Let's Talk Politics

Ep 13: Talk Is Cheap. Growth Isn’t: Canada’s Economic Crossroads

• Julia Pennella

Share episode

The political landscape in Canada has never been more volatile, with leadership changeovers, looming elections, and economic uncertainty creating a perfect storm for businesses and citizens alike. How can organizations navigate this chaos while preparing for an uncertain future? What does the rise of economic nationalism mean for Canadian policy and prosperity?

Conal Slobodin, Vice President at Crestview Strategy, brings his unique perspective from both government and corporate worlds to address these pressing questions. Drawing from his experience at Walmart and in government relations, he offers candid insights about the growing disconnect between political rhetoric and everyday economic realities facing Canadians.

At the heart of our conversation is a call for reimagining the relationship between government and business. Rather than continuing the adversarial approach that has dominated recent years, Slobodin makes a compelling case for collaboration based on mutual understanding and appropriate risk-sharing. Government programs must evolve beyond supporting only "safe bet" investments if Canada hopes to compete with American jurisdictions that aggressively court economic development.

We also explore the critical issue of interprovincial trade barriers—those seemingly small regulations that collectively hamper national unity and economic growth. From credential recognition to alcohol transportation restrictions, these barriers symbolize a fragmented approach to nationhood that undermines our competitive position globally. Recent progress between Ontario and Atlantic provinces offers hope, but much work remains.

Whether you're a business leader trying to understand political risk, a policy enthusiast interested in economic nationalism, or simply a Canadian concerned about affordability and economic opportunity, this conversation provides valuable context for understanding the forces shaping our national future. Listen now to gain insights that go beyond partisan talking points and get to the heart of Canada's economic challenges and opportunities.

Just a quick note: this episode was recorded on April 22, 2025, so while the news may have changed since this conversation was recorded, the thoughts and ideas still remain relevant. 


Speaker 1:

Hey everyone, welcome back to let's Talk Politics. As Canada heads into a pivotal federal election just days away, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have made some big promises in their platforms. We're talking tax cuts, billions in new spending and you guessed it more deficits, and not just for a year or two. This might be the new normal, and not just for a year or two. This might be the new normal, especially with the US turning up the heat in an ongoing trade war that's shaking global economies. What's interesting, though, is that neither party is even trying to promise a balanced budget in the short term. That's a pretty big shift from how campaigns usually go, but maybe it makes sense. When people are worried about their jobs and the economy, balanced books start to feel a little bit more abstract. So where does this leave us? Well, both parties are banking on some pretty optimistic numbers, and economists are raising eyebrows at some of these proposals, especially when you factor in the possibility of a global shutdown or recession. And then there's the fine print, from creative accounting to dynamic scoring and splitting the budget into operating and capital columns. There's a lot going on under the hood of these platforms, and not all of it is easy to compare, and not all of it is easy to compare. So today we're asking, in a world of trade wars, shaky projections and ballooning budgets, what's really at stake and how should voters make sense of it all? Joining me today is Kano Slobodin, vice President at Crestview Strategy.

Speaker 1:

In this episode, we're talking about how the government relations space has evolved in today's turbulent political climate. We get into why it's more important than ever for government and business to work together, not vilify each other, if we want to create policies that actually support Canadians and their economic well-being. And we get into the rise of economic nationalism, what it means, why it matters and how that mindset needs to be reflected in our government policies, including the often overlooked area of interprovincial trade. Just a quick note this episode was recorded on April 22nd 2025. So, while the news may have changed since this conversation was recorded, the thoughts and ideas still remain relevant. So let's talk. Politics Given so much uncertainty right now, politically and, most important, economically. We've seen markets go up and down like a yo-yo with the on and off again tariffs. How are you supporting your clients on both sides of the border during these turbulent times, whether it's through strategy, government relations yeah, if you could speak to that.

Speaker 2:

You know a lot of it is just counseling at this point. You know a lot of it is just counseling at this point. I think a lot of people have seen the uncertainty and they respond to it with hesitancy and a little bit of concern. I wouldn't say this is a product of just one event. You know, I joined Crestview six months ago and it was a week before the US election and the stuff that's come from that. But then Freeland resigned and then Trudeau resigned and we had the race. Then Doug Ford called an election and the tariffs kept coming in from that. But then Freeland resigned and then Trudeau resigned and we had the race. Then Doug Ford called an election and the tariffs kept coming in and out, and now the leadership race is dominant around election.

