Will the Iran war's oil shock change Canada's industry?

Close your eyes. Listen to Monday.com. Feel the sensation of an AI work platform.

So flexible and intuitive. It feels like it was built just for you.

Now open your eyes. Go to Monday.com. Start for free and finally, breathe.

This is a CBC podcast.

After a fourth MP crosses the floor to the Liberals, there are hints there could be more.

The government tries to make it easier for police to track and identify criminals online.

And oil prices surge as the war in the Middle East continues with no end in sight.

It's Thursday, March 12th. I'm Karina Roman. The Power and Politics podcast starts now.

We begin in the Middle East where Israel is expanding its strikes on Lebanon.

Israeli air strikes hit a building in central Beirut, less than a kilometer from government headquarters.

Israel is pushing deeper into Lebanon as its military hunts for Iran-backed Hezbollah.

The conflict there has killed nearly 700 people.

In Iran, the new Supreme Leader finally broke his silence today nearly two weeks into the US-led war on his country.

David Common is the host of CBC Morning Live. He joins us from Aman Jordan.

David, the new Supreme Leader released a statement today. What were the key messages?

Defiance and revenge in many ways, Karina. But let me just note that we did not see or hear directly from the new Supreme Leader.

Instead, it was a message read out by a news anchor on state television.

That will certainly fuel questions about the new Supreme Leader's well-being.

It is said that he was hit during one of the air strikes.

An air strike that killed his father and his wife, his sister, others in his family.

He was only said to be lightly wounded. But by not seeing him on state television, it will prompt questions about whether he was injured more badly.

In another way, is he alive? Is he in a coma? Who wrote this?

And so those questions will continue to reverberate.

The message itself, as I say, one of defiance.

When we talk about the straight of Hormuz, this narrow body of water that we've been talking about a lot because gas prices are high because of what's going on there.

The message from the Iranian leader saying it's going to keep happening. They are going to try to keep this straight closed and plan to continue attacks on vessels and infrastructure in the area.

Interestingly, he said he looks forward and believes in friendly relations with his neighbors.

Simultaneous to that, the Supreme Leader saying in this message that he would continue to attack some of those neighbors as Iran has been doing particularly with Gulf states and Gulf states that house U.S. military bases, although it's not always the bases that they've been targeting.

Over the past 24 hours, we've seen oil depots in Bahrain and Oman hit.

We've seen one ship carrying highly volatile naphtha. Effectively blown up, Iran says it drove an explosive laden drone boat into that oil tanker causing the huge fire.

Just one of three vessels hit among the 13 that have been hit across the Persian Gulf and the straight of Hormuz since this war began.

In the course now, talk about whether Iran has been laying sea mines in that area. Those mines would float below the surface of the water or sit just below the surface of the water and present an ongoing danger to anything in that area.

Well, having said all that, what can you tell us about Iran's strategy at this point?

For Trump's weak point, they know that he promised American voters low gas prices. They're getting the opposite of that right now and things could get worse in that department.

So they're looking for a weak point away to force the president's hand to have him and all of his recent talk about ending the war soon to make that actually happen.

Now, there is a question just because the United States ends its war whenever that happens, would Iran do the same thing?

Would they go to asymmetrical warfare tactics? Would they attempt terror attacks? Would they use cyber warfare?

Would they continue to try to attack vessels in the straight of Hormuz? All of that is unclear.

We are in many ways in uncharted territory about what comes next, how this might end, but they are clearly trying to find a way to push Trump or those in the president's orbit who are already skeptical of this war and saying, look for the off ramp, let's look for it soon.

And that, it would seem, may even include Trump's vice president, JD Vance, Trump has acknowledged is among those who is not, so we say, the most wholehearted supporter of this war.

Now, you mentioned the minds in the straight of Hormuz that we hear reports about Iranian, the Iranian regime laying those minds. What more do we know about this?

Yes, so the types of minds that the Iranian regime has have a lot of them. I mean, the numbers are publicly unknown, but certainly in the thousands, and you don't have to lay them with some of the vessels that the Americans have been targeting.

You can actually just go out in a small boat, any small boat, really, you can put three of them in most boats, and then you drop them to the sea floor with a chain, and they float generally just below the surface of the water.

Any vessel that goes over top gets hit, blows up, essentially, but they're more sophisticated minds that are much harder to detect, and much harder to disarm, that actually are closer to the sea bottom, and they can detect pressure and acoustic signals from ships passing overhead, even magnetic ones, and in so doing, they then would rise to the surface and then cause an explosion.

And the challenge with these are they take a long time to find, and then they type time to disarm all of that if those minds go out in greater numbers becomes a bigger problem, not just for the Americans, but for the world.

And this would also involve Iran, you know, putting minds essentially in the waterways it uses as well, so some would see it as a last ditch effort.

David, thank you for all your great reporting there. That's David Common, host of CBC Morning Live.

As David was saying, the war in the Middle East has had a huge impact on global oil production and shipping routes, which has sent prices surging around the world.

Here to talk about the impact here at home is a CBC's Kyle Bax, he's in Calgary, high Kyle. What's the latest on the markets with oil prices?

