The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Can Canada Break Its Dependence on the U.S.?

Episode Date: September 10, 2026

As Canada looks for ways to reduce its economic dependence on the United States, what options are on the table? The Rundown examines efforts to remove interprovincial trade barriers and improve labour mobility across the country, with Ryan Manucha of the C.D. Howe Institute and Sarah Watts-Rynard of Polytechnics Canada. Then, could a proposed east-west oil pipeline help strengthen Canada's energy security and economy? Oil market researcher Rory Johnston breaks down the potential benefits, costs, and challenges of a project being championed as a nation-building initiative by Premiers Doug Ford and Danielle Smith.Donate Today : https://tvo.me/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What a difference a year can make. When you support TBO, you're helping bring trusted stories, inspiring ideas, and lifelong learning to people across Ontario. And as a thank you, you can receive the 2027 TBO calendar. Filled with beautiful photography from the documentaries and programs your support helps make possible. It's a year-long reminder of the learning, beauty, and discovery your generosity. supports. Very, very cute. Donate $40 or more to claim yours today at tv.com. Me slash calendar 2027 and make every month a little more inspiring. I don't know if you heard, but Canada isn't a trade war with the United States, and that's led to a lot of talk about relying less on the Americans

and doing more business here at home. But there's a problem. Sometimes it's easier to do business with the U.S. than it is with another Canadian province. Take BC Wine. Why is it so difficult to buy BC wines here in Ontario? The answer is interprovincial trade barriers. And leaders have said they want to break them down. Back in July, nine premiers, including Doug Ford, signed an agreement that'll make it easier to buy alcohol from different provinces. But how far have we actually come? And what barriers still remain? Also in July, there was another big announcement, a proposed new oil pipeline connecting Alberta oil to Ontario, bypassing the current route through the United States.

It's a win, win, win for Ontario, a win for Alberta, and a win for all of Canada. Is there a solid business case for the Northern Shield Energy Corridor? Who would pay for it? And is it even necessary? I'm Jay and Jagannolvin. Welcome to the rundown. Okay, let's start with trade barriers. With the announcement in July around alcohol, that's one barrier down.

But there are plenty more. As the trade war with the U.S. heats up, what should Canada and the provinces be doing to get rid of the rest, including measures that would make it easier for professionals to work in other provinces? Ryan, Sarah, great to have you in our studios to talk about this very important topic. Ryan, I'm going to come to you. You wrote booze, cigarettes, and constitutional dustups, Canada's quest for interprovincial free trade. That was five years ago. Fast forward now, nine provinces. have agreed to at least cross off one of those, loosen alcohol sales. What do you think, what made this agreement sort of happened, where we've got direct to consumer and we've got trade between provinces when it comes to alcohol? For whatever reason, Canadians determine the health of internal trade based on the flow of booze across provinces.

The big moment that happened in 2012 was when Gerard Como came back from Quebec into New Brunswick with the trunk full of beer, got detained and fined. And it's our bellwether. Can we actually buy Okanagan and Ontario? Can we buy Title Bay from Nova Scotia in Manitoba? That seems to be our test. So that was very important symbolically. Okay.

We have seen the province's premiers and ministers have a very busy summer with meetings, trying to ease trade barriers and make it easier. I want to know, Sarah, from you, what other policies or announcements give you hope? I know it's still early. There's some things that still need to be worked out, but give you hope that Canada and the provinces are moving in a direction to remove existing barriers.

I mean, I think when we see that the provinces are working together with the federal government on big major projects that have to go across borders, when they start to have those conversations and it becomes what's good for the country, that's really when you start to have hope that we're also going to see all of the systems that have traditionally sort of stopped at the border, start to sort of break down a little bit. So we're not just thinking north south anymore. We start to think east west. Is there anything specific that you're seeing and that you're like, you know what? This is a conversation that we should have been having perhaps before Donald Trump going involved, but it's glad that we're having it. Sure. Well, I mean, I think probably