Speaker 2:

So it's been six months of absolute chaos and in some ways you could argue that we haven't really had a federal government. So you have people say well, I really want to advance an issue, and sometimes you just got to be brutally honest and say there's no vehicle for you to advance this. If you're looking for a legislative change when parliament's paroled and there's likely going to be an election, my best advice to you is don't hire a lobbyist, just wait, and you know, sometimes people say, well, you should bring them on board. I don't think that's necessarily the best approach. There are clients where I've said, listen, you've got a long play coming out of this. Let's work together now so that when the government comes back, you're not behind the eight ball and every case is different, for example.

Speaker 2:

So it's really just sharing the information, giving your insights, avoiding being like you're repeating the news and really just helping them prepare for the next iteration of government in Canada. It's not an easy time, but sometimes just keeping your head down and thinking about what are the fundamentals you're trying to achieve is important, and staying above the day-to-day politics and thinking about where we're going. I'll be honest for the past several weeks, I've been helping some of my clients prepare for what's likely to be a liberal government. Now that could change on Monday and apologies to my clients if that's the case, but sometimes you just need to choose a horse and start preparing or you're just going to waste a lot of time.

Speaker 1:

And I appreciate you heard it here first folks an honest lobbyist who's really putting the interests of his clients first. You've been in the consulting and government relations world for close to a decade now. How have you seen the space evolve over the years and with all these political shifts, changing public expectations and rapid tech advancements, where do you think the industry is headed?

Speaker 2:

I love that question. Over the past decade it has changed a lot, I would say. If you ask any lobbyist, the first thing that they would probably lament about is the feeling that it's saturated, and I think there's a lot of players. But to call it saturation is maybe not fair. I think there was a lot of economic opportunity that was latent and a lot of people thought I'm going to try to take a crack at it. Google complaining that people were trying to get into the search engine business would be a little bit lazy on Google's part.

Speaker 2:

Over the past decade, especially in the last half decade, a lot of organizations have realized that government could both be a disruptor and an enabler of their business, particularly under a more activist government, like the Trudeau government did. You saw oil and gas enter that space pretty quickly. Environmental groups as well, especially since they had been on a little bit of the outs with the Arbor government. But then COVID and the impact on regulations, labor policies, supply chains all of that really fit in there. Pact on regulations, labor policies, supply chains all of that really fit in there. At the same time and I think this is concomitant with the growth of the civil service government has just become way more opaque. It's a lot harder to figure out what government's up to, to understand government, understand the machinery, know who the players are, navigate the players. Understand a minority government in some ways too, and that's kind of dovetailed with the need for people to have more government relations. So they want the service but they don't understand it.

Speaker 2:

I think the challenge is, if you're going to market for government relations is there's so many players and you maybe are not a discerning buyer, so you think that everybody looks exactly the same, and you're probably right.

Speaker 2:

I think if you ask somebody for a proposal, they're going to look exactly the same.

Speaker 2:

That's a challenge. That really is a challenge, and I think at the end of the day, it's about somebody who you feel you can work with, somebody who you think that you can trust, who's willing to discuss the risks that you might be facing and give you honest advice that maybe what you want to achieve is not feasible, or maybe the road that you've laid out will not be the road that takes you to your objective. That's probably what you're really looking for in a lot of cases, if you don't know what you're looking for and you go too far down the road of really trying to quantify what a GR lobbyist does, you're running the risk of somebody who's just gonna be giving you a lot of perspective on the news and what you want is somebody who's gonna pick up the phone for you and phone government and meet government and represent you regularly. And so if you're sitting on this podcast and you're thinking, how do I know what a good lobbyist is, it's somebody who's going to be always talking on your behalf. That's my piece of advice there.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, well said, I've engaged with different firms and you can really pick apart who, like you said, is just kind of regurgitating the news and who's actually going to come to you with a strategy. On that note, you are the VP at Crestview Strategy. How do you work to make sure that Crestview stands out among the many lobbying firms in Ottawa? How do you balance that in comparison to maybe a boutique firm Like what's making you guys stand out?