Well, Karina, we're seeing the rise, the fall and the rise again of oil prices. Today oil jumping 10% trading nearly $100 US per barrel.

And this is day 13 of the conflict. And if you look at oil prices over that span, oil is up 50% from the high 60s to almost $100 US per barrel.

And that could lead to some more investments and drilling in Western Canada, but not for any time soon.

And that's because we are entering the spring. It's that time of year where the frost is coming out of the ground.

And so a lot of these crews, they can't move their heavy equipment and their drilling rigs.

So even if companies want to drill more oil to take advantage of these prices and produce more oil for the world, they're unable to do that right now.

So here's what one of the companies had to say who I spoke with.

It depends on weather. So specifically Saskatchewan, where you get the frost coming out of the secondary roads, which are generally dirt.

You can't run really heavy trucks on those or drill rigs without doing a lot of damage.

So depending on weather, normally we plan that in mid March, we shut down and we don't generally assume we can get back out in the field until mid to late June.

And so at that point, if oil prices are still quite a bit higher, that's when companies may make the decision to start drilling more oil.

But even then, it can still take many months to get that oil out of the ground.

That said, Karina, there is this growing consensus in those in the industry and analysts as well, that oil prices are likely going to be higher throughout this year because of this conflict.

Oil was probably going to be around $60 per barrel this year. Now a lot of people are thinking it'll probably average 70 to 75 because of everything that's going on.

So Karina, because of all this, the White House is now considering change in the Jones Act to curb prices. Explain that to us.

So this is an old maritime law more than 100 years old in the United States. Basically it requires U.S. vessels to move any sort of oil or petroleum products from one U.S. port to another.

And so the White House has confirmed it is considering lifting this temporarily. And so that would allow foreign tankers, which are usually cheaper and more plentiful, to be able to move these products from one U.S. port to another.

The whole aim here is to provide a little bit of relief at the pump for U.S. motorists, especially on the U.S. coast, the East Coast.

That said, there's already some speculation at the White House may also consider a potential export ban on oil.

And there's already some strong reaction from the U.S. oil industry concerned about that potential warning that there could be unintended consequences.

And even those in the Canadian industry are keeping an eye on that because the majority of Canadian oil is exported to the United States.

So if there are any of these policies restricting exports or anything to keep prices lower, that'll have an impact on the industry north of the border as well.

So lots of moving parts here, not only with the conflict, but the impact on prices and oil supply and how these governments are reacting.

Thanks for all this Kyle. That's the CBC's Kyle Baxson Calgary.

The federal government has introduced a new bill that it says will help law enforcement track and identify suspected criminals online.

We're going to better equip police forces to investigate and to prevent human trafficking smuggling, extortion, and a number of other very, very serious crimes that demand the full attention of the government.

These processes are designed to protect people's privacy rights, but ensure that we have the modern tools that are necessary to address crimes that are in place in the modern world.

The lawful access bill would allow law enforcement to compel telecom companies like Bell or Rogers to provide a yes or no answer when asked if a suspected criminal uses their services.

It would also require electronic service providers to have the capability to track user locations, but the bill does not compel AI or social media companies to share information or report suspicious activity to Canadian authorities.

Public Safety Minister Gary and Anna Sangere joins me now. Welcome to the show. This new legislation comes after some pretty deep criticisms over a similar bill from your government in June, Bill C2.

There were concerns over snooping and privacy and overreach. How does this bill address those concerns while also balancing the need to keep Canadian safe?

Bill C2 had a number of important elements. In fact, there's eight different components to the bill.

Lawful access was just one of those elements. As you are aware, Bill C12 has captured most of the measures as part of the Strong Borders Act.

Lawful access is something that law enforcement in Canada have been looking for three decades.

So when we introduce lawful access as part of C2, we realize that we need to do a bit more work. So we retreated.

We got Murray Rankett, who's the former minister from British Columbia and a former colleague. I was a member of parliament from the NDP.

And we had him conduct some mediations with law enforcement, with civil society groups, with academics, with those who are working in the front lines of, for example, child protection, working on issues of childhood sexual exploitation.

And we had him work through some of the criticisms, some of the challenges that I think people express.

And we've come back with what I believe is a much more constrained, limited in scope bill, with some very important safeguards that people have asked for.

Well, let's talk about those safeguards. What are some of the gift guardrails that you have in place to protect Canadians' privacy?

Look, the initial bill had the notion of service provider as an undefined category. So the allegation was, look, can somebody go to my psychiatrist and ask the psychiatrist if...

Because they're a service provider?

Patient or not. And those were never the intention, as you're aware. And common law already will prevent us from seeking that type of information.

So what we've done here is have some clear exclusion. So first and foremost, anything to do with medical is a hard knell. Anything to do with solicitor's client privilege or legal advice is a hard knell.

And then we've defined it and narrowed it to the scope being with electronic service providers.

You still have the defined electronic service providers though, right?

There are some certain definitions, but it is limited. It doesn't mean you can go to a hotel chain and say, hey, is this person your customer or go to an airline or go to a range of services?

And I think this is the challenge we had before we was open-ended so people could just use your imagination and say, oh, are they going to go to my hairdresser and see if I'm their customer?

