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
How Trump's Threats Are Reshaping Canada's Energy Strategy | Election Special Ep.5
Monica Gattinger wants to know how. How will the federal Liberal and Conservative leaders fast-track the approval of energy projects? The projects that will reduce Canada’s reliance on US markets. Are Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre moving too fast and furiously in trying to respond to the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump? All to get votes in the current federal election.
Gattinger wants to know if they understand the obstacles. What about the climate, Indigenous rights, and the current approval processes? The latest episode of the Power Struggle special election series digs into these challenges. Host Stewart Muir’s guest says Canada cannot afford to get this wrong. But how fast can we get it right? Gattinger explains that this means energy projects that achieve a durable balance and stand the test of time.
Professor Gattinger knows her stuff. She heads up The Positive Energy program at the University of Ottawa. The program looks at ways to build public confidence in energy decision-making. This means knowing if our political leaders can do what they say they will do. Gattinger recently co-authored a report on how Canada can get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. It calls for much of the realignment the next Prime Minister will need to consider for the sector at large.
It won’t be easy. Regulatory reform is only part of the answer. Another huge part is viable Indigenous involvement. Yet another is figuring out how to make the process predictable and clear for investors. Gattinger explores the big changes needed if Canada wants to get serious about transforming the energy system.
🔔 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
It's really about rebalancing between economic and environmental aspirations and it's, I think, a growing awareness and understanding that durable policy in the energy space, you know, has to attend to that energy trilemma, right, people refer to this energy trilemma so that you've got, you know, when it comes to energy policy, you need to ensure that you've got policy that maintains energy security. It also needs to attend to environmental sustainability, and so it's finding what we call in our work a durable balance, right? So a balance between those objectives that will stand the test of time.
Stewart Muir:Welcome to Power Struggle. I'm your host, stuart Muir, and this is the fifth episode of a special federal election campaign edition. We're tackling the big issues shaping this election and really Canada's future, and we're looking particularly at issues related to energy, which is the theme of the podcast Today. My guest is Monica Gattinger, a prominent figure in Canadian energy policy. She's the founding chair of the Positive Energy Program at the University of Ottawa. The program brings people from many professional interests together to strengthen public confidence in energy decision-making. She's the director of the Institute for Science, society and Policy and a full professor at the School of Political Studies. Welcome, monica.
Monica Gattinger:Thanks so much for having me, Stuart.
Stewart Muir:You know for those who haven't visited your campus at the University of Ottawa I'm always struck when I go there by just how plugged in it is central. You can see the Peace Tower, you can walk to Parliament Hill, where the power players are, in just a few minutes, and that gives a certain buzz to, I think, the stuff you do there.
Monica Gattinger:Absolutely. We're just a few steps from Parliament as a downtown campus. It really does put it all into perspective. For sure, let's talk about the Positive Energy Program.
Stewart Muir:You've been doing that for quite a while. What's it all about?
Monica Gattinger:So we founded Positive Energy about a decade ago and if you cast your mind back, Stuart, about 10 years ago, that was really at the height of a lot of the controversy we were seeing over major pipeline proposals, right? So Energy East, Northern Gateway, Keystone XL, Trans Mountain and it was really clear to me that you know we were running into lots of controversy in the country over energy issues. And so the idea of positive energy, as you noted at the top, is really about how do we strengthen public and investor confidence in energy policy and regulation, and we do that in two ways, one of which is to use the convening power to bring together leaders from business, from government, from Indigenous organizations and researchers like myself. And then the second way that we pursue that mandate is by undertaking solution-focused applied academic research. So I lead a research team of folks who are really digging into the issues that a lot of our convening has surfaced as being absolutely crucial to strengthen public and investor confidence in energy.
Stewart Muir:In Canada, the public opinion tracking on issues. I don't think anyone else is doing what you're doing. If it wasn't for that, I'm not sure we'd have a sort of crisp understanding, as we do, of some of these trends.
Monica Gattinger:Yeah, no. Thanks so much, Stuart, for that. That was really important to us at the outset. I must admit a certain frustration, or had at that time a certain frustration with folks saying, oh well, canadians think this or they think that, and not necessarily, you know, digging into it empirically. So we formed this really fantastic partnership with Nick Nanos at Nanos Research and we've been diving into Canadians' views on energy issues, in particular as they intersect with environmental concerns, and so we've got about 10 years of tracking data now on some of our questions.
Stewart Muir:It's a very unique focus to your point, yeah, and you pair that with the academic research. I think it's just a great combination, truly inspired. I just want to jump into what we're talking about during the federal election right now. You were recently at a major industry conference A lot of the not just the continents, but the world's energy thought leaders and decision makers. You were talking about the need for North America to build energy infrastructure faster to achieve economic security and energy dominance, or that was the topic of your panel, but you've seen it hampered by regulatory and permitting obstacles. So this is interesting for a lot of reasons. One is the fact that the leaders of the major political parties asking for votes right now are pledging to speed up approvals of energy projects and related infrastructure. What do you make of their statements?
Monica Gattinger:Well, I mean, I guess I'd start by saying you know, this is an issue that we've been digging into at Positive Energy over the course of our entire existence. Really, how do we make sure that we've got regulatory processes that secure the confidence not only of the public but also of investors? I mean, obviously you need investment dollars or you don't have projects. We're seeing this on the campaign trail so prominently. It's very much about what this election campaign is focused on. I mean, this is a pivotal election for Canada. I think, on the one hand, we're seeing the ballot box question very much around President Trump, and which leader and which party is best positioned to address some of the threats coming our way from the United States.
Monica Gattinger:I think, you know, if I had a wish in terms of the ballot box question, it would be that it was about the future of the Canadian economy, because that's really what we're talking about. So when we've got the leaders saying, you know, we need to expand internal trade, we need to diversify our international export markets, that's really about what's the vision for the future of the Canadian economy. And so if you're looking to diversify whether it's, you know, domestically or internationally, when it comes to energy, that absolutely means new energy infrastructure. Right, you've got to have infrastructure and projects to move energy from one part of the country to another. So whether it's pipelines or export terminals for LNG, you know, take your pick. And it's been no secret that Canada has a major problem when it comes to getting things built, and this is not, you know, something that the leaders kind of just discovered over the course of this election campaign. This has been an ongoing issue for the country over the last number of years.
Stewart Muir:And we were coming into this election only a few weeks ago, when it was going to be the carbon tax election. But then Mark Carney made a decision that just took that off the table, right.
