🇨🇦 Christy Clark on Canada's Energy Future | Power Struggle Ep.4 - Power Struggle

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's the long term here?
How are our children going tolive the same kind of quality of
life that we have?
Stuart, because, like you andme, I think we are at the
pinnacle at the moment unlesssomething changes in government
of how good it's ever going toget in Canada.
If we turn out to be thepinnacle, we will have totally
failed our children.

(00:20):
We have to look at this biggerpicture and we have to think
about how we are going to changethings and what we're doing now
so that our kids can have alife that is at least as good as
ours.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Welcome to Power Struggle.
I'm host, stuart Muir, and thisis another episode of the
Federal Election CampaignEdition.
We're tackling the big issuesshaping this election and really
Canada's future, and we arelooking particularly at issues
related to energy, which is thetheme of the podcast.
Christy Clark is my guest today.
She served as the second everfemale premier of British

(01:03):
Columbia from 2011 to 2017.
Before that, she was alongstanding member of the
provincial legislature.
Since leaving politics, christyhas become a regular political
commentator.
Welcome, christy.

Speaker 1 (01:16):
Thank you, it's nice to be here.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
Sure is, sure is.
And here we are into thefederal campaign.
I don't know how many I've beenpaying attention to, probably
nine that I covered as ajournalist up until today.
Wow, and you've been on thesidelines inside a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:33):
Yeah, you've, just I was probably delivering
pamphlets, and all those nine.

Speaker 2 (01:37):
Knocking on doors, all that.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
Yeah, well, we're back in it and it feels
consequential a lot going on.
What should be on the desk ofthe next Canadian prime minister
, no matter who it is.

Speaker 1 (01:50):
So I do think I mean your comment about this is a
consequential election.
I think this is the mostimportant election of my
lifetime and yours.
I don't think there's ever beenone where there's so much that
Canadians need to discover aboutourselves and express about
ourselves and embrace aboutourselves, and we need to kind
of dig deep, understand who weare, where we want to go,

(02:13):
because the world is changing somuch.
So I think it was a prelude tomy answer here.
I think that it's reallyimportant that our next prime
minister, whoever it is, hassome clear goals.
Really important that our nextprime minister, whoever it is,
has some clear goals.
And I think the first one is toremember that we are now in the
process of trying to reallyredefine who Canada wants to be.

(02:33):
What kind of a country do wewant to be after 10 years of
stalled growth in Canada?
So who do we want to be?
And then, how do we want to getthere?
And I think the only way to getthere is to create more wealth
for Canadians, more jobs forCanadians, because we need to
become an economic power again.
And then the third thing is justremember, folks, that

(02:56):
government can either doesn'tcreate wealth, but government
can enable the creation ofwealth and government can also
get in the way of the creationof wealth.
And that, I think, is the greatchallenge that governments
across Canada have today,because we've kind of run out of
space for just, you know,keeping on doing what we're

(03:16):
doing and thinking it's allgoing to be fine.
I think we've finally run outof, you know, the capacity for
government to grow.
We've run out of the capacity,our capacity for our healthcare
system to continue to manage.
We need to create some newwealth in the country, and that
means we need to do some thingsdifferently, and that is
absolutely the number one thingfor government right now.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
Getting to yes is a phrase I've heard you say a lot
of times.
When we have projects that arein the national interest and
that's not just a casual phrase,that's something used it goes
into the formal finding of aregulatory authority.
They'll say this is in thenational interest.
How do we get to yes for suchprojects?

Speaker 1 (03:57):
Well, I mean the way we did it.
I mean we did this in BritishColumbia.
We had a huge agenda for growthand infrastructure and
attracting investment and allthose kinds of things.
So there's some principles youneed to have.
You need to, but one of them isyou need to have regulatory
certainty in order to get to yes, because, first of all, you

(04:18):
won't attract any investment.
One of the things we discoveredis when we said to people if
once you come in and you makeyour application, we will have a
yes or a no to you in a certainnumber of days and we lived up
to that promise, so there'scertainty of timelines for them.
And then you know when we wouldget into that process.
We would.
When we got out the end, therewould be a certainty of the way

(04:41):
government was going to managethe project.
You know taxation and lots ofthose other things.
So you need, in order to get toyes, you need to attract
investment.
That means you need to havesome certainty in the process.
And then you have to haveaccountability on your own side,
like we would say to the civilservants and they were, we had
great civil servants, we reallydid we would say to them.
Okay, here's what you need todo.

