Wab mentality: Manitoba’s Premier talks tariffs, Trump and trade

Open this photo in gallery:

Politicians get used to tamping down figurative fires, and in the two years since his election as Manitoba Premier, Wab Kinew has dealt with a few of those, from a brush with the ethics commissioner over accepting flights to the Grey Cup (he was cleared) to accusations of overreach in booting an MLA from the NDP caucus.

Then, this past summer, Kinew faced the literal kind, as more than 400 fires burned across 1.75 million hectares of land in Manitoba’s worst wildfire season in three decades, delivering a roughly $180-million hit to a provincial economy already struggling with one of the country’s lowest per capita GDPs.

Yet no matter the challenge, the Premier’s popularity has remained high. Indeed, in this year of Trump tariff chaos, it can be argued that no politician in Canada – not Mark Carney, not Doug Ford – has boosted his national standing more than Kinew. The 43-year-old communicates firmly yet with a smile, and seems as comfortable on Team Canada as he does fighting for the interests of his province.

Lately Kinew has been pressing his advantage with more pointed calls for action from the federal government. We spoke to him as he travelled west by car from Winnipeg to Rivers, Manitoba.

Let’s spend a minute on a couple of recent decisions. You froze Manitoba Hydro’s rates for 2025. It was a popular move, but Manitoba Hydro is saddled with growing debt and aging infrastructure, and I’m wondering how this helps.

The first and primary purpose of this Crown corporation is to provide affordable electricity to the average person in Manitoba. The fact that we’re able to do that with renewable power, by and large, is a positive. But I think everything that we want to do with Manitoba Hydro in the future, from combatting global warming to improving its debt-to-equity ratio, to making massive upgrades to HVDC and adding more renewables to the grid, all of that is made more realistic if electricity rates stay affordable. To have an affordable hydro bill keeps the public buy-in for us to make those next generation of investments.

In April, you expropriated forest land slated for a 5,000-bed assisted-living facility. Why was saving those trees more important than adding 5,000 beds?

This was a situation where a ton of effort had been made by any number of governments, not-for-profits, business people, to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. It was only after every other avenue was exhausted and very tough public controversies about well-respected people getting dragged to court because of their stands on the environment or the history of the region. Only after that issue had been elevated to a fever pitch and after reasonable overtures had been rebuffed did we go down that other path.

Let’s turn to trade. The U.S. is Manitoba’s No. 1 trading partner, and between January and May, your exports were down 30 per cent.

We were thinking about this before we came into government in 2023. And in April of 2024, we took a delegation of a couple dozen people to D.C. We’ve been operating with the perspective that there’s a growing protectionist sentiment in the U.S., and whichever side of the aisle governs, we need to be there making the case that trade with Manitoba and trade with Canada is good for Americans. In June, we were able to bring over Richard Madan, former White House correspondent, to be our man on the ground in D.C., opening doors for us.

What difference do you expect that appointment to make?

We need the consistency of a year-round presence there to make sure we’re part of the thought process on Capitol Hill. I think that Manitoba may have taken the relationship with the U.S. and other trading partners for granted during past governments. It’s time for us to sing for our supper. We’ve got to get out there and shake the trees and find export opportunities, find relationship building opportunities. I think Mr. Madan – given his ability to tell Manitoba’s story – will be a great force for us to do that.

You’re also dealing with major tariffs imposed by China on canola and pork. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says he’s flying to China to talk about the tariffs. Are you going with him?

That’s a trip Mr. Moe’s organizing on his own. I’ve been talking to Scott about the canola issue. And also lobbying the federal government to take action here. This is big for all of our Western Canadian economies, the Prairie provinces in particular. I’d like to see a path forward to having the tariffs on canola removed. And if Canada has to take steps like lifting the tariffs on electric vehicles that triggered the so-called anti-dumping investigation, then I think we should do so. Having spoken to the Prime Minister about this topic at pretty much every meeting we’ve had, I know that the government of Canada has started the process of engagement. But I would like to see some concrete things delivered rather than just another update that there’s been another conversation.

Do you agree with Moe that the federal government is neglecting the canola industry?

I would say the canola sector is a real part of our economy. Canada’s EV industry is largely imaginary. The losses that farmers in the field are seeing as we head into the harvest season are real losses. What we’re protecting with the Chinese EV tariffs are imaginary losses. So we should, as a nation, prioritize the protection of our real economy over the imaginary one. And just to put all the cards on the table, I think it’s pretty clear that these tariffs are not only designed and timed to cause economic impacts. They were also designed to fuel regionalism within Canada. And I think the government of Canada would be wise to hug the West right now, because we are an engine for a lot of the prosperity in Canada.

Open this photo in gallery:

How would you characterize your relationship with Mark Carney?

He has been good at engaging with us all as premiers. We’ve had a lot of First Ministers meetings. We’ve had one-on-one meetings. So the communication has been good. But what is the government of Canada’s China strategy? What is our view on data sovereignty? What is our view of China as a national security player? These are all things that I don’t know I’ve heard clear answers to, from this or even the previous federal government. And I think it would really benefit us as a nation to think through these issues clearly.

Fundamentally, given the size of the Chinese economy, given the fact that it will likely be the world’s biggest economy within our lifetimes, we need to have a relationship on an economic level and a diplomatic level. At the same time, the U.S. will always be our neighbour and most important trading partner. So we need to safeguard that relationship. What I’m calling for is for us to have a China strategy that is clear-eyed, multidimensional in that it takes into account the U.S.-China relationship, but also safeguards our interests around national security and data sovereignty.