Monica Gattinger:Yeah, I mean. I would say even more than that though, stuart, is that the you know the threats coming our way from the United States. What President Trump is doing to you know, in effect upend the entire global trading system that's been built up over the last, you know, seven, eight decades. That's an existential crisis for Canada. We're a country, you know, we're a small, open, trade-dependent economy. The vast majority of our exports, you know, do go to the United States, despite efforts over the last number of years to diversify to other markets.
Monica Gattinger:So you know, you're quite right, that Mr Carney's decision to remove the consumer carbon tax when he first came was appointed prime minister, certainly took that off the election agenda. But I think you know, over and above that, off the election agenda, but I think you know, over and above that, we've been overtaken by events. Right, we had a particular configuration of issues for the election that we thought was going to go a certain way, where we thought the issues were going to be, you know, a certain list of topics. Now many of those topics are much further down the, you know, further down the election priority list and it's really become much more about who is best positioned to take on some of the threats coming our way from the United States. And again, my wish would be that we would talk more in depth about the policy plans of each of the parties to help Canada navigate not only the current crisis but its economic future at large.
Stewart Muir:Well, right now, it seems like every new day brings a mind-bending development, whether in commodity prices or in what this tariff thing means to different countries that are all now being dragged into it. So, in this almost random field of uncertainty, I think we need some principles to judge it by, which comes back to the value of your work. And I think if, in what we can shed some light on today, if we just share some of those guardrails for getting towards a better outcome for Canadians, it feels like that would be a good use of our efforts in this conversation.
Monica Gattinger:Absolutely, I'd be happy to. And I guess I think about it in two ways, stuart. You know my early career was really focused on Canada-US relations and in particular Canada-USUS and broader North American energy relations, and my doctoral dissertation focused on negotiation of the Canada-US free trade agreement and then NAFTA after that. And so I think you know, for Canada, you know, if you cast your mind back to the free trade election of 1988 and then the years prior to that, we had a very substantial national debate about what is the future of the Canadian economy. And you know a previous government former Minister of External Affairs, mitchell Sharp, wrote a document that really has had a lot of staying power, and it laid out, in effect, three options for the Canadian economy One, the status quo. Two, leaning more into integration with the United States this was pre-free trade agreement, so that was a big debate for the country. And then the third option, which was about diversifying trade to other markets and more internal trade within Canada. And you know, if you cast your mind back to the 1980s, the decision was made at that point to go in the direction of greater integration with the United States and despite efforts to pursue, you know, the so-called third option in the intervening years.
Monica Gattinger:I think the economic pull of the US. It's the largest market in the world. It's right on our doorstep. We share a language, you know. For the most part we've got similar cultures in many respects and so it's very easy to lean into that marketplace in terms of our export opportunities. So, despite a lot of the efforts, notably over the last decade and more, to diversify Canada's exports to other markets you know we've got a flurry of free trade agreements that have been signed over the last number of years you know there's been some movement in that direction, but really that gravitational pull of the US economy has really swamped many of those efforts.
Monica Gattinger:I think now we're in a very different position, right. So now we've got this existential threat to the Canadian economy coming from the United States, and so now we're pursuing what I think of as the fourth option, which is now we're integrated with the US. We need to, you know, continue to maintain access to the US marketplace. So we, you know we continue to need to press the case to our US counterparts about the importance of that relationship. But we also, in addition to that, there is opportunity to expand internal trade in the country, and it's really putting a sharp focus on the importance of diversifying our exports to other markets. So it's sort of an all of the above approach. So that's kind of on the one hand.
Monica Gattinger:And then the second piece and I'm sure you'll want to come to this, stuart, in the context of this conversation is well, what does that mean for energy specifically? You know what are we talking about when we talk about internal trade and export market diversification for energy. Those, to me, are some of the key questions facing Canada and Canadians right now. So you know, on the one hand you could say, well, maybe this is the worst time to have an election because we're not necessarily having the most serious discussion about some of these issues, but on the other hand, it really does put a focus on this issue and Canadians' engagement with it and desire to find a really constructive path forward for the country.
Stewart Muir:So for 40 years Canada has been pursuing a policy to be best buddies with the United States, and now we have been betrayed by that friend.
Monica Gattinger:Yeah, and I mean again, I would draw a distinction between best trading buddies and best policy buddies. So you know, the issue for Canada and for Canadians has always been, you know, let's take advantage of the opportunities that the American marketplace affords Canada in terms of exports and in terms of economic exchanges. So best commercial buddies, we could put it that way. But there has always been among Canadians a very strong set of concerns about Canadian sovereignty and ensuring that we have the policy sovereignty to chart our own path in terms of any area of public policy that you might imagine. So I think you know the current moment is not only raising all kinds of questions about that commercial relationship and friendship, but it's also raising all kinds of questions about Canada's sovereignty economic, political and otherwise.
Stewart Muir:Well, there's a lot to come back to there, but two big issues right now that I think we can't have this conversation without addressing, and I think one of them is indigenous communities, and this is among the varied interests that you've been engaging with in the Positive Energy Program. I've attended some of your sessions with First Nations leaders from across the country, and when we look at the significant attention in this federal election on energy, which includes building energy infrastructure on the land where Canada's 600 plus First Nations have their rights and are present, are we missing out in what's being said during the election on, first of all, ensuring that the First Nations peoples of Canada are included in this?
Monica Gattinger:I'm so glad you've asked this question, stuart, because it's something that I worry about a great deal. You know, over the last decade, notably the last, I'd say, five years, there's been a real transformation in the way corporate Canada engages with Indigenous nations, indigenous communities, when it comes to energy infrastructure projects. So, you know, sort of gone are the days for at least the smart entities in corporate Canada, gone are the days of looking at consultation and engagement as kind of a box ticking exercise. Companies the smart ones they know that if you want to get a project in service as opposed to in court to your point about rights, building a trusted relationship with Indigenous communities and with Indigenous nations is absolutely pivotal. And again, this goes, you know, we've seen over the years impact and benefit agreements increasingly and, stuart, I know thinks about how do you actually get a project across the finish line. But to make that happen, you know it takes time. Building a relationship of trust takes time. This is not about. You know, here's our project and this is what we're going to do. And you know, get with the program. This is very much about early engagement, you know, even to the point of developing a project, co-developing a project, ensuring that there is a strong, strong relationship that is built and that you know getting for a community and their nation to a place where that informed consent is truly and authentically being expressed. But that takes a lot of time.