Speaker 2:

Well, that's a great question. I think a lot of the credibility goes to the partnership with the firms in building this company for 20 years. They built a fantastic team, a fantastic brand, a fantastic approach to business development and I give them a lot of credit. That's one of the reasons why I wanted to join the firm. I think where Crestview stands out is it's multifaceted. It operates in different sectors of the public affairs spectrum, let's call it. We've got public opinion research, we've got relations, we've got strategic communications, we've got grassroots mobilization. That gets most pieces of what a government relations campaign really needs. But we're also in different provinces.

Speaker 2:

We have six offices across Canada, which means that we're able to pick things up on the ground and share it very quickly. We operate in different countries. We're in Australia, the United States and Great Britain and that gives us unique access to inside some other very peer markets and peer economies, which gives us opportunity for growth as well. But I think on top of it, we just deliver a solid product and I know I'm kind of like patting myself on the back, but if you hold on to clients for a long time and you keep generating referrals, I think it says a lot. It says a lot, and that the fact that the firm has been able to grow so successfully says a lot about the quality of that team. So I joined recently. I credit the people who came before me in many ways, but it's a great company to be part of.

Speaker 1:

I'm great to hear and I know you and I have been in passing in conversation for so long. You're just a really great, personable, charismatic, caring person, so I really recommend reaching out to Connell if you can for your GR needs. But I'm going to take the conversation back to the election and affordability. We're already in the middle of an affordability crisis and Canadians are really feeling it. From your experience in the retail sector and the conversations you're currently having with your clients, what kind of impact do you think we'd see if these pause tariffs do come back into play Again? There's so much uncertainty, but how hard, if the tariffs are put in, could this hit Canadians' wallets from everyday goods that they buy, from food to diapers, to their computers?

Speaker 2:

It'll hurt a lot. I'll take it back to your first question about what's the national mood. And you know, I worked at Walmart for three and a half years before Crestview and it was an interesting experience talking about what our issues were with the federal government, because it was very clear that we were speaking of two different worlds. Speaking to affordability, speaking to the cost of living, speaking to some of the stuff that retailers face, like crime and violence in their stores and other communities. Just, people had a hard time computing that that was something that existed, but that is exactly what the conservatives are speaking to, right. So you've got 40% of the country that doesn't see it, 40% of it that lives it every day. I think people still need to buy their food, right, so it's not like you're going to stop eating. I think some people eat a lot less. They'll trade down. I think that benefits a lot of the discount retailers. We've seen that trend for years. What does that mean for Canadians? I think inevitably, we're still going to buy a lot of American goods. We don't make a lot of that in Canada. I think it's an opportunity for the next government to really invest in the food processing, the manufacturing sector, to support more bi-Canadian initiatives and I applaud a lot of the conservatives and liberals and even the NDP who are talking about that more. We've got to get serious about it. But when it comes to the cost of living, we've got to start speaking to people who are in that space and I worry, if the current trajectory continues, that we are going to split that political discourse. That's a major concern for me and I got to give a tremendous amount of credit to the conservatives for really recognizing that this is something that matters. The NDP are there too.

Speaker 2:

I don't think the solution from the NDP perspective is to set food prices and tax CEOs. That's not going to solve the problem. People would just stop selling products in front of the country. I really did like back in December when they lift the GST off the cost of a couple of essentials. I think that certainly helped a lot of people.

Speaker 2:

We're dealing with a perfect storm of inflation, supply chain labor, trade disruptions, et cetera. It's very unique. You would got to really find solutions that speak to it. So if I am the next government, I would really encourage them to speak to companies like Walmart, the Costco's, the giant tigers, the discount chains, and ask them what are their consumers seeing, what are their insights, what are their metrics, how are their supply chains being affected by tariffs? Understanding how you can help them achieve lower costs. And we need to do it in a way that doesn't say, yeah, but we're going to make you more money too. We got to recognize that's probably going to happen, but that will also help a lot of lower income Canadians who will have no choice but to go into these stores.

Speaker 1:

And to your point about the GST removal, I know some economists weren't too happy with that because they were worried that it did skew the inflation numbers a little bit to not understand where it actually is. But from a social public perspective side, you know, it really was a great break, I think, especially around that holiday time when a lot of people were buying, and again, whether it's toys for the holidays or for family dinners. I want to dive into your public service and private service experience, because you mentioned your time at Walmart. How do you think or recommend governments meet kind of halfway between incorporating private sectors into public policy? Because what we saw with the Trudeau government and the NDP, it's a very negative approach towards business. Conservatives tend to have that opposite approach. So how do you think they can find a middle ground for government, whoever it might be?

