify that U.S. relationship. And frankly, if we can do more, let's do more. But we made our bed. We're living in the reality of having made our bed in the situation we find ourselves in. To Deb's point, Prime Minister cancelled Northern Gateway. Canada wouldn't support Energy East. The litany of LNG projects that got cancelled. So we find ourselves in this position where we are so beholden to the U.S. and in an existential moment.
So this is a wake-up call. Canada needs to serve notice that we are going to not be so beholden to one single trading partner and do our own – do a better housekeeping job here. Reduce or eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, overhaul the – How long have we been talking about that? I know. We've been talking about that forever. Like decades. But if there isn't a moment that that should – this should just –
Dump cold water on us to get us out of bed. I can't think of a better moment than this. Don't forget tax competitiveness. Well, tax competitiveness, but then regulatory approvals. Let's reopen the Energy East conversation, the Northern Gateway conversation. Let's improve our port and rail infrastructure. Inbridge isn't interested in Northern Gateway. No, I know they're not. I know they're not.
Maybe this is a moment where we think a little bit more creatively and differently and engage Indigenous communities and others in a more meaningful, thoughtful way. We suffered last year at the mercy of ports and rail strikes. How do we make sure we improve our ports, improve our railways, improve our airlift capacity to find other markets? That's a long game because that is not going to happen quickly and those trade relationships take a long time.
Time to plant a tree was 10 years ago. The next best is today. So that's, I think, a wake-up and a rally call for Canada to get its own house in order as well as tackling some of these U.S. issues. Yes, and if you look at the bulk of the oil that goes through TMX, it just goes in a tanker down the U.S. coast and is refined in Washington and California. So, yes, we should continue to make those efforts. Yes, we should be doing what we can to develop our natural resources.
Canada has 15 free trade agreements, 51 countries. Our trade with our North American partners is four times bigger than the next 14 combined, right? So again, I go back to our geography. I'm not saying we shouldn't try. We should try. So it is an end conversation, right? We are not going to, it's like they say in real estate, right? It's location, location, location. And it was always wonderful that Canada was right next door to the world's largest economy. Now our neighbor maybe isn't as friendly as we would like. We can't up and move.
So we need to figure out how to make it work, right? So yes, we do need to continue that. We do need to push forward. And I would also just say that it's also incumbent upon industry. Like having been head of the Canada Energy Regulator, yes, there's room to improve legislation, regulation, but industry also needs to understand that the game has changed and do its own work in communities to help get stuff built. And so this really is that moment. I think, you know, addressing...
trade barriers internally addressing our productivity crisis, right? And if there's a way to bring people together, you know, if you look at the Irish approach where they actually, when their economy was tanking, they got political parties and people together to agree to a corporate tax rate and say, we're not going to touch this, right? That's what Canada needs is we need a conversation about the regulatory and permitting process to get resources to market. It takes over 10 years to get a mine built in Canada, right? So we want to be a leader on critical minerals, like talk about planting.
a tree, those mines should be in production already, right? So how do we bring people together, understanding our constitution and our treaty obligations and relationships with Indigenous peoples to actually have a conversation where we can get to, yes, where we can say, yeah, this is a framework. We're all going to sign off on it and we're not going to touch it for the next 10 years. Because even the talk of, you know, let's amend Bill C-69, whatever, that's not great for investment. Or C-48 for that matter. Any of that, right? But that is the conversation Canada actually needs to have.
can we get to a place where we have a framework that is agreed upon and we say, we're not going to touch this for another 10 years because that's how you're going to get stuff built. And that's how we did get, you know, that's how we did get a lot of things and projects underway. You know, we had the general royalty agreement. We had Prime Minister Kretchen with Deputy Prime Minister Anne McClellan. That was agreed to with the province at the time. And that was that 1% royalty fee. We got it. And that's what led to the development of the oil sound. So we've done it before. And what we have to do is signal to,
industry, to any industry, that long cycle capital can be risked outside an election cycle and that you're not at risk of having something change and compromise your project, your returns and your investment. And that's not something we've had in Canada for quite a while and it's time that that changes. Yeah, Jean Charest, interestingly enough, was on The National talking with Adrian Arsenault and he said... I think in a few, you know, 20 years from now, we may think...