Monica Gattinger:At the front end of a project, I would argue, and I think many would argue, it is time absolutely well spent. It absolutely is essential. You're not going to get projects these days if you don't do that. So when I hear, stuart, back to your question about kind of where we're at now, when I hear things on the election trail like pre-approved corridors or shovel-ready projects, I really get concerned because it's not clear to me what that means exactly. And so is the sort of the understandable desire to fast-track projects actually going to lead to backtracking all of the amazing progress that has been made with Indigenous nations and communities across this country.
Monica Gattinger:So you know, just to kind of unpack that a bit, stuart, when I hear some of the discussion around the development of energy corridors or economic corridors, I mean maybe I just am not getting the memo properly, but I need somebody to explain it to me, like I'm a fourth grader, so I can understand what Indigenous community or nation would be comfortable with the idea of not knowing what the projects are that are going to be inside that corridor, not knowing what the nature of the effects of those projects will be on the environment. How does that constitute informed consent? I just, you know, again happy to be missing something and be set straight, but I just don't see how it works. I mean, I could see how it would work in the context of an existing right-of-way, an existing corridor where, you know, maybe there's much better understanding of what sort of the environmental impacts are of development in that space. We've got lots of experience, good data, you know, well-functioning risk mitigation strategies, all of this stuff.
Monica Gattinger:I can kind of wrap my head around that. I can definitely wrap my head around an Indigenous-led corridor If you've got a number of communities, nations, come together and say, you know, we're interested in development. You know in this particular area that I can get, but a sort of what I think of as a greenfield order. I just really struggle to understand how that would work. And you know, same thing goes for some of the comments that have been made around shovel-ready projects. So I think we are very much, I get very concerned about not taking into consideration the way we absolutely need to the involvement and meaningful relationship building and partnerships with Indigenous nations on all of these projects.
Stewart Muir:Well, there's a takeaway there for campaigns. When you're listening to our guest Monica here, I think she's saying something really important, which is that if you're using phrases, if you're referencing ideas and there's been some publishing on things like the energy corridor idea, like Shovel Ready, but I don't think a lot of people are paying attention to it so be prepared, do your research and when you're talking about these issues, maybe the First Nations who you're referencing or not referencing should be visible in this.
Monica Gattinger:Because you know, monica, I'm just trying to think how visible are Indigenous people in, say, the roster of candidates, and I'm struggling to think of a lot of campaigns that have come to my attention in recent weeks that are putting First Nations with you and I think you know, there is the election that we were going to have, which maybe would have had a variety of these topics more front and center, and then there's the election that we now have, which seems to be really boiled down to this very kind of narrow issue. And again, I understand, I get it. We're facing an existential threat from the United States. But this is where you know I would really like to think that you know we can have a more robust discussion of Canada's economic future and all of the various elements that are going to be keys to success in that future, including reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
Stewart Muir:Yeah, I mean it seems like there's the appearance of agreement on these issues, just as there's the appearance of agreement on the carbon tax, and one can have one's questions and perhaps skepticism about whether really there's as much agreement there.
Stewart Muir:Or maybe it's just a strategy to not make this an issue that we're going to have arguments about, because for someone it's a good issue, for someone it's a bad issue and it's a distraction from other issues people would rather talk about. But we want to talk about energy, so let's keep doing that. And indigenous we've talked about. But the other thing we have to be talking about, if we're going to talk about energy, is climate, and climate change has for many years been almost a defining factor of any energy debate not just any climate debate, but also the energy side, and you recently co-authored a report Energy Projects and Net Zero by 2050. I'd like to talk about that, because you've raised this question of whether Canada can build enough fast enough to meet these net zero targets. And you know, in British Columbia recently we've seen the government say well, you know, maybe these targets were not matched to how things would unfold in reality.
Stewart Muir:So let's you know, tweak here and there. Can you explain how we get to net zero by building more?
Monica Gattinger:Because there's going to be some voters saying okay, they're saying this over here, but they're also saying this over there I think that's a really good way of putting it, stuart, because sometimes I think for Canadians it's like they need help from political leaders and others to kind of connect the dots on how all of these pieces fit together. And I want to just start, you know. So we started this project and I'm sure you'll probably want to dig in a little bit more in a minute here, but so it's called Can we Build Fast Enough Energy Projects in Net Zero, of fast enough energy projects in net zero. And at the time that we started this project, which was a couple of years ago, the final report, as you've noted, was just published a couple of months ago. You know net zero. There was a tremendous amount of momentum and pretty broad consensus around net zero and you know at that time whether it was domestically or globally, you had some pretty broad alignment between industry, government, finance, community, canadians, indigenous, don't know if weakening is quite the gas front, but oil as well. So that I think sort of started to get people thinking about OK, wait a minute, when we talk about energy, it's not just about climate. There are other things we need to be thinking about as well. So you know, security being one of them, I think the other thing, stuart, that we've seen, certainly domestically but also in many countries internationally, is growing concerns among the population about affordability and cost of living right.
Monica Gattinger:So to date, you know, for the most part Canadians are very enthusiastic and ambitious when it comes to climate, but that's when they have their hat on as a citizen. Increasingly, climate action is asking them to put their hat on as a customer right, so it's incentives to purchase an electric vehicle or a heat pump. And I think you know, when our public opinion survey research is starting to bear this out, that concerns over affordability and cost of living have kind of gotten Canadians going like just wait, whoa, whoa, wait a minute here, how up am I for some of these additional costs. And the collapse of public support for consumer carbon pricing, I think would be a great and unfortunate example of where we see that happening. I think you know globally, within the financial community, a lot of the momentum around sustainable finance. You know some of the wind has come out of the sails of that over the course of the last little while as a result, in many instances, of some of these additional changes. And now we've got the election of President Trump, you know, pulling out of the Paris Accord. You know the tagline for energy is drill, baby drill.
Monica Gattinger:So all of this to say, you know, I think what we're seeing is very much a bit of a strategic realignment around what are some of our core objectives when it comes to energy. And so for the last decade in Canada, at least at the federal level, the core objective has been climate. And I think what we're beginning to see and our research has been kind of banging this drum for years is that if you want to have durable policy in this space, it's got to attend not only to sustainability issues but also to affordability, competitiveness, economic issues and also to the questions of security, including reliability of energy. So with that, by way of kind of, where are we at on net zero, which I think is an important level set, because things have changed quite substantially over the last couple of years. So why do we say, or why does it require new infrastructure to pursue decarbonization, to pursue emissions reductions? Well, just think about it. We're talking about decarbonizing the energy system and the broader economy. So just a few examples If you're in the oil and gas production sector, that's going to require carbon capture, utilization and storage.