Let’s get to the other elephant in the room, which is Donald Trump. Everybody seems to have a theory on how to negotiate with him. Some say don’t back down to a bully. Others say stay on his good side. What’s your theory?

I think we’re making concessions to Donald Trump without him reciprocating. And I’d probably stay away from offering any compliments to the President, even though I guess that’s what a lot of people do in his presence. But the reality is, he is going to be the President for the next few years, and we need to find a way to make it work. A lot of Canadians want us to stand up for ourselves as Canadians. And I think there’s real peril in saying this is strictly an economic conversation. It’s also a national sovereignty conversation and a national pride conversation.

In August, Canada removed some of the retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. I gather you weren’t happy with that move.

Well, it may be that this is some part of an n-dimensional chess I haven’t seen the outcome of. But from where I’m standing, driving by a canola field as we speak, it looks like a concession that hasn’t gotten us much in return.

You’ve talked about using Manitoba’s electricity and critical mineral exports as leverage in this fight. And in April, you announced that Manitoba would not renew its contracts to export electricity to Minnesota. Was that a case of standing up to the bully?

Power is the most important thing in the world right now. Everyone needs electricity. And Donald Trump gets a lot of his power, politically speaking, from the tech industry. We’re all hungry to power AI data centres. And we have a choice to make about how we’re going to use that next 500 megawatts in our province. Do we continue to guarantee it for the U.S., or are we going to build up our own domestic economy, which may mean building more housing, more manufacturing, more mining projects? We’re saying we’re going to bet on Manitoba.

The reality is we’re going to spend $30-billion over the next 20 years on Manitoba Hydro’s capital requirements. If the federal government was interested in this, we could say, “You know what? We’re not going to spend any of that $30-billion with U.S. firms.” That is a lever we have. We’ve been threatened many times by the U.S. We don’t issue many threats in return. I’m not sure why. I’m just saying that we have tools. I’d like to see us use more of these tools in a way that stands up for ourselves. And I’d like us to do it with a sense of humour, too.

What can you tell us about any progress that’s been made on the big, bold infrastructure projects the Prime Minister promised?

We’ve been working with our Indigenous partners on what I think the big play is in Manitoba, which is Hudson Bay. In a given year, Manitoba and the federal government each spend about $30-million investing in the port of Churchill and the rail line that feeds it. I could see a path to us building up the port and infrastructure on the order of $30-billion. They say that in 70 years, the ice will be gone from Hudson Bay. The shipping lane will be open year-round. Given the other infrastructure we have in the region–a former Air Force base, a rail line–having a deep-sea port in the Prairies is an amazing opportunity.

Seventy years from now, I think we’re going to be launching rockets from Churchill. I think we’re going to be feeding tons of our international partners’ needs for critical minerals and agricultural products and energy products from Churchill. In addition to trying to strengthen our economy from this tariff threat, we have a responsibility to lay down the infrastructure that will be the foundation for that economic growth in the future.

A lot has been made of the need to create a One Canada economy. You’ve committed Manitoba to buying Canadian steel and passed a bill to remove some provincial trade barriers. How much more are you willing to do?

One part of the conversation I don’t think Canadians have fully absorbed is something I’ll call the cost of being cheap. We have chosen to drive down what we’re willing to spend on infrastructure. And that led to our engineering and consulting being outsourced to other countries, in some cases. That led to steel manufacturing being outsourced to other countries. Now, I do not want to raise the cost of building infrastructure, because I’m one of the people who’s tasked with figuring out how to pay for it. At the same time, I hope Canadians understand that in order for us to build one Canadian economy, we may have to pay a bit more for the steel that goes into the bridges. We may have to pay a bit more for the engineering and consulting work. We’re pursuing the elimination of interprovincial barriers because we think it’s a worthwhile exercise, but there’s a further step of being willing to invest in buying all aspects of our supply chain from within Canada if we really want to see the full benefit.

Open this photo in gallery:

You’ve made clear your support for an energy corridor through Manitoba. Quebec is a potential sticking point. How do you get them on side?

One approach to a trade corridor is one that never leaves our province’s boundaries. We have existing corridors that come into Manitoba, and we could potentially build a spur north and export from Hudson Bay. Right now, exporting electricity east doesn’t make a ton of sense. The real opportunity, if we want to export more hydropower within Canada, is to go west. And I suspect that if we were to find another route to international markets for Alberta and Saskatchewan, they’d probably be a lot more interested in signing long-term export contracts with Manitoba Hydro.

I’m all for Ontario and Quebec pursuing their economic interests. Manitoba’s interest might be best served by tightening our economic and energy integration with Alberta and Saskatchewan. And then going to Ontario and Quebec and saying, “We’re going to build this transmission line with Ontario steel and Quebec aluminum. And we want an icebreaking fleet, so we need the shipyards in your provinces, as well as on the east and west coasts, to help us.”

When I think of nation building, it doesn’t necessarily mean every province will be equally involved in every aspect. I think it’s more in line with the old idea of comparative advantage. Right now, Manitoba’s comparative advantage is that we have access to saltwater in the Prairies, where a lot of the energy is and a lot of the minerals are. How we monetize that, in a way that is environmentally sound and supported by the people of our province, is a multibillion-dollar question our government’s trying to find the right answer to.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of Richard Madan's surname.