Gary Mar, President and CEO of the Canada West Foundation, speaks to Alberta Primetime about expectations for Canada-U.S. relations as Donald Trump returns to the White House.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Michael Higgins: What should Canadians prepare for when Donald Trump returns to the presidency?

Gary Mar: You made a very important observation from the start: This is the second Trump administration, and it will not be like the first.

The first, in 2016, was rather unexpected. I don’t think Mr. Trump expected to become President of the United States. So when it comes to his politics, we are forced to try to read the tea leaves through his tweets. Today it has a much more comprehensive and robust set of policies, developed by people who have worked there for four years.

I guess the first thing I would say is that we should ignore the tweets and we should actually look at the people who wrote things for him. So, for example, the global tariff was written by a MAGA-affiliated think tank associated with JD Vance, the vice president-elect, and was written in part with contributions from Robert Lighthizer, who is the former representative American trade. . We should pay attention to this.

I would say this: many Canadians are saying, “We have signs of hope, but we must prepare for the worst.” The global base tariff starts at 10 percent and can increase by 5 percent each year the United States continues to run a trade deficit. So it could go up to 15, it could go up to 20, it could go back to 15 and go back to 10. It’s hard to say.

There’s a lot of wishful thinking going around that the situation won’t be as bad as it seems, but I think there are strong messages going around that we need to be very well prepared. Here in particular, in the province of Alberta, 30 percent of our GDP depends on exports to the United States. So when the Prime Minister talks about trying to make it clear to the United States that they want Canadian energy, she makes a very good point because it’s vital for us here in the West.

In terms of dollars, the largest export from the United States is the province of Ontario, but in terms of percentage of GDP, it is places like New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and so it will be very important, particularly in the energy issue. There may be no benefit to a large amount of oil being exported to the United States if it displaces US oil development, but there may be a huge opportunity for gas that could be transported to LNG facilities for export from the United States calling it America First. , at least that was his approach during the election campaign.

MH: How likely are Canadian businesses, including the oil sector, to be pressured or motivated to pack their bags and head south of the border? Or is it more about investment?

GM: When it comes to oil, we need to change our message. We need to change our message to say that we are actually exporting jobs in a progressive way. I’ve visited refineries in places like Lima, Ohio and the Marathon refinery in Detroit, the refinery in Denver, Colorado, all of these refineries operate on oil that comes into the United States from Canada, from the tar sands .

So it’s important to say that we’re not moving your oil production to the United States, but rather we’re creating jobs because you’re refining it in places like Ohio, where the vice president-elect is from J.D. Vance. export natural gas that you process into LNG and export offshore to the Gulf Coast.

U.S. energy security will be important to the United States, but the message should be that it’s about jobs we’re creating there.

MH: A lot of this revolves around energy policy, so where do you think Canadian environmental policy factors into the equation? There is certainly significant pressure in the political and business community, right here in the province, against Ottawa’s proposed emissions cap.

GM: I think the proposed emissions cap will probably be taken to court and will probably be found unconstitutional. That said, some of the damage has already been done. People don’t like the uncertainty of whether or not the emissions cap will be implemented, or whether it will be successfully challenged, and so they prefer not to have to deal with that uncertainty . This is already diverting investment from the Canadian oil sector to the United States or elsewhere in the world.

I think that among the ten largest oil producers in the world, there is only one that is considering an emissions cap, and that is Canada.

MH: On the ground in Washington, whether it is James Rajat, the current high representative of Alberta in the United States, or Ambassador Kirsten Hillman, what will Canada’s game be like on the ground?

GM: I think the Canadian land game needs to be recognized that it’s not just about the relationship between Ottawa and Washington DC, but also the relationship between Edmonton and North Dakota. This is to understand that 35 American states describe Canada as their main export destination.

This requires an all-out game, not just in Washington, but with all prime ministers engaging with governors, many of whom are Republicans, who will recognize that the trade relationship between Canada and its provinces and their states is of critical importance. crucial.

So this is much more than what Alberta is doing in Washington, although that is important, and much more than what Ambassador Hillman has been able to do, although she is doing an excellent job. There is still much to do, at all levels.