Speaker 2:

Oh, that is a million dollar question. I love this question because it's something that has been sitting in my mind for years. I think it fundamentally starts with a change in government mentality, and I think Carney has danced around it. I think Paul Eve has gone closer to it but is still glancing off of it. It's about risk tolerance. I think at the end of the day, businesses are afraid to take risks if there's a tremendous downside. And if you speak to a government public servant, they're also very risk averse.

Speaker 2:

And I've spoken to many that you look at a program like the Strategic Innovation Fund, which has put billions into the Canadian economy, you say, well, which projects do you want to support? And they say, well, ones that are going to get built. And you think, well, why are we putting money behind a project that is going to get built? We should be putting money behind projects that won't get built unless there's money behind them. Government doesn't know how to do that. It needs to start learning how to do that. It needs to start helping people fail. We need to take that mentality from the Americans. That's one of the things that they're phenomenal at. Our regional development programs or economic development programs should support startups before they're revenue generating. They should be willing to take that risk. There should be more grants and less loans. There should be more forgivable conditions and stuff like that, and that's where we're going to start to understand it more.

Speaker 2:

I'd love to see exchanges between civil service and private sector. I don't think it's likely, but if people spend more time in the private sector, look at to understand their concerns. We've got to think about how markets work, whether it's a commodity market or a stock market. That needs to be ingrained a lot more into government and we've really got to get out of a lot of that approach to monitoring and evaluation, which really gubs up government and makes everybody so concerned about perfection that we stop thinking about the good. So I'd love to see that change. That's where the need in the middle is. If we recognize that everybody's working on a risk framework but government's in a position to take a lot more risk and that's what it's there for. We shouldn't be afraid. We shouldn't be afraid to spend money, even if it maybe doesn't deliver the results that we hope for.

Speaker 1:

Now I'm going to be, I guess, devil's advocate here. Can they take those risks when Canada is in so much debt? And I know rich people leverage debt to make more money. But there's also that public funds element to this and that's been the major scare tactic from the Conservatives is look how much our debt has risen. Can government take risks when the debt is so high as Canada?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think we can. I mean, I personally am very debt averse in terms of how I look at the fiscal framework of the federal government. I think part of it if I'm going to borrow a line from Mark Kearney is spend less, invest more and whatever that means in some ways. But I think that's what we need to do is really get out of the giant social programs that have no clear tail, that just keep growing, and focus more on more finite investments, and we need to grow the economy to a point where we can maybe afford more social programs. But for the past 10 years it's been a bit of a focus on wealth redistribution, the pursuit of equity and equality, which are noble causes in many ways, but we haven't been able to afford a lot of it. So maybe it's time for that strategic pause on the growth of elements of that. Liberals even took a knee on their climate strategy when they killed the carbon tax, for example. And so can we afford it? Yes, we really just need to think about what's the better investment. And you look at, for example, a multinational company.

Speaker 2:

I think when government looks at a strategic project, they think, well, company X, you're worth $150 billion. You can afford this project? And the answer is, of course, they can afford this project. That's not a challenge. It's what's the return on investment for them? Because if it's going to cost them a billion dollars to build it in Canada and it's going to be 5% growth, but it's going to be $900 million to build it in Pennsylvania with 20% growth, it doesn't matter. They can build it in Canada. They're not going to build it in Canada.

Speaker 2:

We got to get a lot better at understanding that this is not done in a box. This needs to be done on a global scale, that companies compete even inside themselves for capital, let alone inside a continent, inside a global economy. And if we can start wrapping our heads around that from a public policy perspective, then that's when we can really grow and compete. Because US states are phenomenal at that. They will give massive discounts, and sometimes to the detriment of our services. They're by no means a standard bearer of solid social programming, but they are generating economic investment and we're struggling to do that unless we just get tons and tons and tons of money. There's better ways to get at it.

