Overview

ATB Financial recently hosted an event where Althia Raj moderated an expert panel discussion with Adam Legge of the Business Council of Alberta and Theo Argitis of the Business Council of Canada to explore our nation’s ability to respond to an increasingly uncertain economic and geopolitical environment. The conversation moved across trade, growth, infrastructure and energy security, with a consistent core question: can Canada act quickly enough, and with enough clarity, to turn its advantages into durable economic growth for the future?

Both panelists described a world where the assumptions that supported Canadian growth for decades are shifting. Businesses are operating amid geopolitical tension, supply chain risk, technological disruption, climate policy pressure and rising political polarization. Governments are also changing how they think about the economy. Economic security, resilience and strategic autonomy are now central to policy decisions, especially among Canada’s major trading partners.

For Canada, the opportunity is significant. The country has resources, talent, trade relationships and institutional stability. Alberta, in particular, holds many of the assets the world is trying to secure, including energy, agriculture, petrochemicals, critical minerals and land. 

But the panel was clear that opportunity does not equal execution. Canada will need more than ambition. It will need policy certainty, faster decision-making, stronger infrastructure and a clearer willingness to build.

Cautious optimism on CUSMA from Alberta

The panel struck a measured tone on CUSMA. There was no suggestion that Canada should assume the agreement will remain unchanged, but there was also no sense that the country should approach the review from a position of defeat. Argitis emphasized that Canada’s economy will remain deeply integrated with the United States, particularly in manufacturing and cross-border supply chains. The immediate goal should be to preserve preferential access, avoid escalation and keep the core agreement intact.

Legge added an Alberta perspective, noting that the province’s trade exposure differs from that of Central Canada. Alberta exports products the United States wants and needs, including oil, natural gas, petrochemicals and agricultural goods. Those exports create some insulation from the most severe trade risks, but it does not end overall trade vulnerability. Tariffs, even if limited, would still affect investment, competitiveness, and confidence.

The panelists also cautioned against overstating Canada’s leverage. While Canada has assets that matter to the United States, especially around energy, food security, defence and critical minerals, the relationship still depends on trust and reliability. Canada’s value is not only that it has resources. We can also be a stable and dependable partner in an integrated North American economy.

That is where cautious optimism comes in. Alberta has a strong case to make within the broader North American trade relationship; its products and economy align closely with U.S. priorities. But optimism must be matched with preparation. Canada should continue to push for tariff-free trade while planning for more difficult outcomes, including a scenario where some level of tariff pressure becomes part of the new Canada-US trade relationship.

Is Canada ready for a real pro-growth policy agenda?

The discussion then turned to whether Canada is prepared to move beyond defensive trade positioning and adopt a genuine pro-growth agenda. Both panelists acknowledged the importance of trade diversification, but they were realistic about its limits. There is no easy short-term replacement for the American market. The United States is close, large, familiar and deeply embedded in Canadian supply chains. Building new markets in Asia, Europe or elsewhere takes infrastructure, relationships, time and patience.

In Legge’s view, it’s not lack of ambition that has withheld companies from expanding market access, particularly in energy. The barrier has often been policy uncertainty, infrastructure constraints and project conditions that made investment difficult. Capital does not move on aspiration alone. It needs predictable rules, competitive costs, clear timelines and confidence that projects will actually be completed.

Argitis added that diversification is complicated by how Canadian trade actually works. Many exports are tied to foreign-owned firms and North American supply chains. A policy agenda based on diversification needs to reflect those realities rather than assume that exports can simply be redirected by government preference.

A real pro-growth agenda would need to focus on the practical conditions for investment. That includes reducing internal trade barriers, improving east-west infrastructure, speeding up approvals, strengthening productivity and creating a more competitive cost environment. 

This also means being honest about Canada’s weaknesses. The country has strong assets, but it has often struggled to move major projects from proposal to completion.

The panel’s message was that growth requires discipline. Canada cannot rely only on signing trade agreements or announcing strategies. It needs execution. That means aligning policy with the realities of business investment and building the infrastructure needed to reach customers, whether those customers are in the United States, Asia, Europe or within Canada itself.

Can we meet the moment?

The most direct test is energy infrastructure. The panel returned several times to whether Canada can build the projects needed to respond to global demand, including new pipeline capacity to Canada’s West Coast. Legge described recent federal-provincial alignment as meaningful because that kind of conversation would have seemed unlikely only a few years ago. Still, he was careful not to treat it as a certainty. There is major work ahead on commercial terms, production growth, decarbonization investment, tolls and long-term commitments.

Argitis framed the shift as a notable development in Canadian energy policy. The federal government engaging in pipeline conversations and an Alberta government supporting decarbonization represents a real change in tone. It does not remove cost or complexity, but it may reduce uncertainty. For major projects, uncertainty is often the greater barrier because it makes long-term commitments harder to justify.

The broader point was that Canada is facing an energy security moment, not just an energy transition moment. Global demand, geopolitical instability and the need for reliable supply are reshaping how countries think about energy. Canada has the resources to contribute, but the question is whether it can build the infrastructure to do so.

The panel ended with disciplined optimism. Alberta is close to the centre of Canada’s next economic opportunity because it has many of the assets the world needs. But the opportunity is not automatic. Meeting the moment will require governments to align, businesses to adapt, and Canada to show that it can turn resource strength into built projects, market access, and long-term growth.