the major project that that, you know, is sort of top of mind for me is how do we get oil out of Alberta. And so as soon as you start talking about pipelines, it's generally been from Alberta down to the south, where we're going to refine it and sort of sell it from there. As soon as you start talking about getting that oil and gas to the coasts and getting them on ships and getting them to Europe and Asia, you're starting to talk the language of trade beyond north-south. All right. Ryan, when we're talking about policies announcements that are still probably early, perhaps proposals, in some cases, anything that excites you? Labor mobility, the rally and cry that we've got 30-day service standards for Canadians

to move from one province to another with their credentials. Every province got behind it, and now it's been sort of enshrined in our domestic free trade agreement that we have. Now, 300,000 Canadians move from one province to another every year. And if you think about sort of attacks on every Canadian who wants to do that or the prevention of another 50,000 who wished to do that based on sort of just, just a lot of just, something as simple as credential recognition. That's huge. What are we talking about in terms of professions, just with those?

We're talking about healthcare professionals. We're talking about engineers. We're talking about, you know, in some provinces, interior designers, anyone who's got a credential that needs to be recognized by a regulatory body in another province. Okay. Sarah, Polytechnics Canada is an umbrella group as a CEO. You represent a number of Polytechnics. Talking colleges, institutions in Canada. Canada's major project office has identified 17 major infrastructure proposals. Those include ports, highways, mines. We're not even talking about building out the housing stock.

We're talking defense, AI. There's a lot there. Ambitious, some would say. Will Canada's workforce be able to meet that? I think that Canada's workforce will be able to meet. I think we've got all of the pieces in place. I think we just have to recognize that the kinds of numbers that we're talking about coming out of major institutions across this country, the number is way too low to be able to do it

all at once. Okay. And so that's where I think that idea around labor mobility makes a really big difference because it's not all going to happen on the same day in all of those major projects. It's going to happen over time. And so it makes a lot of sense to be able to think about, okay, so who do we have? How many more do we need? How do we keep that labor flowing from the schools and into the labor market?

And then how do we move people around so that they're in the right place at the right time to do the right thing? Don't want to put you on the spot there. But do we know the numbers? Like what are we talking about in terms of what we have in terms of people to do the job and sort of what governments are sort of expecting? So if you think just about, to pick just one piece. So national defense. We're talking about 125,000 more people in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Most of them are going to be skilled trades people and technicians. So a hands-on workforce already in high demand. You talk about major projects, talk about housing stock, all the same people who are going to do the same kind of work. And then one big major push to say we need to have more people doing this in the Canadian Armed Forces, who are they competing with, except our own private industry? In terms of gaps as well when it comes to education, math is going to be one thing that I imagine when we talk about skilled trades. Also, retention. Do people stay in these jobs? People stay in the jobs.

If we think about apprentices, if we're just talking about people who start in the skilled trades, only about 50% actually get all the way to completion. Once they are completed, it's a pretty hard job to walk away from because, you know, we're talking about a major, you know, it's a major career decision. Now you've got the skills and you can't, you don't just have to do that work. I mean, you can become a manager, you can become a business owner. So a skilled trades ticket is a ticket to do anything, not only across Canada, but around the world. So if we can get them all the way from, I think this is a good idea and I'd like to do it all the way through to I've got my ticket, then we can keep them. I mean, then you do find that you can keep people.

Probably not to age 65, though. I mean, we lose them a little early. They're their physical jobs. Okay. When you're thinking about infrastructure, one thing I'm thinking about from coast to coast is trucks because it's going to be a lot of movement here. You know, roads and highways fall under provincial and territorial authority, meaning that we're talking, they set their own weight limits, they're talking permits, we're talking training, very different. What is, what are the provinces doing on harmonizing trucking regulations? Is there a little hope there? I think trucking is actually another point where we say something's actually really happening.