(05:03):
Here's in your department, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, and
we're going to come back andwe're going to look at together
and see what's not getting doneand what is getting done, and
that accountability in thesystem meant that we weren't
losing track of things and therewasn't kind of you're not
ending up in, oh my gosh, I'msorry, we can't make our
deadlines.
We forgot about that.

(05:23):
People were accountable.
They met their deadlines.
They knew what the plan was.
Everybody kind of understoodwhere we were all going.
That's how you get to.
Yes, and it's not that hard.
You just have to have a plan.
You have to have accountabilityfor people who are implementing
the plan underneath that.

Speaker 2 (05:41):
I think it would be a great goal for our conversation
today, Christy, if by the endof it, someone watching will
have maybe some tools that theycan adopt to see whether those
who are saying this is how I'llget to you are actually going to
be able to do that.

Speaker 1 (05:56):
Okay.
Number one have a timeline.
Number one, absolute number onething is you've got to have,
you have to minimize the numberof regulatory processes and
every one of those processes hasto have a timeline.
That's absolutely essential.
Number two you need toharmonize your processes.
So you know, stephen Harperbrought in this, you know, this

(06:19):
idea that we would harmonizefederal and provincial processes
.
So federal government wouldlook at the provincial process,
say you know, that's the samestuff we would be looking at.
We trust you guys to do thatpart of it.
Well, we're not going to tryand do it again.
So you know, when JustinTrudeau became the prime
minister, he changed that.
So we went back to these doubleprocesses.
So you need timelines, you needharmonization of processes, you

(06:44):
need certainty of treatment andtaxation.
And what you need to understand, I think, is what government
needs to understand, is thatinvestors bringing money into
our country to create jobs andinfrastructure, they want to
have a return on theirinvestment.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
Return A profit, goodness.

Speaker 1 (07:04):
And they're not in the business of just coming here
to help us.
They're also here to help theirown bottom lines and we need to
really treat businesses likethey're business.
That means government needs tobe a lot more businesslike Not
be a business, but be morebusinesslike in its approach to
it.
And my approach to it wasalways to sit down with the

(07:25):
private sector guys and say,okay, look, what do you need.
And then you know.
I would say to them here's whatwe need.
And once we work to understandwhat each of those investor and
these are huge entities, lots ofthem are government-owned
entities, right, india, oil orwhatever Once you understand

(07:49):
what each other need, then youcan try and work together to get
it done.
So the last thing is torecognize that this is creating
wealth from private sector.
Investment is always a jointeffort.
You're not enemies.
You're trying to make it work.
You're going to havedisagreements, but you have to
understand what each other needsand then try and figure out how
you can make that happentogether, not by clashing and

(08:14):
arguing and trying to feel likeyou're always fighting an uphill
battle.
That never gets you where youwant to go.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
During your premiership BC 2011 to 2017, you
were talking a lot about LNGliquefied natural gas projects
and you would hear your criticssay it's a pipe dream that all
sorts of phrases they hurled atyou because there was no way
this was ever going to happen.
There was no way this was evergoing to happen.
There were 15 or even more LNGprojects that developers, like

(08:47):
you've kind of described, cameforward and said can we build
that?

Speaker 1 (08:51):
18.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
18.
And the critics said 18, that'sa ridiculous number.
Now we've got LNG happening.
There's probably at least 15projects, lng projects that
didn't exist when you weretalking about LNG but exist now,
except there in Texas andLouisiana.
So when you look back, well,hey, let's throw in Site C.

(09:13):
Site C was mocked as needless.
That's green electricity, it'sas green as it gets.
And you had critics say no, wedon't want that green
electricity, there's no need forit.
Yeah, had critics say no, wedon't want that green
electricity, there's no need forit.
Not to look back and you knowgloat or anything, but honestly,
what do you think when you lookback from today to back then?

Speaker 1 (09:35):
Well, I mean, it is nice to accomplish something and
have it work.
I mean, aside from, you knowwhat people thought about it at
the time.
I did find it reallyfrustrating at the time, though,
because it was just so obviousthat we needed to diversify our
markets.
It was so obvious that we hadso much of what the world wanted

(09:55):
, and it was a great opportunityto create jobs in our province,
and with LNG in particular andSite C, it was so obvious that
it was good for the environment.
I mean, lng displacing coal inAsia is a huge, huge benefit for
the climate change agenda.
Like, I just thought all thatstuff was kind of really obvious
, and I remember going to meetwith it was even Stephen

(10:18):
Harper's government.
So you know, because, startingin 2011, he was still the prime
minister sitting down with someof his guys they had never heard
of what LNG like they didn'teven know what LNG was.
And then, of course, trudeau'sgovernment came in and they were
immediately skeptical of thewhole thing.
So when I look back at it, I'mhappy that we got some of this