Speaker 1:

Good points, and what comes to mind as well is, I think, Mark Carney. When he launched his campaign, one of his lines that really stuck out to me is you can't redistribute what you don't have and really set the tone for what his vision is. If he is to be elected leader and as we're kind of just wrapping up here, I want to also dive into that point. You said states do it really well. They don't work necessarily in silos or in boxes, Do you think because the systems in the US and Canada are different? Do you think federalism is the challenge or the reason why we don't have this? I know it's a bit of like a big civics question.

Speaker 2:

It was a help-loaded question. Eh, why we don't have this? I know it's a bit of like a big civics question. What's the uploaded question? Yeah, should you revisit the Charlottetown Accords? Yeah, I think it's a benefit and I think it's a liability, and I'm just going to walk that line. I guess it's really important to have governments that think locally instead of just kind of dictate from on high. But we need to stop being a country where somebody says they'rearian first, quebec first, alberta first, and they're Canadian first. And if we can hit that mark, then the federalism really does work. It's getting at the piece of public service on the ground. It's making sure that regions are represented even when they're shunned out of government. You know, saskatchewan is well represented in the Liberal government and Quebec is well represented in the Conservative government. That is the value of federalism, in addition to just say equalization of services. For the flaws of equalization system, we'll set that one aside for another conversation, but I feel like we need to walk that line.

Speaker 1:

Good points and when we're talking about walking that line and making that local perspective really prominent and the Team Canada approach, I really appreciate that we are seeing Ford. I think some Atlantic provinces announced they're cutting out interprovincial trade barriers, which I think is huge and long overdue. Do you think with that it will help build up our industries or do you think it's a hopeful thought?

Speaker 2:

up our industries, or do you think it's a hopeful thought? Both Credit to Susan Holt, tim Houston and Doug Ford for that initiative. I'd love to see more freemers join on, and I think that their public policy approach was brilliant. So sharing, if you share. I'm embarrassed that it's going to lift the economy to the billions that people suggest, because I think that there will still be barriers at the end of the day, and I think that some of the irritants will not leverage as much as we want.

Speaker 2:

I think there's sort of two pieces. One is the interprovincial trade barriers that exist really hit at the feeling that we're not a country. An easy one is the alcohol file. Time and again, people are so confused that they can't bring alcohol across the border. They can bring everything else they can make a shirt, they can bring gasoline in their car, they can buy a house across the border, but they can't bring alcohol Like. It really doesn't seem like we're a country when you can't buy a beer or drive it across a river.

Speaker 2:

The other piece, though, is labor mobility and credential recognition. You choose a province, you're stuck in that province and a lot of jobs. That's a major problem, particularly in trades, particularly in sort of like the health and human services sectors. If we can get rid of that, that will go a long way to making us a real country like in a lot of sense. And you know there's going to be times where people are going to have reservations. I mean forget who it was I was listening to for all I know it was Pierre Paglia. But he made a sense that sometimes you have different regulations because if you're driving a truck in Saskatchewan it's fly, but if you're driving a truck in Alberta, there's mountains. You need to have different levels of safety standards. Those will always kind of be there. We got to work through it. But I don't like when a jurisdiction throws up a barrier and says, no, this hurts our people, therefore we're not going to do it. We got to be on T Canada.

Speaker 1:

Well said and yeah, the health care sector is also a huge one. The fact that interprovincial is so difficult and it becomes more of a cost to that province also. So many loopholes, so much red tape, so I really hope we can get that under control. There's been some announcements in the platforms, specifically the Liberals, so we'll see. Last question here, if you had to bet on it, what does the next government look like? Minority, majority, total wildcard? What are your thoughts?

Speaker 2:

I mean, I'll tell you. I'm just hoping for a majority On my perspective. I want certainty. You know we're recording this on April 22nd. It looks like the liberals are going to win. It could change in a week, but I'll tell you, I think that if we're coming at a time where we're going to be negotiating trade agreements and the majority to argue from a position of strength, it needs to be with a majority government.

Speaker 1:

I'm just happy that the next prime minister is going to be from Ottawa. Good points, good points. What a great way to end it off. That was Vice President of Crestview Strategy, conal Sobodin. And any other closing thoughts you want to share with our listeners?

Speaker 2:

Well, if we're going to have the next prime minister from Ottawa, we might as well have the Stanley Cup for Ottawa.

Speaker 1:

Yes, hear, hear. Thank you so much for tuning in. That was let's Talk Politics. Please be sure to tune in next week for our next special guest. Thanks so much.