You know, the internal trade story is moving forward in a way we don't want. In the fall of 2024, they announced, hey, we're all going to get together and announce. harmonize and reconcile on diverging trucking regulations because the patchwork increased the cost of trucking by 8.3 percent. And that goes down to the cost of goods on shelves and just makes it harder to interact. Right to the consumer. And right to the consumer. Yeah, you could draw the line right to the consumer there. And, you know, so this is important to every Canadian. The cost of trucking may feel abstract, but it hits those goods on your grocery store shelves. And as you said, it's about, you know, bearing driver qualifications for long combination vehicles. We're talking about weight restrictions and

needing different types of flags and lighting, long, oversized weight corridors. And so over the past 18 to 24 months, negotiations went through, and we came to a mutual recognition agreement that was just released two months ago that the industry itself has said, this is really good.

The provinces actually managed to figure this one out. You know, it could always be better. Things can always be better. And we've got to see how implementation happens, but it seems to hit a lot of the key issues. All right. Very interesting. When everyone's all on board,

that's quite rare. But when we talk about that, there's one, when we look at the Red Seal, everyone kind of looks at that framework and goes like, you know what, this is something that works. How can we broaden it out? And I'm curious,

could Canada's Red Seal framework for skilled trades be applied for other registered professions? As Ryan was talking about teachers, nurses, engineers, you know, interior designers, other skilled professions who are moving across this province. Is that a model or framework that we should be looking at? Well, you know, the red steel trades are designed for labor mobility. And it's one of those things when the need is the greatest, then people can come together and figure it out.

Again, something that is regulated among the provinces and territories where they actually had to get together at a table and say, do we really, is it that different being an electrician in New Brunswick and an electrician in Alberta? And realistically, even though we had different hours, different curriculum, different ordering in terms of what the, no, it's not significantly different. They're, you know, regional differences, but they're not significant. And that group got together and started looking at harmonization in a way that allowed for that final red seal exam to be common across the country. And I think that in other regulated occupations, you know, 20% of the labor market is regulated, if we started thinking about the same, those regulatory bodies in each of the provinces and territories getting together and saying, is it really that different, then you could definitely use a framework that allowed for mutual recognition. We're all going to say that whatever training that you've had in other parts of the country,

we can accept it, possibly with some regional differences, and which case, let's figure out what those are and actually just make it so it's super simple. Is this something that will take time, you know, in terms of getting all the regulatory bodies together to really go through, it's one thing for making an answer and to be like, hey, let's get all together, this is great, we're all for one, but really going down through the nitty-gritty

of, you know, what either side wants or what one group thinks is important. This will take time. It does take time. Let's use AI. Look at the regulatory framework and see what the skills are and really see how different is our definitions

and our profiles. I mean, these are the places when you start going, can someone do this? Can you do this? Yes, okay. And then I think it's a matter of the real work happens

once you already know what's different. That's when you start to negotiate. to negotiate, smoothing out the edges, making it a little bit simpler. And labor mobility is one of those things that we can make it as simple as possible from a systemic point of view. We still have to convince people they want to move. And so both of those sides of the coin are issues. I will come back to that point, a very important one. Ryan, the federal government and two Canadian pension funds are hosting a summit for international investors next week.

how closely are these outside investors sort of watching what's kind of happening here with these issues? Oh yeah, they're going to want to know if they're selling into one country or 13 countries. And, you know, we're also on eve of some potentially big announcement related to the EU. And that's a single market. And we're thinking, okay, well, what about our quote unquote single market domestically? So if you're a foreign supplier, seller, provider of financing and you're saying, do I have a fragmented domain here? Do I have to worry about 13 provincial territorial capitals? or can I bank on some alignment across the country?

That's key. Okay. Has there been any movement? This is something that we've talked about quite a lot here in terms of the Canadian conversation about a national securities regulator. Where are we on that? Is there any movement?

I'm imagining provinces like Alberta and Quebec are going to be quite vocal about sort of what their economies specifically need and thinking that their local, you know, commissions, know better. But any movement there? I have to give credit, actually, to the Minister of Finance in Ontario and his team for bringing Ontario into what is known as like, it's called the passport system.

But essentially it is, is a mutual recognition for securities regulation. And the panacea for a long time still is in some people's minds is a national securities regulator. And that's been sort of very hard to achieve. And so then fallback, option B, still pretty good. That's not perfectly the enemy of great, is this mutual recognition of securities regulation, which is what this kind of this passport system is supporting. And just this two months ago, a month ago, Ontario was the final province to join in.