Monica Gattinger:Those are big projects, big investments, lots of infrastructure there. If you go in the direction of electrification, well, you're building new things. Maybe you're doing like the oil sands some of the producers are doing and looking into the deployment of small modular reactors Again, big investments, new infrastructure projects. If you think about the electricity system and trying to get a cleaner grid, you know for Canada, electricity system. You know decarbonization, you could be looking at carbon capture on gas plants you could be looking at. You know building more nuclear. If you look at electrification, building more nuclear. If you look at electrification, you know again, there it's not just about cleaning up the grid as much as we can, but it's also about getting new electricity resources to the places that they're being consumed. So you're talking about transmission, you're talking about distribution, you know I could go on and on, stuart, but you know all of this to say that. You know decarbonizing, reducing the emissions profile of the energy system and the broader economy absolutely requires new infrastructure.
Stewart Muir:So net zero for 10 years, we've been told. That means build less infrastructure. Leave it in the ground oil, not drill, baby drill, but leave it in the ground. Electrify everything. The ground oil not drill baby drill, but leave it in the ground. Electrify everything. When one of the chief proponents of carbon pricing, carbon tax, becomes the leader of the federal liberal party and the first thing he does is to ditch the very policy that has been the hallmark of his career for at least a decade, it kind of tells you that things aren't normal right now, because we're talking about building things, we're talking about not leaving oil in the ground, we're talking about electrify what we can electrify and maybe look at other solutions too, and then you're talking about technologies like carbon capture. So is it not suddenly upside down?
Monica Gattinger:Because a year ago we weren't talking about things this way. Maybe some were, but not the broad political discourse. It's not that anybody is saying climate doesn't matter. It's certainly not that Canadians are saying that. It's really about rebalancing between economic and environmental aspirations no-transcript. And so it's finding what we call in our work a durable balance, right so a balance between those objectives that will stand the test of time. And I think what we've seen over the last you know my reading of the last number of climate has been undertaken in some instances to the expense or at the expense of security and affordability, and I think that now is beginning to come to light and so it's shifting some of those policy settings.
Stewart Muir:Now that's what's showing up in your public opinion research. But if you shift to the policy recommendations, just going to your recent report, I think you talked about the need for clarity and predictability of future and current policy and regulatory frameworks. Now we're really nerding out here and hope we don't lose everybody, because this is sort of important, isn't it? The processes of how we approve things.
Monica Gattinger:It really is, and so you know, to hopefully hook it to where we're at right now. In the federal election campaign, you know a lot of the focus on approvals and projects et cetera has been on time. Right, it's been. We need to do things faster, and that is absolutely the case. You know things do need to be done faster, but the work that we did in this research study, you know things do need to industry from Indigenous communities and organizations from the finance community and ask them. You know about basically investor confidence, because that's what we're talking about investor confidence in Canada's policy and regulatory frameworks for building projects. And what we heard loud and clear from them was that, absolutely, time is an issue, but one of the really big issues is about predictability and clarity of policy and regulatory frameworks. Right, so you can have a really fast process, but if it's unclear and unpredictable, that is a big problem. And so a lot of the unpredictability and lack of clarity happens not only within the regulatory system but also at the level of policy. Right, so if you're a company trying to decide do we go forward with project X or not, you're obviously running the business case on that project. And if you don't know if we're going to have an industrial carbon price or not. That's a huge problem, right, because the economics of that project might depend upon the existence of an industrial carbon price. And that's just a small example. There are many, many other aspects of policy. It's you know, do we have an oil and gas emissions cap or don't we? Do we have clean electricity regulations or don't we? So that whole issue of predictability of policy is a challenge. And then a lot of our policies aren't always that clear, right. So we've struggled, I think you know, in a number of jurisdictions to clarify what the policy frameworks are on things like tax credits etc. That's also a problem for investors and then within the regulatory system.
Monica Gattinger:So again, I'd really come back, stuart, to this notion that you know it's not just about time. Our regulatory processes now increasingly involve individual ministers and cabinet at various parts of the decision-making process, and if you talk to any proponent they'll say, like this is very unpredictable for us, this is very unpredictable for us, you know. So if you've got a regulatory agency, it makes a decision about a project and then that decision comes to cabinet for approval, like what happens when it hits the cabinet table. It could go anywhere because all of a sudden, you got a whole different lens on whether this project should go forward or not. We've also seen a lot of you know lack of clarity in our regulatory frameworks as well. You talk to a lot of proponents and they say, like it is not clear what the government's expectations are when it comes to what we need to do to get a project passed the finish line. So, yes, it's about time, but it's also about making sure that we've got policy and regulatory frameworks that are clear and predictable.
Stewart Muir:I think it would be helpful just to get a little window of insight into how you do this work, because I've had a chance to meet your researchers. You put together a team. I know you've got PhDs and postdocs and you've got certain academic disciplines that give you a way of doing the research. And the reason I want to ask this question, monica, is just to see how credible it is what you're doing there and what kind of methods allow you to get to these important truths. I mean, what you're doing is and tested academic methodologies.
Monica Gattinger:You know literature reviews, case studies, in-depth interviews with senior leaders. All of our work goes to the Research Ethics Board at the university so that you know, we're ensuring that we're following the latest protocols. And you know, and I think what's really been crucial to the work that we've done, stuart, is that we have maintained the independence of the academic work but, at the same time, we have engaged very closely with people who are living these challenges on the daily right. So we have an advisory council. We've engaged, as you know, stuart, with folks across the country, from business, from government, from regulatory agencies, and so, as a research project proceeds, we're sharing some of the findings with those individuals we're seeking input into, like are we asking the right questions? Are we getting things wrong? That really helps us to ensure that what we're doing on, you know, on an ongoing basis, is pertinent and it's relevant.
Monica Gattinger:I think the other thing that we do, you know. So, yes, there is the typical academic publication that comes out of this work. So you know book chapters and journal articles and all of that. You know fun stuff that, for the most part, your listeners probably aren't reading articles, and all of that. You know, fun stuff that, for the most part, your listeners probably aren't reading. But we also really take great pains, when we publish our work for a practitioner audience, that it's written and it's packaged in a way that is accessible to practitioners so that that way you know if you're somebody who heads a regulatory agency or you're in a policy shop and you're, you know this is your file, that you can really readily understand what some of the key findings are from the research, how we've gone about developing that research, the rigor that's been put into it, so that you can have confidence that these findings you know have undergone the scrutiny of an academic study.