And these are legitimate concerns and that's why we narrowed the scope. We also have a three-year review, which is absolutely critical. Also, there's a need for the Minister to consult the Information Commission on certain matters.

So we have many safeguards in place and since it's much more narrow than the original C2, I believe Canadian should be assured that what we have in place is absolutely required for law enforcement with limited scope, but also with the safeguards that will protect their civil rights.

And one of those safeguards would also be that, well, law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to find out from service provider whether someone's a customer or not, but they still will need a warrant to actually then once they've confirmed that, get the information that they want in terms of the person's address and IP address.

And it just goes to the only element in which you could go to someone without a warrant to go to a telco and say, does this telephone or does his IP address, does that match your record?

Like, are they your customer? Only one question, either, yes or no. If it's a no, it stops there. If it's a yes, then you would have to go in front of a judge and get a warrant.

Now, this legislation would create a framework for how Canadian law enforcement can make information requests to foreign social media companies like OpenAI, which is mentioned explicitly, but it doesn't compel those companies to share the kind of information we might be looking for or to report suspicious activities.

Is that simply because we can't compel them to do that because they're foreign companies?

Well, we do have a mutual assistance agreement with the United States, for example, where there is a demand for information that we can place through the US.

And look, the laws are different in every jurisdiction and we have to have those bilateral agreements before we can seek those type of information.

In the case of, for example, many of the major tech companies they are situated in the US and sometimes the jurisdiction is there and we'll need to seek authority from the US judiciary to be able to compel information to be shared with us.

You know, we are having a broader debate around the role of, you know, online harms and the impact it has on our children and one of the things I'm hoping for is it will have much greater cooperation with companies that provide social media services.

And what is to stop a social media company from refusing to cooperate? It does kind of feel like we're talking about this.

It's mentioned in legislation, but it's a bit of an empty measure because we don't actually have the power to compel.

We're already doing that right now. We're already through judicial authorization. We're already seeking information from different, you know, Instagram, for example,

and Twitter.

But does this legislation speed up that process that's already underway or because we don't have that power, we're still just in the same situation as we were before?

I think for the most part, for those originating from Canada, it really does speed up the timelines.

Our expectation is even with different international partners will have an expedited process, you know, both the five eyes and G7 countries have regimes in place in their respective jurisdictions.

We are actually an outlier in this area, and I do believe that because we are our companies and our industry cooperates with requests from foreign entities as well,

foreign governments that is judiciously authorized, you know, we are expecting the same type of compliance.

And now, does the fact that this bill is so much more narrowly focused just on this rather than sort of the omnibus, everything but the kitchen sink that was in Bill C2?

Is that a recognition that that was not the right approach to this?

When we formed government, you know, we introduced Bill C2 days afterwards, and it was a suite of measures that were critically important for us for a border security perspective.

As you're aware, we've introduced a number of other bills relating to security, so criminal justice, including C8, C9.

But it does kind of feel like that big bill is now being carved off into more focused topics, and not only does that, you know, focus the mind, I suppose, but would that not also increase your chances, especially since you're still in a minority situation of getting those bills passed?

It allows us to focus and not be deterred by a tangential issue, right? And I think that...

There's no poison pills or things like that.

And the spirit in which this bill is being introduced, I've had a number of conversations with the opposition, I've had, you know, continuously speak to my critics.

And, you know, we're with the view, and I've no assurance whatsoever, but with the view that we can build consensus.

And I'm saying that this is not a bill that we want to politicize, this is not a bill where we want to get off track, what we want to do is we want to work with the opposition towards building a bill or finalizing a bill that law enforcement could use at the same time ensuring that the proper safeguards are in place.

Now, I did mention that you're still in a minority situation, but you did just welcome a new member to your caucus, Laurie Adlaude.

And there are by elections around the corner that could see your government finally secure that majority that clearly any government would want.

Now, opposition parties are accusing your government of making backroom deals to enacting undemocratically to get that majority. What is your response to that?

So, first and foremost, there are two, three by elections happening, one in my backyard in Scarborough, Southwest, we have an incredible candidate who happened to be the former deputy leader of the NDP.

Preventually.

Preventually, who resigned and is seeking a mandate right now from her voters.

So, there's no backroom deal there, she's actually given up a rule.

Well, I don't think they're referring to that, they're referring to Laurie Adlaude.

And of course, Laurie Adlaude.

And the others.

And Laurie's a good friend, she's someone I've worked with for many, many years, visited her community.

She's taken me on dog sled rides.

And the reason I say this is because she is someone of deep understanding of the North.

This is a moment, especially relating to Arctic sovereignty, especially relating to issues in Nunavut where someone being in government can be critically beneficial for her and her constituents.

And that's what she has expressed, that her constituents have asked her to be part of government and be part of solutions.

Yesterday, I talked to her and one of the first things I was able to do is there's $1.6 million in investments that we're going to put into pond inlet.

And I'm giving her full visibility on what that looks like and she will be able to reach out to the community and provide that support.

It is about at a moment where there are a number of issues going on around the world, particularly Arctic sovereignty and I have a very big bias towards the Arctic.