Donald Trump for having done this and allowed us to have a very hard look at ourselves, Adrian, as a country. That was not what I was expecting. But he said because that it might force us to just be a...
a better, more efficient economy. And part of Donald Trump's argument, I think, you know, you were talking about all the sort of things he factors into what a deficit actually is beyond just pure trade. And I think part of it's the dollar in that, right? He considers our dollar undervalued and we have an advantage because we're being paid in US dollars.
He has said that, and I've heard people talk about that the Canadian dollar is another irritant for him that is too low. It's an irritant, and it's also an obstacle to investment, right? Because our dollar is so volatile that people may decide they're going to invest in Canada for 5, 10 years, know what the rate of return will be, but have no idea what the value of the currency will be either. It is absolutely an irritant for him, as is...
the size of the U.S. debt and who holds that debt. That's another thing they're very focused on, which factors into their concern about China, right? They're really, really worried about that. And so how you actually have that conversation and, you know, to the earlier point about drugs and immigration, Canada doesn't have a big flow across its border, but we're known to have a problem with money laundering.
Right? And so to see the federal government actually start to take action on that, they've got changes to regulations. But that is a big irritant for the United States, right? So what Donald Trump is doing, how he's going about it is highly unconventional. But a lot of what he's pushing for is not wrong, right? Reorganizing or renegotiating the agreements with the international institutions.
I was a diplomat. I'm all for Bretton Woods in the post-World War II world order, right? But why is the United States with 300 odd million people, the largest funder to the WHO in the tune of like, was it 538 million? Where's China?
Pays about $30 million a year. Oh, they're withdrawing apparently. They are, but that's one of the reasons why, right? This is what I'm saying. They feel it's unfair that they are paying so much to the whole world for all of the things and that's part of what he wants to change. I'm not in any way endorsing how he's going about it, but the conversation he's pushing actually is a good conversation to have. How do we rebalance all of these institutions to reflect the actual growth in economies and populations around the world? And beyond institutions, Adam,
Political leadership. I mean, just how much has that complicated all of this, right? We have a lame duck government right now. I think most people would reasonably see it that way. We expect there's going to be an election at the conclusion of the liberal leadership race. We have a prime minister that obviously is not BFFs with Donald Trump.
personal relationships matter to him. Just how much more does that complicate this? Well, it's incredibly complicated because we have no position of bargaining. The prime minister has no authority to represent the country in any ongoing conversations. His successor will then also have very limited...
authority or stature to negotiate until we have a general election, which could be anywhere between May and October. So Canada is in a really one hand behind its back position in being able to negotiate with certainty. And so we're just going to be recipients of whatever the president throws at us because he can just do whatever he wants, knowing that whoever's in there for the next 60 to 180 days,
could very well be gone. So in the absence of that, I think that's where you're seeing Premier Smith going down and doing exactly what needs to be done, and that is meeting after meeting with governors and senators and congresspeople to advocate for Canada.
Because we have a leadership vacuum and I don't see anybody else doing that. I mean she's been criticized for advocating for Alberta as opposed to Canada and I know that she said earlier this week that she was looking for a Canadian carve out, not an Alberta or oil and gas carve out. But initially her conversation was really more about oil and gas. I think it's fair to say that feels like it's evolved a little bit. But it is.
The lion's share of our export to the United States from a dollar standpoint, a job standpoint, an economic impact standpoint. So I think she is advocating for Canada. She's a proud Canadian. But the reality is that when you advocate for energy, you're advocating for – it benefits the entire country. Heather Exner Perot, let me just – and I'll let you jump in, Deb.
It's fine to defend oil, but sometimes oil has to defend us. That's an interesting way to put it. But I think when you look at what, from an economic standpoint, it's still fundamentally...
important part of our economic fabric. And it defends us in the context that we have, you know, there's energy security, but it's also part of our, you know, economic strength and enables us to fund what Canadians expect. And so I think, you know, in the absence of just to follow on what Adam was talking about, in the absence of that leadership that we need in Ottawa at this point, the premiers are coming together. They're trying to fill a vacuum. Well, they're sort of coming together. They're trying.
