Ruhee Ismail-Teja, vice-president of policy and external affairs for the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, discusses the potential impact of the incoming 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 with energy exports, because that’s really where Alberta’s concern lies. Which is more worrying: Trump’s prospect of tariffs, or his commitment to massively increase U.S. oil and gas production?

Ruhee Ismail-Teja: We are really concerned about the rates. We know he promised tariffs of 10 per cent, which, as Alberta’s finance minister said, we are very concerned about.

About 90 percent of our energy exports go to the United States, but we also know that 52 percent of what they import comes from Alberta. So their economy is very dependent on our natural resources and even if they increase their production, of course it will have an impact on the Alberta economy.

Tariffs could have an impact of up to $16 billion for the energy sector alone, which would obviously be very significant across the board and would also contribute to inflation on both sides of the border. We would sell our raw materials at a higher price to the United States, causing inflation there.

And we certainly anticipate that there will be some resistance from Trump, but as Canada we are also buying back some of those resources. They go to the United States, improve their skills, then come back. Canadian consumers would therefore also pay extra for this.

MH: What about the impact of punitive tariffs elsewhere on Alberta’s economy? Agriculture is also huge.

RIT: Agriculture is important. We know that as we approach the renewal or renegotiations of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in July 2026, one of the things that will likely be on the table is supply management . We also know that supply chains as a whole are a major area of ​​focus and, with the port strike underway at the moment, this is a concern.

We need to think about how Canada can position itself as a stable and reliable trading partner, given that the agricultural sector is also exposed to trade with the United States and relies heavily on that market. We also see that small businesses are very important, and that’s why 42 percent of Canada’s exports to the states come from small businesses across a whole host of different sectors. They supply goods to the United States, and there’s a lot of trade between small businesses.

We anticipate that the impacts will be felt not only in energy and agriculture and in some of the sectors that we consider to be most likely to be affected by bilateral relations, but also in smaller sectors.

MH: What do you think would push a Trump administration to follow through on its threat to impose tariffs specifically on Canada, or do you take it as a given that this will happen?

RIT: One reason we expect this to be very likely is that Trump has promised to significantly cut spending, but also cut taxes. It will therefore have to find income elsewhere and is committed at this stage to using these tariffs to compensate. personal and corporate income taxes that would be collected by states. So obviously he would feel some level of pressure from the Americans to actually keep that promise.

We do know, however, that given the importance of Canadian trade relations, while America is important to Canada, Canada is also very important to the United States. There will be some level of pressure to ensure that the tariffs do not ultimately have a negative impact on fuel prices and on energy prices south of the border.

So we’re somewhat optimistic that Canada can talk about an exclusion, ideally for anything that comes from Canada, but specifically for Alberta oil and gas, given that they represent a very significant share of exports to the United States.

MH: The Calgary Chamber made a specific call for a unified “Team Canada” approach. What does that look like and to what extent do you see government playing a role?

RIT: There are roles to play for everyone. What we do know is that Canada is the top destination for imports in 34 states. So it’s important not only that we have good relations between our federal governments, but also very good relations between the states and between businesses on both sides of the border.

When we think about a “Team Canada” approach, we’re talking about an all-hands-on-deck approach to launching in the United States and ensuring that the value of Canada is really well understood by legislators and by some of the big economic players as well. .

MH: Your president, Deborah Yedlin, wrote in an article on Wednesday that the federal government’s abandonment of its emissions cap legislation on the eve of the US election was “beyond cynical” and called for the cap to be removed, saying it is not negotiable.

Why does this weigh on the Canadian-American conversation?

RIT: When we think about what’s happening in the United States, we know that the environment will probably be easier for businesses. This pushes Canada to be even more competitive and it is an opportunity for us to put our house in order.

For over two years, since this idea was first floated, we have been very vocal about capping emissions and we have contacted the federal government to let them know that this would be very problematic. We are particularly concerned about the timing. It’s just when we really need our energy sector to be well-positioned to weather America’s storms and reap the benefits of Trump’s focus on energy security, that cap regulations emissions come at a very disappointing time, given the massive impact they could have had, which would be totally negative for the future of our sector and the Canadian economy.