And we need everyone who has knowledge and understanding to be with us in this critical moment.

Okay, well, I'll leave it there. Thank you for your time today. That's the Minister of Public Safety, Gary, and Andesangery.

Hi, I'm Darina, co-founder of QUAL. If you're on a business, you know the team that responds first wins the customer.

You've probably opened your phone to a bunch of missed calls and no voicemails.

Those are missed opportunities and exactly why we built QUAL.

QUAL is the business phone system that helps your team handle every call and text right away.

Join over 90,000 businesses that win more customers with QUAL.

Try QUAL for free at QUAL.com slash tech. That's qio.com slash tech.

Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson and I host the Daily News podcast, front burner, and lately I'll see a story about I don't know political corruption or something and think

during a normal time, we'd be talking about this for weeks, but then it's almost immediately overwhelmed by something else.

On front burner, we are trying to pull lots of story threads together so that you don't lose a plot.

So you can learn how all these threads fit together. Follow front burner wherever you get your podcasts.

Global oil prices are surging as the war in the Middle East rages on and Canadians are feeling the pain at the pump.

Now we have to think on how to limit and to use the car.

Yeah, you've noticed the jump. We need to drive our cars so not much that we can do.

We hope they will come with some kind of solution to our switch to electric car.

Today, the average price for gas in Canada is a buck 53 a liter.

That is expected to spike overnight as Iran continues to block shipping in the state of Hormuz.

Finance Minister Francois Philippe Champagne was asked earlier about the rising costs for Canadians.

This is not unique to Canada. We are the G7 meeting. We're monitoring the situation very careful every day.

There's been, as you've seen, swing in the price of commodities and oil in the recent days.

But that's why we've called for de-escalation, stabilise the price of oil.

So could the rising cost of gas force the government to shift gears and focus more on affordability?

Time now for the power panel. Cameron Ahmed was the head of communications to former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Lisa Raidt is a former conservative cabinet minister. Andrew Thompson is a former NDP cabinet minister in Saskatchewan.

And Emily Nicola is a columnist for Le Duvoir. Emily, I want to start with you.

Part of Iran's defense has been to attack the global energy market.

How prepared do you think Canada is to weather this storm?

We already have an affordability crisis in Canada and elsewhere in several countries around the world.

So it is hitting us. At the same time, I do think that it's part of the political pressure that is being put on.

Even by, you know, Francois Philippe Champagne was saying he was just coming back from the G7 meeting along with the prime minister.

I'm sure that the pressure that other G7 countries will put on Donald Trump to de-escalate this conflict is in part due to domestic effects in the homes of basically all the senior leaders of this world.

I think it might have an efficiency in terms of political pressure.

And obviously in the meantime, people are paying their price.

The thing that most people will see obviously is the price of the bump.

We have a gigantic red numbers flashing at us anytime we basically cross the street.

We don't see it as much when it comes to the price of the area, which is a fertilizer used around the world.

It's going to have an impact as well in terms of agriculture.

We're not seeing it as well in terms of security in terms of the price of transportation and the inflationary push it puts on goods including groceries as well eventually.

And so I think it might be easy to just be, oh my god, gas and the pump that's fixed that specifically.

But I think the crisis is more better understood in a holistic way and also that this game basically yo-yo that we're in is going to be in as long as Donald Trump is in power and that we have global crises multiplying and geopolitical instability.

And so it feels a little bit like a walkable game. So right now we're focused on this.

But at this rate, if the world continues to be this unstable by the time we fix this, we don't know what else is going to be thrown at us.

And so I think really stabilizing the geopolitics is really should be our priority to solve this.

Andrew Minister Champagne there, you heard him say that this is not unique to Canada.

Do you think that's any comfort to Canadians?

Well, it's not obviously great comfort. And in fact, although a lot of the pressure and notwithstanding what we're seeing in gas prices today,

a lot of the pressure remains on food prices, which I think our Canadians do see at the time they stop the grocery store.

And there are a lot of questions about why that is and whether there is more that the government can be doing to address some of those issues and some of those pressures here.

The question around oil prices is a curious one because of course obviously our oil is not imported from the Middle East,

but we are obviously impacted by the price increases. Now that will change a little bit with Jeff, you'll understand.

But we're also still on a point on gasoline that we're lower than what we were in the recent memories, thanks to the Carnegie government taking the carbon tax off.

Is there more that could be done by provinces in reducing if it does start to get high?

Absolutely. I mean, there are tax measures that could be done there, but I think it's the whole basket of goods that Canadians are feeling.

And some of that is a very simple stuff in terms of the staples. I mean, I was out looking at groceries the other day.

I mean, I'm still not sure why coffees are $13 a pound when it was only $9 a pound, $10 a pound, four months ago.

I mean, yes, there's climate change, yes, it's crop issues, yes, logistics, all of those things.

But when you start to pay that final bill at the grocery store, I think that's what Canadians are looking at and going, why is this still so high and why can't anything be done about it?

And none of the parties to be honest have really put forward much of an option, a set of options in terms of really reducing that.