Stewart Muir:You talked about Nanos Research. You've been doing this polling for years, so appreciative of it, because no one else is doing that. I mean, maybe there's people doing it privately for their own interest in government or industry and they keep it to themselves. But you're doing it. You've got this great poster, nick Nanos really knows his stuff and you're sharing it. So recently you wanted to look at the attitudes of Canadians to oil and gas, so you had some studies. The top line to me was a majority of Canadians believe that oil and gas is important to Canada's current and future economy, and they also here's maybe a surprise they scored governments poorly on their energy and climate performance. So where are we at?
Monica Gattinger:Well, I would say you know the ground is shifting. One of the values of this partnership we have with Nick is that we've got lots of tracking data now. So, if you look at the oil and gas question that you referenced, we've been asking that for five years now. So we asked Canadians, you know, on a scale of zero to 10, where zero is not important at all and 10 is very important or the most important how important is oil and gas to Canada's current economy? And then we ask how important is it to Canada's future economy? And over the last five years, the responses to that question have just gone up and up and up and up, to the point now that nine in 10 Canadians say that oil and gas is important to Canada's current economy. That's a 23 percentage point increase since the first time we asked the question five years ago. And so you know you could say on the one hand, okay, well, yeah, it is important to Canada's current economy. So what's so surprising about that? But I think to us what's surprising is that it suggests that Canadians are learning about the profile of Canada's economy, have seen over the course of the last five years, again, when we ask that question, how important is oil and gas to Canada's future economy. Again, the numbers are going up and up and up and up, to the point that now seven in 10 Canadians say that oil and gas is important to Canada's future economy. That is a 29 percentage point increase from the first time we asked that question five years ago, and a full four in 10 Canadians score the level of importance to Canada's future economy a 10 on 10. So this is a remarkable shift. There's also a remarkable level of consensus. So you know, regardless of sort of how you slice and dice the numbers regionally, gender, age. You know even party affiliation and ideology. Yeah, there are some differences here and there, but still very strong numbers across the country. So I think for us, this suggests that, for the energy sector, that Canadians are very open to new infrastructure, even and including oil and gas infrastructure.
Monica Gattinger:What I would say, though, is that you know they're not saying it's full steam ahead, right, they scored to the other point you mentioned. They scored governments very poorly, very poorly, on how they work with each other on energy, how they work with each other on environment energy, how they work with each other on environment. We've got previous polling work on. You know how well governments do at having a shared vision for Canada's energy future, public confidence in energy decision making, and like the results are just dismal.
Monica Gattinger:The first time we asked these questions I asked Nick, you know, like geez, these are like really bad scores. Is this normal? Do people always just score governments poorly? And he said, no, monica, like this is really really bad. So it suggests that you know the positive spin, stuart, would be that governments, you know, have a lot of work to do. There's lots of room for lots of room for improvement. So it really does underscore that you know how we get things built. That importance of alignment, you know, across governments working on these things together is going to be key in the years ahead.
Stewart Muir:It's almost a year since the Trans Mountain pipeline, which ends in Vancouver, not far from where I'm sitting, was finished. The expansion was finished after more than a decade in the making and I wonder if the fact that that was finished no fuss, no muss I mean, yeah, over budget and some delays, but a lot of projects encounter that I wonder if the evidence of that plus it contributed a couple of points to the Canadian economy GDP points it actually grew the economy in an immediate, measurable way. I wonder if people picked up on that and that's part of what we're seeing in this poll.
Monica Gattinger:Potentially. I mean, we always follow up the questions about current economy and future economy by asking people why, and so you know the top responses in terms of why they responded the way they did is really people are pointing to the economic contribution of oil and gas to Canada's economy, to its exports, to certain regions of the country. And then the other thing that they point to that, stuart, I think goes back to our conversation earlier around climate is they say you know that oil and gas is going to be with us for many years to come, that alternatives, you know, yes, they're coming on stream, but not as quickly as perhaps people have thought, that it's a little more difficult to replace oil and gas than perhaps people had imagined. So I think what we're seeing there I don't think it's any one thing, although probably Transmountain had some kind of an impact, but the steady increase in numbers over the course of five years suggests an ongoing process of learning to us.
Stewart Muir:Yeah, I think people are picking up a little more information as they go. The awareness, as you say, the high degree of reliance on fossil fuels or hydrocarbons in our energy diet is like four-fifths of the energy we consume is from that and that has been remarkably durable over time. And the new phrase and there's a book about this recently, it's called More and More and More, so you can see where it's going just from the title is that energy transition. Well, in some ways, but really there's this energy addition that's been going on because the world never uses less energy, except maybe a moment in COVID, and then it just bounces back up. So some of the things we've been hearing over and over. People are just in our face all the time saying energy transition, we're phasing out this, and then it doesn't happen because you know what the way humans live it's not going to happen, it's going to unfold differently, and you've referred to technologies and approaches, so maybe that's just getting across to the public.
Monica Gattinger:The other thing I would note, though, stuart, is that we track Canadians' climate ambition, and while the level of ambition has weakened over the last number of years, it's not zero, so I think that's really important for leaders to be aware of as well is that Canadians still care about the environment. They still care about climate, so they will be looking for environmental and climate performance of new projects.
Stewart Muir:I have no doubt of that week or so before the election was called and then pretty soon we see a campaign where both the liberal and conservative the leading party, the leading political parties are talking about speeding up approvals for major resource projects.
Monica Gattinger:As a policy geek, that is always the dream, but it's always difficult to isolate what any level of discrete influence would be. I think one of the things that we see is that when we present these findings to leaders again, whether it's, you know, in the government space or the industry space there's often surprise at the findings because of the tracking data right. So I think you know we've had a lot of folks say, oh well, now all of a sudden Canadians are supporting pipelines of oil and gas. It's like no, but in the last five years their level of awareness and understanding and seeing a role for oil and gas in Canada's future economy has been growing. So you know it's not a surprise to us that there's been a bump over the last little while, given all the turmoil and what's coming at us from the United States. But this was already a trend that we were seeing well before now.
Stewart Muir:It's a bump, it's not a spike.
Monica Gattinger:Yeah, I think that's a fair way to put it. And who knows, the next time we go into the field and ask this question, who knows where the attitudes will go? But certainly the trend line to this point has just been a stronger and stronger consensus among Canadians about oil and gas being important to Canada's economy.