(10:40):
through, but I'm also reallydisappointed that we it's been
so slow.
You know, it's been soembarrassing to have the German
Chancellor, the Japanese PrimeMinister, come to Canada, beg us
for our natural resources, ourclean energy, and we say no.
Why?
Because we spent a decadegovernment spent a decade trying

(11:02):
to kill every single one ofthose projects and thankfully we
got the Shell project farenough along that they weren't
able to cancel it, but stillit's far below its potential.
I mean, you know, it could beeight trains, it could be more
than eight trains, it could bemuch bigger than that and we
could be hosting three hugeplants, like very large plants
here, and we've just got oneover the line.

(11:25):
Stuart, we started that in 2011.
2011.
And here we are in 2025 andwe're sending out our first
shipment.
I mean, if we want to competeand we want to improve the
standard of living for Canadians, we got to do better than that
and I can tell you we liftedheaven and earth as a government
.
The entire provincialgovernment was devoted in some
part to making this stuff happenand we still, we still were

(11:49):
only able to get one through thetiny, tiny little pinhole of
the federal government and then,of course, subsequent NDP
governments.

Speaker 2 (11:58):
A year ago you hosted , the president of Poland came
to Vancouver and I know the twoof you had a tête-à-tête
conversation on the margins ofthe events that ResourceWorks
hosted in Vancouver.
What did President Duda sayabout LNG?
Did he talk about it in private?

Speaker 1 (12:16):
He is a very direct person, which is awesome.
I mean, you know, I have a lotof Polish friends in my life
privately and they are also verydirect people and he just was
sort of shaking his head likewhat's the matter with Canada?
I don't like you guys.
His view is we are sitting ontop of all of this incredible

(12:37):
wealth, from natural gas totungsten to you name it and we
just leave it in the ground.
And he's sitting over therefacing a hostile Russian
invasion in the country nextdoor to him and thinking you
know, we'd like to stay ademocracy, we'd like to be able

(12:58):
to defend Western values inEurope, and instead of helping
us, you're just deciding toleave all this stuff in the
ground rather than participatingin making and supporting a
better world.
That was very much his view ofit and I mean I tend to agree
with that.
I think Canadians should befully engaged in the world, in

(13:21):
supporting democracy, exportingour shared values.
We should be fully engaged inthe fight against climate change
and we're just sitting on thesidelines.
It makes no sense to me and itcertainly didn't make sense to
the president of Poland.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
Well, he had missiles flying over Polish territory
from Russia while he was hereand the Canadian officials were
telling him you can't talk aboutLNG, president.
You can talk about hydrogen,green hydrogen, and you can go
to Edmonton and you can tout itat the hydrogen show, but you
can't talk about LNG.
Now, I'm not sure whether hefelt that anything they told him

(14:00):
was what he could or couldn'ttalk about, but it sounds like
he was talking about LNG.

Speaker 1 (14:05):
Yeah, privately, I mean certainly I just't talk
about, but it sounds like he wastalking about LNG.
Yeah, privately, I meancertainly I just you know, but
it's all the clean energy.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
I think that everybody's interested in.
I mean they should beinterested in it Right,
absolutely.

Speaker 1 (14:14):
We need to figure out how to make semiconductors and
other really high-tech productin the democratic Western world
so that we can supply each otherand we can create a bulwark
against all these autocraticregimes around the world which
are on the move.
So really important that we dothat.
And it's not just clean energy,it's also all the minerals,

(14:37):
critical minerals, that we have.
There's, I think, one operatingmine in the United States that
produces critical minerals atthe moment.
Think how Canada could supplythe world and how important we
could suddenly become again andthe role that we could play if
we decided to get to yes on someof those resource projects.

Speaker 2 (14:57):
Well, we'll have to go back later to the timeline
and the harmonization, thecertainty questions, because
that is your idea of what's atstake, what's needed for this.
You know it's a decade nowsince some of the big pieces
that you were driving in the BCgovernment on indigenous
reconciliation really began to,I think, emerge into the public

(15:19):
view.
I'm thinking about things likethe Great Bear Rainforest, but
probably something that affectedmore First Nations was the
impact benefit agreements.
You had hundreds and hundredsof First Nations that were
beginning to enter into theeconomy through the
proliferation of opportunitiesin often remote places in BC.
Ten years later, you still hearabout clean drinking water not

(15:43):
being available to First Nations.
You still hear about the socialbarriers that face First
Nations.
Have we made progress?