We've heard the calls for excess profits tax, which certainly the Freeland and the true government had put in place on the banks at one point.

You know, there's an opportunity to do some of that maybe on the gas companies, but again, I don't know that any of that in the short term is really going to make things more affordable for consumers.

Okay. Cameron, Prime Minister Karnie initially came out in support of Trump's efforts in terms of in Iran, then called for a de-escalation.

How could the increase in gas prices impact Canadian support for the government?

Well, I mean, as long as there is a war in Iran and the global instability that Emilie talked about, there's very little that the government can do to affect the prices that consumers are facing.

I mean, the Prime Minister's position, of course, is going to be scrutinized by people and I think it's clear as he can be and as definitive as he can be about Canada staying out of it.

And Canada calling for de-escalation and Canada supporting peace efforts politically is I think the best move for him, but he's also juggling real politic and dealing with an administration with whom we have ongoing trade negotiations, which will impact prices of everything in our entire trading relationship with the biggest trading partner.

It has an extremely difficult job in terms of how he communicates to the public knowing that every single thing he says could be scrutinized not only by Canadians, but by the administration as well.

And I think as long as he continues to show consistency in his focus, that he's focused on what is in the long term benefits of Canada's economy, how can we continue trying to manage the relationship with the United States despite all of the turmoil that people are well aware of.

And I think people are going to continue to see that he and the liberal government are well positioned and I think people understand right now that the prices, that the increase in prices are a direct result of the war that the president and Israel started in Iran.

Certainly the long term economic effects are something that the Prime Minister has to keep in mind and have as his focus, but we have immediate issues with prices and affordability that every day because the gas prices are now so high are going up.

We've already been dealing with the uncertainty around trade for almost a year now.

So what do you think the government, what steps could the government take to help cushion the blow for Canadians now?

Well, it's pretty simple. You can reduce the GST on gas. You can look at the excise tax. I mean, remember there's a whole bunch of tax that's included in the price of the pump.

And as that price goes up, so does the amount of GST that goes into the federal coffers and we've done this before we've seen this play before.

I understand and it's very true that we are being buffeted by what's happening in the United States and we know that we have to deal with that, but there are absolutely tools for the federal government to use.

And as far as Canadians understanding, I remember very clearly being in the 2008 election where we saw this kind of volatility go up and then go down then go up and down again.

People at the doors were rave-starking angry about this and they wanted to know what they were going to do because it's an immediate impact on their style of life, how they live.

If, like the woman said in the pre-film that you just showed, if she says, well, I have no choice. I have to fill my car. Where is she going to find the money in her budget?

Well, it's going to come from discretionary. Whatever that's going to mean for that family, is it the fact that they're not going to be getting a different kind of coffee or they're not eating out or they're a whole bunch of other things.

So Canadians are going to have to deal with this in a very real way. They're going to expect the government to deal with this in a real way as well, saying that it's happening because something's going on halfway across the world, not going to cut it. They need to do a heck of a lot more.

Emily, in terms of pressure on the government, how much does this conflict and the discussion and debate over oil prices and the need for it?

How much does that put pressure on the government to as quickly as possible, build up Canada's energy infrastructure and get a new pipeline build?

It's not necessarily about pipelines per se because we're talking about really short-term immediate problems and not things that people will be happy to solve maybe eventually in five or ten years.

But it is an opportunity in a sense that, for example, the Prime Minister was just coming back from India where there was a trade mission as well as Japan.

All of those countries, and perhaps especially India, is very much also hit by the impact of the war in Iran, already was hit by the sanctions on Russia, so is Europe.

And so as we're hit, we need to remember that the Prime Minister's focus was already to try and diversify and find business opportunities around the world for Canada to not be dependent on the U.S.

And on that front, it might actually help him get some deals across actually faster because of the dire situation that other countries are basically.

I remember just a couple of months ago, we were several of us worried that Canada might be a little bit isolated and it's being impacted by the trade war of Donald Trump.

Basically, because the whole world is on fire, we are not isolated anymore regardless of what that means.

And so that doesn't help going back to Lisa's point, that doesn't help families struggling right now, but I think there's an accumulation of that.

It doesn't help nothing that has been done concretely has really helped people who cannot afford rent right now, not a long access housing.

There's a housing crisis in this country, our health care or education system is scrambling on so many ways, people who cannot afford grocery, not just cut out on restaurants.

It would just literally are going to the food banks right now, are struggling.

There's been cuts to social aids all over the place and a lot of the time.

The reasoning, especially here in Quebec that is said to do that is that we don't have the money to do this anymore.

And now the prices of gas are going up and in terms of reflexes is not necessarily, you know, it can't go back to the people who pay the gas at the pump, but there's also a lot of other issues that vulnerable people are facing right now.

Andrew, you mentioned food and I just, that is something that maybe we won't see as immediate as we are with the oil prices or the gas prices at the pump.

But if fertilizer is also being restricted out of the straight of Hormuz, that there will be an eventual impact as well on food prices, is that sort of the sleeper issue that out of this particular conflict in the Middle East that we're maybe not paying enough attention to?

I think there's a lot of potential impacts that are going to be felt as a result of those supply chains being disrupted in the Middle East.