Stewart Muir:It is at a point where you have broad social voter approval for getting things done, getting infrastructure built that exists right now.
Monica Gattinger:What I would say, though, is that it's not. That doesn't mean it's a no-brainer, right? Canadians still care about the environment. They still care about climate. We already talked about Indigenous nations. You know, this is not a no-brainer about. Any project will be supported by Canadians, but it's also not a pipe dream. I think that's the big difference. Right, this is not a are interested, but I think there's going to be some conditions there in terms of what people are looking for when it comes to environmental performance of those projects and, of course, for Indigenous nations, their rights being upheld and respected.
Stewart Muir:There has been quite an investment in an environment energy policy by the Liberal government, an environment energy policy by the liberal government, and since they're the ones who have been holding the stick of power for the last decade, I think it's fair to delve into what they mean when they talk about things and do things. Just as with the carbon tax, that policy, we should be scrutinizing that closely. But the thing I want to raise is a policy that has caused a lot of upset in Alberta, in the industry, in the politics of Alberta and Saskatchewan, I think to some extent in British Columbia, and that's a federal policy that Mark Carney is continuing with. That can't be dismissed as a Trudeau policy. He's gone, the policy's gone.
Stewart Muir:Mark Carney has said he will stick with the emissions cap that many say is a production cap, and including those saying it's a production cap, which is to me, in my opinion, you know, comes into it. So if the parliamentary budget officer, someone whose credibility and qualifications and resources to ask questions and get to the answer, he's just a short walk away from where you work If that PBO is saying this is not an emissions cap, it is, as the opposition claims, a production cap. It's going to reduce the size of the oil and gas economy, and then that statement is directly contradicted and dismissed, if not just ridiculed, by our prime minister that's saying yeah, it's a production cap. You've got everyone in Alberta saying it's a production cap. And if you're projecting economic growth and you say you're going to build new infrastructure but you're actually implementing a production cap disguised as an emissions cap or otherwise described as an emissions cap, you know, I think there's some confusion out there. Can you help me understand this better, monica?
Monica Gattinger:Well, would that I could? So I mean, maybe a couple of thoughts. First, you know this is a pivotal election for Canada for all the reasons we've been talking about. Canada faces an existential crisis, it may need to take some very significant shifts in direction in terms of its economic policy, in terms of the orientation of the economy, and we're in the midst of a federal election campaign.
Stewart Muir:Well, you've got the liberals saying, hey, we're not as liberal as you think, and the conservatives, we're not as conservative as you think, don't worry. And it almost seems to be driving implicitly towards this thing. Oh yeah, it's just this homogeneous middle and you can choose whatever is on the menu that you like. I like that, I like this. But really there's actually a lot more differentiating the different paths out there. I mean, I think of in Vancouver. I don't think anyone's paying attention to one of the appointments.
Stewart Muir:So Mark Carney made a decision to, rather than do a nomination process, appoint a candidate in a Vancouver writing who is a well-known name, a former mayor of Vancouver who jury's term in office. That was when the Trans Mountain Pipeline was being built. This mayor, whose name is Gregor Robertson and is now running for the Liberals in Vancouver, opposed that pipeline. He used taxpayer dollars from his pulpits in City Hall to actually engage in legal fights against the federally approved national interest project interest project. He was constantly in social media, photographed at the front lines of protests to try to stop different construction components of delivering this project and became the anti-pipeline mayor. So our supposedly pro-infrastructure even pro-pipeline prime ministerial candidate, mark Carney, for liberals is saying one thing, but then he's doing another thing.
Monica Gattinger:Well, and and it's. I think it's very tough then to know in in that context, um, what you know sort of what, what the actual position is. I mean, that's certainly something that I've been watching very closely. I can remember, you know, heading into the liberal leadership race. You know, for each of the candidates, my mind of course goes to energy and climate issues and you know wanting to see. You know where were they at on the carbon tax, and they made themselves relatively clear on that. Where were they at on existing liberal government policies?
Monica Gattinger:That was not something that came out very clearly in the Liberal leadership campaign, so it wasn't entirely clear whether the candidates, you know, would go forward with existing policies in the energy and climate space. And then how did they kind of talk about oil and gas, right, Like, was it a topic that they avoided or used code words for, or you know sort of what was the language there? And I think it was very surprising, frankly, to see, as a result of the Trump tariffs, a real transformation in the way you know what people were talking about. Who would have thought that pipelines would have been talked about in a positive way in a liberal leadership campaign? And now, kind of moving into the election, we're getting a little bit more clarity from Mr Carney in terms of where he would take things. A lot of the existing policies would appear to be ones that he would continue to espouse, and so for me that raises a whole host of questions about how are we going to get a different outcome in terms of industrial confidence and projects. And this isn't just, I think, the other thing I should note, stuart, this isn't just, you know, an oil and gas question. It's more broadly about energy infrastructure projects writ large. So even if the sole aim is projects that reduce emissions like take that as a, for instance, that's going to mean, you know, continuing the path on electrification, continuing the path on CCUS.
Monica Gattinger:And you know you talk to folks in other parts of the energy space beyond oil and gas. Talk to folks in nuclear, talk to folks in the transmission business, talk to folks in you know, generation of a variety of different types of electricity, you know, and they'll say, like this investment environment is really challenging. Not only is it not timely but it's not clear and it's not predictable. So you know there have been some commitments that have been made by the current federal government around timeliness for things like nuclear projects. And then you know you speak to folks in the nuclear sector and they say I have no idea how they're going to make that happen. It's not clear to me how they're going to kind of line things up to get that level of rapidity in the existing system and over and above that.
Monica Gattinger:You know, in the existing system and over and above that, you know lots of big questions about Bill C-69, in effect, and the way in which the Impact Assessment Act will be brought to bear on some of those projects, and so you know a continuing sort of lack of clarity and predictability and concern across the energy space. So these issues of you know, how do we get things built? At the end of the day, stuart, it doesn't matter if your reason is to reduce emissions or it's to strengthen energy security or it's to, you know, pursue economic growth, like regardless. We've got policy and regulatory systems that are not incentivizing investment the way that they need to, and we need fundamental change to make that happen.
Stewart Muir:Yeah, because an electricity transmission line is as likely to be opposed by nimbyism, local interest groups, as an oil pipeline, and we've seen that.