They're trying. And I think now, but also that we know that Doug Ford is going to call an election. So that's going to cause more fragmentation in the voice. And so it's going to get even more complicated, which is why we really need to have a leading voice. And there needs to be some consensus in terms of who can speak for Canada. And I think that's what I keep thinking about is, you know, we remember Pierre Trudeau saying who speaks for Canada and Peter Lougheed answering him. We all do. We all have to think about that.
in this context. Yeah, you're nodding. Yeah, and I think a good negotiating tactic is actually to have several people on the same team taking different approaches, right? So I think it's always important. Really? Like you don't think people find that confusing, taking different approaches? You have a unified approach, but for example, like Alberta can really speak to...
Oil and gas, right? And then Quebec could really speak to hydro or whatever the case may be. They might advocate for their aerospace sector, right? I'm not saying that you can say entirely different things, but different members of your team have different relationships, right? So Premier Smith is tight with Governor Burgum, who's going to be Secretary of the Interior.
That's critical for Canada as a whole, right? That someone who's so close to Trump was considered as the VP pick and she's the one that has the closest relationship. So the prime minister, whoever that individual is, should not try to hone in on that. If the prime minister is smart, they'll say, yeah, she's got the relationship. You run with it. You've already got the trust. This is what we'd like you to try and get out of it, right? That's ideally what you would have. And I think it's great that premiers are using – I mean, yes, it's not ideal that Ford's going to call an election too. But he's got ties.
That the federal government doesn't, right? And the fact that Premier Smith represents a conservative party, like she's also going to be welcomed into the tent in ways the federal liberals are not, right? And that shouldn't be seen as a detriment to Canada. That actually should be seen as a positive, right? It would just be so much better if they could all get in a room and actually agree, I'm going to be a good cop, you're going to be a bad cop. And I don't think we're there right now. No, I don't think we're there. That would be optimal. Yeah. Am I right to take away a consensus that tariffs, counter tariffs are pointless?
Look at the relative size of the economies. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. To quote Doug Ford, although he was quoting, let's face it, that's an old chestnut. It's from Raiders of the Lost Ark. It just does not – it's not going to have the impact that everybody thinks it will, A. B, anybody who has worked in the world of mergers and acquisitions and trying to get a transaction done never shows their cards.
up front. You play them as close to your chest. You don't say what you're going to do because then everybody else can figure it out and say, well, that's great. So, you know, we can have something behind the scenes that there are plans being made to somehow respond. Well, it's kind of too late now, isn't it? Yeah, no, it is. But the point being, you shouldn't be showing your cards and putting a dollar value on it for what? Yeah. But is it a card to play? I guess is, I mean, we've already done, we've already sort of.
Error laundry or dirty laundry, whatever, even some of the clean laundry, I guess. But it's all out there. So do tariffs make a difference, Adam? I think it would be theater. I mean I think it would be symbolic. I don't think it would actually achieve anything. There's not enough.
We can't stop drinking enough orange juice and bourbon to hit them where it hurts. We can get the orange juice from Brazil though. Yeah, we can. We can do that. I know, we can. So I just don't think it would do anything. It would harm affordability in Canada. It would result in some inflationary outcomes and we're all trying to get the overnight rate for the Bank of Canada to go even lower as opposed to pausing or going back up because of inflation.
We just don't have the heft. Yeah. So I was there for the steel and aluminum tariffs. And I do think that very targeted tariffs have a place. I agree. You know, our economy is not big enough. But if you're strategic and go after the right people, right? And part of the challenge with a leader like Trump who's populist is you have to figure out if the people with the title are actually the people with the power.
Right. So last go round, if you needed to get something done on land management, say, you wouldn't go necessarily to the Secretary of the Interior. You'd go to Eric Trump's duck hunting buddy in Idaho. And he was the one who had the presidency on that issue. Right. And so that's what I think we need to figure out. You know, we're still seeing people. He's much more.
President Trump is much more organized this time, right? It's professional. He's got people around him. They're moving quickly to appoint people. The president directly appoints 10,000 people across the US system, right? So it's all the deputy minister equivalent, all the ambassadors, all of that politically appointed. Last time, tons of those positions were vacant because people didn't want to go through the vetting process. They didn't want to divest financially, whatever the case may be. Not this time, right? They're organized. So we're going to have to wait to see if these people in the positions are the ones with the influence.