I don't know that it will be entirely around food or agricultural products. I mean, remember where we get most of our food from is of course coming up from Mexico and the US.

And so, you know, how they're impacted will have something to do with that.

It's just our fresh goods until our own seasons change here and we're able to get more out of our own fields.

At that point, yes, you know, gas prices start to impact some of that.

But I think we also need to look, you know, there are big structural questions about why have prices gone up so much?

Why did they go up so much during the, during the pandemic? And why didn't they come back down after that?

And I think that this is one of the questions. I looked at gas today. I was going to go fill up. It was $1.47.

A leader that's still about, I don't know, 18 cents less than it would have been a year ago when I think I was paying somewhere around $1.65.

So, you know, that comes down. It was obviously more than it was three weeks ago.

Prices are going to fluctuate. The question is, why did they seem to get built into things like food and never actually come back down?

I think this is one of the questions that really has to be addressed is what else is impacting us?

Food inflation has certainly been what they call sticky, although that's probably an understatement.

Lisa, even if oil prices come back down, as we've kind of been discussing the economic impact of this war, of oil prices will last beyond even if they come back down.

I mean, there's most predictions that this is not a short-term pinch because of this, this war.

So, how should the current government brace or prepare for the idea that affordability will even become more in the spotlight,

which has been certainly an issue for the conservatives, but may now be something that the liberals can really not ignore?

Yeah, well, there's two parts to your question. So, the first part is, how will the current government deal with the ongoing volatility that we're going to be seeing

with respect to the price for oil? It's a market commodity. It's going to go up and down depending upon supply and demand.

We've got a constriction right now in supply. We have a demand that's still the same.

Can we open up the taps? Not that simple here in Canada. Maybe they can do the other parts. Will the Russian sanctions be lifted in order to get oil going again?

All those things are going to be dealt with at the level of bilateral and trilateral and multilateral discussions.

So, that's the one part. The other one, though, is the one that is always going to be here and gets exacerbated by something like volatility in oil.

And that is the plain and simple affordability crisis, that Emily, that Andrew, that everybody is talking about right now and probably into the future as well.

The issues with respect to affordability comes down to two things. How do you make things cheaper? I don't know. I mean, that's one thing we can rail against the prices and who's taking profits.

But the surest way to do it is to make sure that people are getting paid more, that there are good jobs out there, that they're creating an economy, that you're giving the supports to the businesses that are employing the employees in order to make sure that they can pass along good paying jobs to the people who work for them.

That is something that even while we follow trade around the world, Mr. Carney does have to think about domestically and he doesn't have the luxury of saying, wait 10 years, and we'll get it figured out because people want to know now what their future is going to look like in the next three to five.

Cameron, I'm sorry to keep you to 30 seconds on this, but is Canada any further ahead than a year ago in terms of making itself more resilient to all this uncertainty?

Quickly, I'll just say I think Lisa is absolutely right in everything that she just laid out that's before the Prime Minister and the government is Canada better off than better set up than it was a year ago, hard to say because the challenges that we face as an economy keep changing and keep growing and multiplying on each other.

And that's not going to change. I don't think that there's any end in sight for the challenges that we face as an economy.

What the Prime Minister has done to set Canada up to be in the best possible position, which we share with every single other developed economy in the world, I think is exactly the right one.

Constant discussions and open doors to the biggest trading partners and potential trading partners for Canada, which will position Canadian businesses in the best possible way to succeed and then create more opportunities for Canadians.

It's really the best and most important thing for him to do and he's continuing to do it. He's got another three country trip just just ahead.

So I think that's exactly what he needs to be doing and it also sends the signal to Canadians that economic diversification and opportunity is the most important thing that the government can do to set us up.

After making his first trip overseas as opposition leader, Pierre Paulierv is now heading south.

This week I'll be heading to the United States to stand up for Canada and Canadian workers for stop, Michigan, where I'll meet with auto leaders and state legislators to defend an integrated North American auto industry and fight for tariff free trade.

That protects Canadian jobs. Canada can't control every decision made in Washington and I'll leave the negotiating up to our government, but we can leverage the goodwill and shared interests with the American people.

The power panel is back with Cameron Ahmed, Lisa Raite, Andrew Thompson and Emily Nikola. Emily, I'm going to start with you again.

A second trip in less than a month for the conservative leader. What do you make of this shift?

It's a shift. I think it's a first of all a response to what Mark Carney has been doing to trying to get himself out there in terms of the US itself is perhaps as well a response to what you're milking about and he's been doing trying to say that he's the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

There's also a lot of opportunities that usually premiere take, premieres sorry take in terms of negotiating with states directly.

It's interesting that Piaplaya isn't going to be speaking necessarily to the White House or to the missing environment, the DC sorry environment, but really trying to focus on on on different economic sectors that are crucial to the trade relationship to Canada.

But he needs to be conscious and I'm sure he is that basically everything that he says in the US could be exploited by the Republicans as a way to trying to pull an edge between the Prime Minister and the Chief of the Opposition.

The White House has played that game before when it was not for it. And so I do see this trip with the current political environment as high risk in that sense.