Monica Gattinger:Yeah, I mean I don't know that I'd put it at equal. I would have to do some public opinion polling to assess that. Put it at equal? I would have to do some public opinion polling to assess that. But you know, early in the work that we did at Positive Energy, we did a lot of very deep dive studies looking at what are the drivers of local communities' support or lack of support for energy projects and their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with energy project decision-making processes. So in effect, you know the kind of the regulatory process and one of the things that came out of that work that I think was a surprise to some at that time was that you know, if you're a local community, the environmental impacts that you're thinking about are not about the climate. They are much more likely to be about local environmental impacts. So you know to your point, even if a project is going to have beneficial impacts for the climate, it's going to reduce emissions you can still see local communities who are very opposed to a project because of its local environmental impacts.
Monica Gattinger:And I can recall, if I can just add a little anecdote here, when the you know federal government was doing all the regulatory reform initiatives that ultimately led to Bill C-69, we made multiple submissions at that time, you know, presented to those processes were, you know, part of that consultation in a pretty substantial way, and one of our big points was to say, like today, the issue that has us coming together and reforming our regulatory processes is pipelines, because that was like back 10 years ago, but the projects of tomorrow may very well be emissions reducing projects. So electricity transmission, ccus, you know, take your pick of some of the projects we've talked about today, and so the system that you're setting up now is going to be the system used for those projects. And I think we've seen, you know, a lot of that come to the concerns that we had come to fruition in terms of creating a process that really has led to some challenges when it comes to getting clarity, predictability, timeliness of decisions.
Stewart Muir:Well, one thing I heard over and over when I came out to a number of your symposiums and gatherings was this maddening feature of Canadian regulatory processes you design this thing, you pass new legislation. This is going to free up regulators to come to timely decisions, and then those decisions can be made except by the cabinet of the day. And so does it really matter what all the processes are if it comes down to a decision based on oh, what do today's polls say? Well, we better say no to this project, because we don't have the guts to say yes to it.
Monica Gattinger:Yeah, and I think you know that's.
Monica Gattinger:We're actually doing some work on exactly that question right now.
Monica Gattinger:And to be fair, I should point out, stuart, this isn't just a tendency we've seen at the federal level, we've seen it in a number of provincial jurisdictions as well that there some sort of a say in projects. For all of the reasons we might imagine, projects are often controversial. But at the same time there are some real costs to that in terms of the timeliness and predictability of decision making and also the clarity of decision making. I mean, increasingly you hear proponents say well, there's the regulatory process and then there's the political process, and they're like trying they see those as two separate things tracks that they have to, you know, be investing a lot of time and energy to and then to your point, you know, stuart, to go through all of that regulatory process only to have it come to a cabinet table at the end where at that point there's a lot of unpredictability in that decision making. You know that really really dampens investor confidence. It can be just a level of uncertainty that's very costly for the opponents.
Stewart Muir:I don't know if you got outside of BC about an interesting thing done by the provincial government, the BC NDP government under David Eby. I just want to mention it because they had 18 projects and just recently they said, look, these projects, given global circumstances. And just recently they said, look, these projects, given global circumstances, should really get built and they need to get built fast because we want to see the employment impact. We want to see these things completed. They had like eight or nine wind and solar projects. They had some mine extensions. They had some LNG projects. That said we're going to make up this list and we're going to accelerate all the projects on that list, regardless of what they are, because they're infrastructure projects for energy. What do you think of that?
Monica Gattinger:It's a tough question to answer because, on the one hand, if a government is capable of accelerating decision making for 18 projects, why not do it for all of them, right? So you know kind of the question has to be, has to be raised, you know, having said that, there is only so much time and energy and regulatory capacity to go around. So you know, I think there is some attractiveness to that approach and maybe provincially you can get to a more consensus within the province about what those projects should be. I think that's a lot harder to do nationally, where you've got multiple interests across the country. So I'm not sure about kind of scaling that one up nationally, how that would go.
Monica Gattinger:Having said that, we've already talked about corridors and you know, I think conceptually it's a very attractive idea. In practice it's not clear to me how that would work. So I really do think you need to start with projects. But then of course the question becomes which projects? So I think you know our approach would probably be more along the lines of you know what, from a government perspective, if you are going to prioritize different kinds of projects rather than picking specific projects. You know maybe what are the features of projects, what are the objectives that the government is trying to pursue, and then you know the projects that best meet those objectives. Perhaps are the ones that you know that receive a little more regulatory attention, because you know I get it Capacity, regulatory capacity, public service capacity. There's only so much of it to go around, but I think we do really need to be careful about, you know, about picking winners. It's tough for governments to know which projects are the best ones to go ahead.
Stewart Muir:Energy and tariffs. What an unpredictable field that is. Nevertheless, when you look at the different approaches within confederation, amongst provinces and territories, and federal leadership, we have a real mixed bag of responses of what the messaging is and what the actions are by those who have levers they can move, but it almost feels like there's a Pinterest mood board of tariff policies. Pick the one you like, what goes with your outfit, and there's no coherence. We've got Danielle Smith pursuing you know one thing, we've got Doug Ford doing this and you know we've got the Fed saying buying billboards in the US saying tariffs make your life more expensive, which is true Tariffs make your life more expensive, which is true.
Monica Gattinger:Do we need some clarity and consistency as a country on what our response should be to Donald Trump and his damn tariffs? I would say yes, and yes to a point. You know there has been a lot of folks who have, you know, dunked on various premiers, notably Premier Smith and Premier Ford, for you know decisions and actions that they have taken. You know, having said that, you know that there has been, at certain points in time, a vacuum of leadership at the federal level. So you can well understand provinces, I know wanting and, frankly, feeling the need to step up. I think you know there has also been a recognition that different premiers, different jurisdictions, have different audiences and levers that they can pull in terms of, you know, in terms of relationships with the United States, whether it's regionally or, you know, different media outlets, et cetera. So I have tended to have a bit of a contrarian view. You know, I don't think anybody knows what will be effective vis-a-vis President Trump when it comes to the terrorists. If anybody thinks they know, you know awesome. But I think for the moment, everybody on the planet, with the exception of President Trump, really doesn't know what. You know what the next move is going to be, and so, if there's one thing that a federation provides, in the academic community, the phrase the laboratory of Canadian federalism is often used, which basically is in a fancy way of saying different jurisdictions are going to do different things and through that process we might actually figure out what works. Going to do different things and through that process we might actually figure out what works. So I think to a point there. Yes does need to be a, you know, a Team Canada approach. There does need to be some consistency, but I'm less fussed, frankly, with, you know, individual jurisdictions trying different things, because I think in that process we begin to learn what are the things that will actually get. You will actually get some movement here.