And this has been a sort of multi-decade push. So again, even on securities regulation in Ontario, it's showing signs that when you have the right people and the right leadership seats with the right vision, you do get some change on internal trade policies that have been real sticking points for decades. All right, Sarah, labor mobility. Only matters if workers want to move. that's one thing. And we talked about how vicious these projects are.

Beyond the paycheck, what incentive is there for a worker to move from their home, from one place, across to the other side? I mean, I think that, first of all, you've got to remove the barriers. I mean, you have to make it super simple, you know, to know that what I already know, the certifications I have, the regulatory hoops I've jumped through, I don't have to jump through them all again. I think that that's probably number one.

But we have to recognize it also makes a difference with what their families are going to do. The people aren't making decisions just based on I need that job or I like the paycheck that I'm going to be getting. You also have to be thinking about what does this mean for my kids? What does it mean for their schooling? I mean, I went through school where I actually changed schools in middle of the year a couple of times. it's like it's not it's not an easy thing to do. And so people are making decisions based on some personal factors and and professional factors. And I think that all governments really can do is make sure that the systems are as smooth and easy to navigate as possible because people

have to navigate their family stuff on their own. All right. Sarah, Ryan, I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much for this. Thank you much. Removing trade barriers isn't the only idea being pitched as the way to make Canada less reliant on the United States. Premier's Daniel Smith and Doug Ford have announced a proposal for an East-West oil pipeline running from Hardesty Alberta to Sarnia, Ontario. Now, the idea is to move more Canadian oil across the country without it having to travel through the United States. The premiers are calling it a nation-building project. But the cost could be close to $100 billion. There are still some details to be worked out.

Like who would pay for it? So we want to learn a little bit more about oil and gas in the Canadian context. We come to a few people. Rory, you are one of them. Great to have you here. How are you doing? I'm doing well. Thanks for having me back. When a lot of people heard about the Northern Shield Energy Corridor, they probably thought,

don't we have one of those already or something similar? There's line five. It supplies refineries in Sarnia, Ontario. We're talking half a million barrels per day. Runs from Alberta through Wisconsin to Michigan. How important is line five? Give us context here for those refineries in Sarnia, but also for the consumers in Ontario who buy refined products.

Yeah, so I think one of the things that surprises a lot of people is that Ontario actually gets the vast majority of its oil, crude oil for its refineries from Alberta. It's just that those barrels travel through the United States first before getting back into Ontario. And this is obviously an issue with the trade war and everything else. But essentially, how it works, line five is part of Enbridge's mainline pipeline, which is the single largest conduit for Canadian oil exports out of Western Canada,

largely into the Midwest, and then travels back north into Ontario for this Line 5 spur. Another pipeline takes those barrels further up towards Quebec. But without that Line 5 pipeline, which Michigan has consistently worked to dismantle or block, Sarnia and the Chemical Valley and all that petrochemical industry in southern Ontario would be suddenly short of convenient feedstock for the refineries. Okay, convenient, I guess is the key word here. Does this proposal from Premier Daniel Smith and Doug Ford suggests that there is genuine concern that the future of Line 5's pipeline

is perhaps up in the air? I think so. And I think that what we've experienced first with Line 5, and I think it should be known, this is far longer reaching. It's been going on for years and years well before Trump's second term. But I would say that that was always a concern. And there were always, there was already talks in Ottawa and Washington actually working.