And so maybe if he talks to industry people it's silly a way perhaps to mitigate that risk. And so I think we'll be monitoring this one way more closely in terms of just risks.

Then we were when he was in the UK or Germany because of the Donald Trump administration and their ways in which they tend to use us to play games that only benefits them.

And just to clarify for our viewers the reason he says he's not going to Washington is because he believes in the one Prime Minister rule where he wants to mess things up and directly in DC.

So my question for you is why now do you think he should have already gone to the US? I guess is it too little too late?

Okay, why now because he can. I guess he's through his he's through his review that happened in January. There is a lot more time for him to plan these kinds of things.

I think the time is right. And will it make a difference? I hope so.

Look, what we have to remind ourselves it's not just the Republicans you have to convince in the United States that free trade is a good thing, especially free trade with Canada.

Democrats and Republicans have been coming more and more anti free trade over the past number of years. It's not just one party.

So he does need to communicate in a variety of different places and make the pitch I would say for the reason why free trade is a good thing.

I can really think of nobody better than Pierre Paulier to actually make that pitch. He's been talking about free trade his entire life.

He firmly believes in it. He does believe in the importance of market access. And he can say it convincingly and quite eloquently.

So yeah, I think it's great that he's going to the other parts in the country to make the case for Canada and to make the case for free trade.

I think it makes absolute sense and I'm not really worried about how risky it's going to be and going to Washington.

Man, if anyone can stay away from Washington right now, they're making the right choice in life.

Andrew, you heard we played there a clip from Pierre Paulier on what he's planning to do and where he's planning to go.

What do you make of what you heard?

Yeah, I like the music at the end is certainly softened it up. I mean, maybe you guys should think about that for us.

We have a little bit of extra music as we go in gives it more of new music.

Yeah, exactly. But you know, I do tend to generally agree with Lisa on this.

I mean, this isn't all hands on deck. Everybody's saying from the same song sheet. It appears that that's what he is going to do.

You know, the political risk, I think, is a little bit different than what people are assessing this one.

I don't think it will be like a Johnny and his problems that he ran into.

Pierre Paulier was obviously much smarter, much better choreograph than that.

The question that he runs into though is whether he's speaking to the right type of audiences and the audiences that he's appearing to,

whether it makes him look prime ministerial.

And I think that was part of the problem that came out of the European trip.

It didn't quite lift that up.

Now, the opportunity to go and speak to business leaders in the US, especially those in close states,

where we have a lot of trade businesses always welcome. I think that all Canadian politicians who have that opportunity to have those networks should be using them now.

And you know, in that regard, I think that it's a, it's a welcome intervention.

Question is whether it pays, you know, whether he's playing political offense or defense on this.

And really in some ways, I guess for, you know, the national interest, it doesn't really matter.

Cameron, now, Pierre Paulier says he spoke to the Prime Minister about this trip and then he's going to debrief him when he comes back.

Is it the testament to a new era of cooperation that Pierre Paulier has vowed to take part in?

Who knows? It's a new era. I wouldn't go that far.

But I think that is the right approach. If he's going to do a trip like this, especially in under these circumstances at this critical moment,

the only responsible way to do it is in consultation and cooperation with the government.

And I would agree with Lisa and Andrew that there is a role for opposition leaders to play, especially one, especially conservative leader going to strategic parts of the United States and speaking to both Democrats and Republicans about the benefits of free trade,

but also the important role that Canada plays and the critical importance of Canada as a border trading partner.

So I don't think that there's there are huge stakes or there is a ton of risk for him, but I would assume that part of the reason he's doing this right now is an attempt at improving the his brand appearing statesmen like looking responsible and leader like and trying to emulate a bit of what the Prime Minister is doing.

And showing up in showing up as a leader that Canada needs because he is not on a winning streak in Canada right now.

That's a mild way to put it. And I think this helps him seek, helps him find perhaps some relevance and a show up in a more constructive way than he has not been able to do that so far.

Well, four opposition MPs in four months have crossed the floor to the Liberals and today government house leaders Steve McKinnon said his party's door remains open for more.

I think very much so. I think that Canadians who live in conservative writings look at their MPs and wish they would spend more time proposing solutions participating in this great project on which we've embarked to build Canada more strong.

I mean, NDP MPs those constituents I think feel much the same in response conservative deputy leader Melissa Lansman said her party is focused on what Canadians elected them to do.

Well, look, we have a job to do here as as an official opposition. We're going to do that on the basis that 8 million Canadians supported us here.

41% of the population voted for us and we have a job to do for our constituents to make sure that we fight for a more affordable life, more affordable homes, safer streets, and a more resilient Canada where we can stand on our own two feet.

We're going to continue to do that and we're going to continue to do that as conservatives.

How is this floor crossing playing in Quebec?

I'm not sure it's playing in Quebec that much because we were just struggling with the ice storm.

So we were a little bit busy and the weather trumps everything in Canada, of course.

Yes, but those for those who noticed, I think the main question is what's going to happen with the by election next.

It doesn't put the floor crossing game to a halt necessarily, but it is making it perhaps somewhat obsolete if the Liberals managed to get their majority just by the result of the three by election that we have.

