Calgary Chamber of Commerce says 'Team Canada' approach needed ahead of Trump’s upcoming second presidential term

Ruhee Ismail-Teja, Calgary Chamber of Commerce vice-president of policy and external affairs, discusses the potential impact of the upcoming Donald Trump administration on Alberta with Alberta Primetime host Michael Higgins.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Michael Higgins: Let's start on the energy export side, because that's really where Alberta is concerned. Which is more worrisome: the prospect of Trump tariffs, or his commitment to massively increase American production of oil and gas?

Ruhee Ismail-Teja: We're really concerned about tariffs. We know that he's promised 10-per cent tariffs, which, as the Alberta finance minister indicated, we're quite worried about that.

About 90 per cent of our energy exports go to the United States, but we also know that 52 per cent of what they import comes from Alberta. So they actually rely very heavily on our natural resources for their economy and so even if they do increase their production, of course, that will impact the Alberta economy.

Tariffs could have an impact of up to $16 billion for the energy sector alone and obviously that would be quite significant across the board, and would also contribute to inflation on both sides of the border. We would be selling our commodities at ultimately a higher price to the US that would cause inflation there.

And certainly we anticipate Trump would get some pushback but as Canada, we also buy some of those resources back. They go to the States, get refined, and then they come back. So Canadian consumers would be paying a premium on that as well.

MH: What about the impact of punitive tariffs elsewhere in Alberta's economy? Agriculture is huge, as well.

RIT: Agriculture is significant. We know that ahead of United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement renewal or renegotiations in July 2026, one of the things that's likely on the table is supply management. We also know that supply chains broadly are a huge area of focus and with the port strike ongoing right now, that's a concern.

We need to think about how Canada is positioned as a stable and reliable trading partner, given the agriculture industry is also trade exposed to the U.S. and relies on that market so much. We also see that small businesses are really important, and so 42 per cent of Canada's exports to the states come from small businesses across a whole bunch of different sectors. They provide goods into the U.S., and there's a lot of trade that happens back and forth between smaller firms.

We anticipate that the impacts are felt not only by energy and agriculture and some of the sectors that we think of as top of mind to be impacted by bilateral relationships, but also the little guys as well.

MH: What do you feel would push a Trump administration to acting on this threat of him imposing tariffs specifically on Canada, or do you consider it a given that this will happen?

RIT: One of the reasons we anticipate this being quite likely is that Trump has promised to deliver huge spending cuts, but also tax cuts, and so he'll need to find revenue from somewhere else and has committed at this point to using those tariffs to offset the personal and corporate income taxes that would be coming to the states. So obviously, he would feel a level of pressure from Americans to actually deliver on that promise.

We do know, however, that based on the importance of the Canadian trade relationship, as much as America is important to Canada, Canada is also very important to the States. There will be a level of pressure to ensure that tariffs wouldn't negatively impact, ultimately, fuel prices and energy prices south of the border.

So we're somewhat optimistic that there might be an opportunity for Canada to talk about a carve out, ideally for anything coming from Canada, but specifically for oil and gas from Alberta, given that is such a large part of the exports to the U.S.

MH: The Calgary Chamber has put out a specific call for a unified 'Team Canada' approach. What does that look like and to what degree do you see the government playing a role?

RIT: There's roles for everyone to play. Part of what we know is 34 states have Canada as the number one destination for imports. So it's not only important that we have good relationships between our federal governments, but that we have really good relations province to state and across businesses on either side of the border, as well.

When we think about a 'Team Canada' approach, we're talking about an all hands on deck approach to heading into the U.S. and ensuring that Canada's value is really well understood by legislators and by some of the big economic players as well.

MH: Your president, Deborah Yedlin, in a column Wednesday wrote that the federal government dropping its emissions cap legislation the day before the US election is ‘beyond cynical’ and she calls for withdrawing the cap, saying it's not negotiable.

Why does that weigh on this Canada-U.S. conversation?

RIT: When you think about what's going on in the U.S., we know that it's likely going to be an easier environment for corporations. That pushes Canada to need to be even more competitive and it's an opportunity for us to get our house in order.

We've been very vocal on the emissions cap and connecting with the federal government to let them know for the last two plus years, since this idea was floated, that it'll be very problematic. We're particularly concerned about the timing. That just when we actually need our energy sector to be well positioned to weather the storms in the U.S. and to take advantage of the upside of Trump's focus on energy security, that the emissions cap regulations come at a very disappointing time, given the massive impact they could have that would be entirely negative for the future of our sector and Canada's economy.