And Washington actually sided with Ottawa against Michigan. And kind of, you know, Washington is like, well, this is our purview across, across border pipeline. It's an international. There's actually a treaty that governs this pipeline. So all of this, but the concern was still there because all of a sudden we went from a state of, you know, in Western Canada, it was always we need to build more pipelines and we can't build them. And then all of a sudden it was not just incremental additions, but sort of people,

you know, worrying about defending your flank, but the actual pipelines in the ground weren't even safe. So I think that was an evolution. And I think the trade war and everything that's happened since then and the kind of rise in animosity between Washington and Ottawa has just kind of been the cherry on that Sunday. And some added context here. This is a fairly old line. We're talking 70 plus years. I think one, well, Michigan's governor, Gretchen Whitmore had once campaigned to have it removed demon calling at a ticking time bomb. So give some context. What happens in Ontario and beyond if line five is shut down? So essentially, if you lose access to this pipeline, I mentioned convenient. There are theoretically other ways of getting oil to southern Ontario. Trucks, trains,

you know, ships up to St. Lawrence. That sounds very expensive. Exactly. And I think when you think about when I said convenient, it's like, oh, well, it doesn't matter if it's inconvenient, but it's still doable. Convenience is money. And I think at the end of the day, If you have more expensive feedstock, your facilities are going to make less money. That money is going to go elsewhere, likely outside of the country. And it means the economics of those facilities will be challenged, potentially threatening their future closure if the economics don't work long term. All right. I want to look at a map. This is of the Line 5 pipeline that we were talking about. It is in blue. As we talked, it's only about 1,000 kilometers long, but connects to much longer mainline systems that run through Western Canada and the U.S.

Above that, in purple, is the Northern Shield proposal. This would go from Hardesty, Alberta to Sarnia. It's about 3,300 kilometers long. Quick, simple, what are the pros and cons here about the route proposed here on the Northern Shield? So on the route, it follows a very similar route to a pipeline that already exists. And I think Canadians will remember Energy East pipeline, which basically follows a very similar type of path. Now, Energy East was going to go further than that all the way to the East Coast to St. John. and that was going to enable Atlantic exports.

But this pipeline particularly, it's going to, at least in the first stage, this is the 500,000 barrel a day stage, is going to go directly south back down to Sarnia in that kind of region. The advantages are energy security of supply. Basically that without this pipeline, we could theoretically any morning wake up, and line 5 has been closed, either by presidential edict or something in Michigan, right? having your sovereignty, your energy sovereignty, kind of outside your country is a challenge, which is why when that north, when that, the gas pipeline that goes along a similar route,

it's called the Trans-Canada main line, it kind of sorts of gas from Western Canada into the east, that pipeline was initially also proposed to go south of the border. And this is actually C.D. Howe, like the C.D. Howe is actually the proponent of this and really pushed this through. And industry at the time was like, no, you don't want it to go north. There's not much up there. Much, much, you know, more I can. much easier, cheaper, and more commercially viable to go south through the Midwest and through Chicago, because everything goes through Chicago, same exact arguments were applied to the Transcanada Railway. But C.D. Howe, and before that, Sir Johnny McDonald, pushed both of those projects to be all within

Canadian territory, because without that, we're essentially beholden to potential capriciousness by the United States. And while that didn't seem like an issue for decades and decades and decades, all of a sudden it sounds extraordinarily prescient. Interesting. All right. Let's talk cost because I think that's a big one. Also, I know this is just in its proposal stage, whether this actually gets shovels in the ground. Who knows? But cost, time, and who's paying for this? Those are great questions. And I didn't get to, I said the pro. The con is the cost. And I think this is the challenge is it's particularly difficult to justify the cost, given that there's already

pipeline service. What are we talking about? It's hard to know exactly, but we're probably talking 10, 20, 30 billion dollars. I mean, it's hard to know the exact specifics, but I think the last big pipeline we built at the West Coast, you know, we're talking 30 plus billion dollars. I think at the very baseline, that should be our cautious conservative assumption. Now, we don't know that for sure. There's not a lot of information on this pipeline available yet, as you noted, very early preliminary stage. But the challenge with that high cost and the fact there's already a pipeline servicing essentially the exact same route, insecure as it is, this is why it would be very, very difficult to get a private sector, kind of a company, to spearhead this because the main benefit

is strategic for Canada and is essentially an insurance policy against future tomfoolery south of the border. But that's a difficult case to make to shareholders. This is why if this pipeline is going to build, at least in its current conception, it would likely have to be either some kind of combination of Ottawa, Ontario, and Alberta. Potentially taxpayers are subsidized ones. Correct. All right. Help me understand sort of the best owners in this? I mean, we learned from pipes at West, pipelines at West, but who would be the best owner of something like this? Frankly, I actually do think that if it is going to exist, and I think there's a strong case for it to exist, it needs to be government owned, because I do think it's one of these things where if you think