And the Nunavut MP that just crossed made it much easier for Mark Karnie to achieve that just by those.

And so that's I think what it's going to be next in terms of Karnie's achieving a majority.

If more people want to cross, I mean, obviously it's up to them and to their party.

I think the non-response that Melissa Lezman just gave gives us a silence of how uneasily conservatives are with this.

The NDP was a little bit, I'd say, more honest in terms of how it is a very difficult issue for them.

And how they're basically into the ropes right now.

And they might be it's worth saying there's a lot of rumors that say that Alexandre Boulotis might be crossing to provincial politics with two Quebec Serieta very soon.

And so the NDP might also bleed another MP.

And so that's the current situation that that we're in.

And I think in terms of, yeah, for crossing, if your question is specifically about Quebec, the question is OK.

Alexandre Boulotis right now is standing behind his interim leader, but for how long?

Andrew, what do you make of McKinnon saying that there could be more?

Well, it's always a bit of a sideop, right? That is run with opposition. You want to keep them on their toes.

You want to say the signal that they need to watch their own backs.

They shouldn't be too much bravado here.

So a little bit of that is just the parliamentary political gamesmanship.

But there is probably a, you know, some risk that there will be more deciding to cross.

I thought it was interesting that the Prime Minister has opted to go with these by elections rather than leave open the idea for at least for

another couple of months that he may go to a general election, which is obviously something that the conservators in particular would not want,

given whether they're in the current polling.

The, you know, the situation for the NDP is, I think we should just be honest, entirely dire.

You know, beyond the, you know, the quality of the MPs that are looking at leaving and the kind of gap that creates in the caucus,

simply the sheer numbers, losing an unit of it, to potentially losing a Belarus and their Quebec seat.

You know, a lot of speculation about what happens if obvious lose becomes leader who stays and who goes.

You know, this isn't a, it isn't a good situation for the NDP.

And all of that's really, I think what, what Steve McKinnon is trying to do, which is to show like,

if you want stability, the only game in town right now are in fact the Liberals.

And that's obviously the drum. He's beating in that signal. One that seems to be resonating.

Cameron, is it bravado or is Stephen McKinnon know something that we haven't been told yet?

He might because a lot of, a lot of people in the government knew things about the four other MPs who crossed before it was announced publicly.

I mean, it's all, it's all entirely speculation, but I can entirely see why more MPs from the conservatives or from the NDP would be interested in joining the government right now.

There is clearly a crisis that the NDP is facing dire severe crisis that they're facing existentially.

There is, I think, a crisis as well within the conservative party.

A lot of MPs don't feel confident in the leadership of their leader.

And certainly three have decided to cross the floor.

But as Andrew said, the government of Mark Carney has been able to show up in this, in this very chaotic and volatile moment for the country.

And show that they're a big tent that it is open.

The liberal party is open to people from the right people from the left.

And it is able to represent Canadians from all political stripes and all backgrounds and walks of life.

So why not keep extending that hand and show as McKinnon did that there is opportunity for anybody who anybody else who's interested in joining the government's team and in their work?

Lisa Emily framed it as Lanceman's, Melissa Lanceman's answer is sort of avoiding the topic.

But is this actually maybe a relief for the conservatives, not only then it's this time an NDP MP, but also that now heading into these bi-elections.

There is lots of talk that basically with two of those three being safe seats for the liberal or considered safe seats for the liberals that they are headed towards a majority.

And therefore perhaps less likely to have a general election that Andrew was talking about.

So maybe is there some sense of relief within the conservatives that they don't have to brace for that?

Well, I personally, I was relieved that it was NDP because I didn't want to have to deal with, you know, being asked about this again and again and again.

Let me put it this way, Steve McKinnon is a jab and I worked with him for many times, but you saw the little smirk on his face when he was starting to go into what he was saying and what he's doing.

He's trolling the conservatives, no question about it and what Melissa Lanceman did was she didn't take the bait on this and she went very high level top line kind of lines didn't get into who's crossing who's not crossing.

And I think it's a stalemate. I think that's where we're going to end up with respect to the floor crossing.

I truly believe that why we're not going to a general election is that Canadians will be pretty ticked off, I think, with the county government if they saw that he was only going to the polls to get one or two more seats.

You know what I mean? If he's that close, he should really govern with what he's got and just continue on. It's probably the safest bet because you never quite know what you're going to get.

And then finally, I would just say that the biggest benefits, the biggest beneficiaries of all of this are the writers for this hour's 22 minutes because they are absolutely killing it with their latest sketches that are coming over on the cross the walking across the aisle.

And Mark McKinnney, I have to tell you, I think he does Mark Carney better than Mark Carney does Mark Carney.

Well, I'm sure they appreciate that vote of confidence in their comedy.

Absolutely, absolutely. Okay, thank you to Cameron Ahmed, Lisa Raite, Andrew Thompson, and Emily Nicola.

That's it for today. If you like this episode, please follow the pod and catch our next live show on CBC News Network. We're on weekdays at 5 p.m. Eastern. I'm Karina Roman. Thanks for listening.

For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.