The Maple Monitor 6: Energy Politics, U.S.-Canada Relations, and Economic Strategy
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/12
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discusses the political dynamics surrounding Mark Carney’s proposed Keystone XL reboot and Donald Trump’s energy strategy. Tsukerman argues that while political rhetoric may fluctuate, economic and institutional cooperation between the U.S. and Canada persists beneath the surface. She explains how Trump’s alliance with energy interests is essential to his political survival and critiques Canada’s interventionist economic policies, emphasizing deregulation and growth over subsidies. The conversation also touches on social investments, such as Canada’s National School Food Program, and their long-term economic implications.
Interview conducted on October 10, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Welcome back to The Maple Monitor with New York attorney Irina Tsukerman. So, Mark Carney has floated the idea of a Keystone XL reboot following talks with Trump. From what I understand, Trump has long been focused on reviving it. There has been significant activism surrounding the pipeline and its cancellation, and this would mark a major comeback for a high-carbon trade corridor between Canada and the U.S. Environmentalists will likely react strongly. The question is—politically—does this represent a concession from Carney to Trump? Or was this already being discussed in earlier meetings?
Irina Tsukerman: Some of these issues can run in parallel. It’s entirely possible to have ongoing cooperation at one level while ideological battles continue at another.
They’ve been really attached to other issues, and I think some of these energy discussions have been ongoing the entire time. Even before that, it’s just the nature of two countries so close together, sharing so many significant economic ties. You can’t just cut it off and pretend nothing exists.
Except for Trump’s rhetoric. Business still goes on as usual. Institutions continue functioning. Frankly, I think Trump is mainly unaware of the daily operations within the federal government. No president can track every issue. But energy is one of the more stable areas, and I think even Trump understands why it’s advantageous to keep those conversations going.
If he aims to remain the number-one oil and gas exporter and increase revenue, he has no choice but to talk with anyone willing to cooperate and make the best deals. Frankly, this is the least surprising part of what’s happening—so many energy companies back Trump.
It’s in their interest to do business with Canada. If Trump had killed this issue, he would’ve been finished politically. He’d have lost the support of the energy sector, and that would’ve been the end of his legitimacy. Those business interests helped bring him to power. If they leave, given all the economic upheavals—tariffs, inflation, trade uncertainty—he can’t afford it.
Jacobsen: Alright, unpacking U.S. and new incentives. The biggest thing has been additional support and measures for workers and businesses—an attempt to calm jitters. It’s about stabilizing growth and costs. Expanded retraining and labour market development agreements have trained 50,000 skilled workers for $450 million over three years.
There’s another $382 million over five years, plus ongoing funding to bring together employers, unions, and industry bodies to address labour mismatches. That seems smart. They’ve added extra Employment Insurance weeks for long-tenured workers, effective September 10, providing 20 additional weeks of income support, up to 65 total weeks, retroactive to June 15. But again, that’s only for long-term workers.
And the most lasting impact will come from the National School Food Program, which provides meals at schools, ensuring children have something to eat. It’s approximately $216.6 million from 2029 to 2030, serving about 400,000 children.
Although it’s listed as permanent, I’m unsure whether that means it replaces an older program or if it’s an expansion based on population needs. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: The food program itself is far less controversial—assuming there’s genuine need—than the other assistance measures for workers. It sounds a bit like what Trump is doing: bailing out farmers while simultaneously imposing and removing tariffs, carving out exceptions. That’s not good policy. If you need constant subsidies, it means the system is broken—it’s not functioning correctly.
Trying to meddle more won’t help. It just misdirects funds to specific groups, leaving others shortchanged. I’m not convinced this will improve matters. We’ve seen this tried all over Europe, by the way.
Dealing with economic uncertainty or crisis—whether due to tariffs or other issues—has never actually resolved tensions. The only way to ease financial stress is to push for growth, expand opportunities for everyone, and pursue policies that deregulate and let people make the most of the market themselves.
Without government overreach. Because assistance always comes with strings attached—and sometimes those conditions are worse than the original situation.
Jacobsen: That’s really it for Canada. We’ve invested in the populations that need it most. In a few years, kids will have access to food. Carbon emissions are decreasing more slowly than they should be. We have a lot of land, plenty of sunlight—we could do a lot more with solar—but we’re not. So, Canada’s batting a B-plus. Not bad, not great. Good plus. That’s all I’ve got for this week. Thank you once again, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 