about it, all of a sudden coming short up half a million barrels of day of oil, and that's a lot of oil. That's, you know, somewhere in the ballpark of a quarter of Canada's total consumption, that all of a sudden being short up would be very, very damaging and kind of volatile for the Canadian economy and obviously devastating for the particular industry in southern Ontario. That is something that, you know, managing that risk is something that we would love the private sector to do, but again, there really isn't a commercial incentive there to do it. So if it's going to be done, it's likely going to need the government in the same way that, like, you're not going to have the private sector foot the bill for the military.

It's essentially, it's a security policy, and I think that's where the government has to step in. As you mentioned, government should note that as we look through that map, it is going through a few provinces. And there is a province in particular that is not necessarily excited about this project. Manitoba, Premier Wab Knew talking about consultation, having indigenous people at the beginning of this conversation, not at the end. Is that something that will impede if this decides to go forward? I would say the benefit here is that the federal government in particular is obviously increasingly experienced, with this kind of consultation. Now, obviously, different players, you know, on the board in this particular pipeline than West Coast. But I do think there is experience there. And while that experience

has not always been, you know, gleaming and good, I think a lot of experience and a lot of lessons have been learned about how to do it better. So my hope would be that they would do a better job this time. And when it comes to provincial opposition, as we've seen in the case of British Columbia, which was equally, if not more opposed to the West Coast oil pipeline, that was eventually kind of ameliorated by negotiations and essentially some kind of policy incentives, let's just say, from the federal government. Well, we talk about taxpayers and whether or not they'd be excited about, do you think the decision to build the Northern Shield will find much support among the public?

It's hard to say, because I think when you frame it as like a taxpayer subsidy, that's always going to be unpopular, no doubt. But I think when we frame it as, you know, leverage and defense against potential U.S. overreach and power, I think that's very politically popular right now for a plethora of obvious reasons. So I do think that if pitched correctly, I think it can find the political support needs. I think the same actually applies to the West Coast oil pipeline. We still haven't, I think while the acknowledgement is that this thing's going to be at least 90% government-owned at the beginning, it's kind of brushed under the, you know, brushed aside. I think that we have

yet to have that difficult conversation, which is going to be a difficult conversation. I know that this is a bit of a wake-up call for us, Canadians, to not. take our trade relations with the U.S. for granted. But there is the argument that, well, hey, this pipeline is going to take quite a while. If it does get built, it's going to take a while. That guy down south probably won't be here to see it through. Is that a reason to maybe hold off on something like this? I think there's a strong reason.

I think that makes a lot of sense. I think the challenge is that what we've seen, particularly within the Republican Party, south of the border, is a general trend towards, call it more antagonistic attitude. towards Canada. And I think that that is, well, Donald Trump as an individual has been uniquely damaging to this relationship. I do not think it is a sole individual that's kind of pushing this pushback against Ottawa. So I do think that it could be a sign of things to come. And I think, again, to your point, it takes a long time. So if we're going to do it, sooner than later is kind of when we need to do it. Roy, I appreciate the context. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me.

Canada is talking a lot about becoming less economically dependent on the United States. So how do you feel about buying Canadian, especially with the U.S. recently changing the name of a certain lake? I know that ruffled some feathers. Have you changed how you shop to make sure you're getting stuff from Canada? Send us an email at rundown at tvO.org or drop us a comment and let us know what you think. Until then, we'll see you tomorrow. Starting this year, grade 10 students must complete the financial literacy graduation requirement to earn their Ontario Secondary School Diploma. Need little help getting started? TVO Learn is here for students, teachers, and families.

Explore free curriculum-connected resources developed by Ontario-certified teachers. You'll find engaging lessons, activities, and tools designed to build confidence, strengthen financial literacy skills, and support student success. Get everything you need. Free at TVOLearn.com.