Monica Gattinger:What I would come to, though, in terms of the tariffs, is Trump's going to Trump. I just don't know how much influence or impact various Canadian reactions will have. I think that's a question we need to ask ourselves, and so it really does mean that you know Canada needs to look at how does it position itself for any eventual outcome. You know President Trump might stick to his guns with these tariffs. Then we're in for a world full of pain, and we're likely to have a lot of balkanization in the international trading order. You know he might back down as he, you know, learns in real time about how dependent the United States is on various trading partners. He might start to make some of these country-specific deals or sector-specific deals when he starts to see what can and can't be easily, you know, reshored to the United States.
Monica Gattinger:And I think Canada needs to position itself favorably for all three of those scenarios.
Monica Gattinger:So you know like, regardless of what ultimately happens, the threat of protectionism from the United States has always been there. There's a loss of trust. I think the threat of protectionism from the United States has always been there. There's a loss of trust. I think on the part of Canadians that you know they're not soon going to forget this. I think people are going to think twice, you know, three times, four times, about any kind of new deal with, you know, with the United States. So Canada really does need to think about, you know, how do we reduce our dependence on the United States marketplace, maintain the relationships, for sure, with the US. This is an important market. We can't ignore that. You know we're on the doorstep of the largest economy in the world, but maybe you know some of our new economic growth. If that comes from reducing dependence on the US marketplace by greater trade within the country, more diversification of our exports, that will position us well to avoid having the US turn our dependence on their economy and weaponize it against us.
Stewart Muir:One thing that struck me every time I visit your group in Ottawa when you're doing things is I look around the room and there's a prominent environmentalist and there's a political columnist, and there's a professor, and there's a regulator, or there's a First Nations chief who's involved in a transmission line project. You've got an incredible diversity of thought. I don't run into that diversity in one room anywhere else. Is that something you do intentionally?
Monica Gattinger:Absolutely. It is something we do intentionally. So you know when we started Positive Energy, for us the term energy means all energy, right. So this isn't just about oil and gas, it's not just about electricity, it's about thinking about Canada's energy system, you know, and how to ensure we meet all the demands of that energy trilemma.
Monica Gattinger:And you know the context for, let's say, energy projects has really changed fundamentally over the last number of decades where you know people want to say, in projects that are going to have an impact on their community, indigenous nations, you know, have ever more rights when it comes to, you know, when it comes to their consent to projects in their territory. You know when it comes to their consent to projects in their territory. And so you know, our perspective on this is if we can be a neutral, nonpartisan forum that brings together people from across all of those interests, that actually could be very powerful in terms of identifying what some of the challenges are that we face as a country and how we can go about addressing them constructively. So that is 150% by design, stuart, that we make sure that we've got representation from across the country, from across the energy sector and from across different perspectives on the issues.
Stewart Muir:Well, I thank you for that and I hope you keep doing it for a long time, because it's so important.
Monica Gattinger:Thanks so much, stuart. Hope to for sure.
Stewart Muir:We're almost out of time here, but there's something that really troubles me, and mostly when I invent this to friends, family, you know I sense maybe their eyes are glazing over a bit. But let me, if you'll hear me out Canada has two big export categories from which it derives a huge amount of economic benefits. The number one, biggest in the sense of dollars and value to the economy, is the crude oil that right now we export very quietly every day to the United States. That's our biggest export category. Our second biggest is that automotive auto parts space. Number one, number two Both of those are intimately about energy in our lives and in our economies. Evs we're all seeing a tidal wave of potential exports of cheap and good cars from China that China is betting its economic future on being a world-dominant provider of these cars. And now suddenly everyone hates Teslas, apparently, or at least hates Elon Musk, or some do so early dominance and prominence in North American and European automotive succession, having dominated this space for over 100 years, it's in question. And then we have these battery investments in mainly central Canada. And then we have these battery investments in mainly central Canada.
Stewart Muir:The Liberal government saw fit to try to stimulate the growth of this, the thesis being that if we're going to save this valuable Canadian auto industry, we're going to have some battery inputs and we should own that. So there's a rationale there. Whether it's executed in a way that is going to work out, only time will tell. Whether it's executed in a way that is going to work out, only time will tell. And then, on the first item, crude oil, there is an emissions cap that everyone who is trustworthy is saying is actually a production cap, and active policy will decline the value and economic impact and benefits of our number one, most valuable industry and other policies as well. Like you mentioned a couple of times, C-69, the legislation that Jason Kenney, who was a previous guest on the Power Struggle campaign series, he has called the no More Pipelines Act. So that's his view on it. So here we go. Canada, we're this trade dependent small trading nation, more dependent than the US is on trade.
Monica Gattinger:We have a preponderance of dependency on these and also, especially in the second case, threats that comeent economy that has benefited and contributed to greatly the development of the rules-based multilateral trading system, and so, if we're moving into an era of greater protectionism and the you know, unraveling of that system, I think it raises a whole host of very big questions for Canada's future. And now we'll see where this all winds up. Right, I think you know, if we talked earlier about the ballot question, I'm increasingly thinking about, like we talked earlier about the ballot question, I'm increasingly thinking about, like what's the ballot emotion? And the ballot emotion is fear. People are scared, understandably. Right now they're looking at what are the future prospects for the country, what is happening to people's retirement savings, you know, concern about jobs, their kids, all of this stuff together. So, like, the ballot of motion is fear. But somewhere amongst all of this and this is why I come back to like we need a policy discussion what is, you know, cooler heads need to prevail. And what is the appropriate path forward for Canada? The appropriate path forward for Canada?
Monica Gattinger:I would like to think that over time, there will be a greater recognition on the part of the Trump administration and we're beginning to see things really bubble up in the United States about the limitations of this direction that's been taken.
Monica Gattinger:And so you know the cautiously optimistic glass half full perspective would be that over time, you know, some of this will, some of these existential threats will begin to decline, and you know. But Canada has to position itself in the event that they don't. And that's where you know, coming back to more internal trade, trade diversification. But that is not a overnight process. You know, that is a years-long, decade-long process. So I think you know, making the distinction between what needs to be done now in the short term that's urgent and then what do we need to be doing to position ourselves in the medium and long term is going to be crucial. And I see a lot of the short term thinking now, less of the long term approach that is ultimately going to define how successful we are as a country in the evolving trade context that we're finding ourselves in.
Stewart Muir:This has been Power Struggle campaign edition with Monica Gattinger of Positive Energy and I'm host Stuart Muir. Be sure to like, share and subscribe.