And then again, I go back to, you know, Governor Burgum, great contact to have. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, governor of Arkansas, used to be a spokesperson. If we target Arkansas, then you have a better chance of success, right? So you have to be really strategic about, you know, this whole tit for tat, let's match dollar for dollar. Like that doesn't end well, right? But I do think targeted tariffs do have a place.
Yeah, it would be devastating for the economy, would it not? Dollar for dollar? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And we can't afford that. And we talk about what would happen to the value of the Canadian dollar. That would cause it to go even lower. And I think when you look at it from the perspective of we talk about productivity, well, sometimes that means you have to increase your expenditures on new equipment, new technology. If they are being sold in U.S. dollars.
And the value of your dollar is lower. Our terms of trade decrease significantly, which is also a problem from an economic standpoint. We just – we can't afford that as a country. Okay. Just crystal ball time just to wrap it up. You're all smiling like, oh, I knew you were going to do this because we always do this, don't we? So – but I know you're prepared for that because we're so predictable because we always like to end this way. But is it – oh, you want me to go to Adam first? Oh, thanks, Deb. Yeah. So does it end badly before –
ends well? Yes. Yeah, I think the tariffs are coming. Whether it's February 1st or April 1st or June 1st, who knows, but I think they are coming. And so we are going to have to endure some pain and hardship before we see some light at the end of the tunnel. And whether that is on a...
more relationship-driven shift in the president's thinking and approach, or whether that is in a, to Jetan's point, strategic countermeasure standpoint that inflicts some economic pain, or whether this is all, frankly, wrapped up in the USMCA renegotiation in 2026, and the world looks completely different through a remade version of that, or whether it's, you know, we get some success by addressing the irritants. It's hard to know which
individual or combination of those realities and outcomes are going to move the needle. Or we could be in this for four years. It's hard to predict, but I do think we are going to take some economic pain before it gets better. Yeah, I agree. I think that the threat of tariffs is too enticing. It is a great negotiating tactic on his part to see how far he can push us to move.
I mean, I think we have to be honest that the USMCA renegotiations have started now, right? And so we need to think through, like, how do you rewrite that?
or amend that agreement in a way to basically have a security chapter. How do you look at every trade element of that to incorporate a security component? He's definitely sending signals to China through – like if this is what I can do to my friends, what am I going to do to my enemies? I do believe that argument. And also he needs tariffs to fund all the tax cuts that he – like they need money for their treasury, right? This is potential revenue stream for the US government, right? So I don't see a scenario in which there's no tariffs.
Hopefully it's less than 25% and not blanket, but...
I think they're coming for sure. I think they're coming for sure. But I think they're coming and we have to prepare for it. But I think this also – I think the USMCA is officially open and on the table and we should actually be starting to push on that agenda. I also think that when US consumers start to see higher prices for everything from the homes that they're building to what it costs them to fill up their tanks, we'll have a different conversation again because that's something that gets the attention of political leaders.
and it will get the attention of Trump, especially when Jay Powell cannot bring interest rates down. I think that's the thing that we have to also be watching. This could result in a very interesting dynamic between the U.S. Federal Reserve and the president in terms of inflation versus interest rates and how they move forward. I'd be willing to bet that that's going to...
play into what takes place. And I think the silver lining is that if we talk about Canada in the next six months, we will see that the countries come together on issues that we understand matter to us and how we have to accelerate our economic opportunities as a country, not province by province, and will come out stronger. But it's going to be a really challenging time for the next two years, for sure. Okay. If not four.
If not four. Okay. I was starting to feel uplifted for a second there with your final answer. I still am. I still am. But, yeah, that's going to feel like a long time. This week has felt long, so. Yes, it has. What an outstanding conversation. Thank you all so, so much. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Thanks, Kathleen. Thank you.
Deborah Yedlin, the president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. Adam Lake has the Business Council of Alberta. She attended Silva, served as Alberta's senior representative to the U.S. during Trump's first term. And by the way, we are now available on video via YouTube. Check it out. Let us know what you think.
By the way, your email, if you want to let us know what you think about anything you see on the show or hear, send it to westofcenter at cbc.ca. I'm Kathleen Petty. Our producer is Felice Chin. Thanks for listening. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.