Speaker 1 (15:53):
Yeah, we've made progress.
I think we have.
I really got focused onIndigenous reconciliation when I
was a premier because I startedto visit First Nations and it's
really I mean, in some of thosecommunities they're doing okay.
In others it's really shockingthe standard of living that

(16:14):
people live with in many ofthose communities and most
Canadians don't see that veryoften, although if you live in
Vancouver, you can visit thelargest indigenous community in
British Columbia and it's calledthe Downtown Eastside, which
also has the highest rate ofearly female death.
Guess what it's in DowntownEastside, guess what?

(16:37):
It's.
Driven by poverty, it's drivenby the history of colonization,
all those other things.
So I think we have, as ageneration, a chance to really
do something to reconcile withFirst Nations, and I think it's
a generational opportunity.
And the way I think about it,is this the thing that we did,
of all of the things you know,other than residential schools,

(17:01):
which obviously I think was theworst thing that colonizers did
to harm First Nations people.
The second thing was we tookaway their land.
And how have Indigenous peoplesurvived on their land all these
years, like for millennia?
What is it about the landthat's so important?
It's the resources in the land,it's the wood, it's the

(17:21):
minerals, it's the food, it'sthe hunting, all of those things
that are on the land.
So when we took away the rightto use the land from First
Nations, we took away theirright to create wealth, their
opportunity to create wealth.
Now the opportunities to createwealth from resources today are

(17:42):
very different and much moreenriching, and it's complicated
because there are lots ofexisting corporate interests
that you know that have therights to harvest and other
things on that land.
But I think it's prettyfundamental for us, if we want
to reconcile, to say, okay, look, you're going to have rights
back to your land and we'regoing to help you.

(18:02):
We're going to support you andpartner with you in developing
resources and wealth from thatland that has traditionally been
yours.
We're going to do it togetherand you are going to start to
see some benefits from your landagain.
And it's because we are open tofinding and developing new
resources, new sources ofrevenue, like liquefied natural

(18:23):
gas.
Like you know, these criticalminerals that we're discovering
are so vital for the world.
Now that we have theseopportunities to allow First
Nations to create wealth intheir own communities, to
participate in that, to beowners and workers.
Along with you know, otherinvestors from around the world,

(18:45):
including us, because they needthe chance to be able to
develop their own communitieswith money that they've created,
so that they can choose theirown futures and they might
decide to design communitiescompletely different from ones
that are familiar to us.
But let them.
I mean to me that'sreconciliation.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
The first wave, the indigenous business agreements
that you signed, was followed byother forms of participation in
the economy.
Where do you think it's headed?
What does the future look likefor First Nations and this is a
call to action for the nextPrime Minister of Canada, by the
way- I think First Nations arein a position to heal themselves

(19:27):
.

Speaker 1 (19:28):
I mean, you know, I don't think we've done a good
job of trying to heal FirstNations because guess what?
Highest incarceration rates,suicide rates, 50% of the
children in British Columbia,50% of the population of
children who live in foster careor have been taken away by the
government are Indigenouschildren, when they're 7% of the
population.
Addiction issues, all of thatother heap of terrible

(19:52):
statistics.
First Nations people carry thatburden terribly and you know
it's not like we've done a goodjob of fixing it.
And so, stuart, when I used totravel to First Nations and ask
them what they'd want, what theywanted to do and you know we
talked to them about agreementsand start that conversation, two
conversations would happen.
One we'd sit down with thechief you know mostly men and

(20:16):
they'd say well, you know, whatabout the money, what about the
jobs, what about this, whatabout that?
And you know the treaty, rightsand all those sorts of things.
Then we sit down with thematriarchs and they'd look at me
and they'd go hey, listen, lee,our kids are being taken away
and we never see them againuntil we find them on the
downtown east side, our husbandsand our uncles and aunts.

(20:38):
They're addicted and they'rebeing incarcerated.
And like they cared about theschools, they cared about child
protection, they cared abouteducation.
And what I realized is that inmaking agreements with First
Nations people, the privatesector and the government needs
to be a part of it.
Because if you're a privatesector, you know interest,

(20:58):
you're making investment, you'regoing to, you can offer jobs
and you can offer revenuestreams and those kinds of
things, but you're not going tobuild a school and you're not
going to have any influence inwhether government is helping
you create your own childprotection system so that the
kids aren't leaving thecommunity when a family's in
trouble.
That has to be done bygovernment.

(21:19):
So what we did is we created akind of a world where the
private sector would go in andmake an agreement and government
would go in and make anagreement.
The government bears the burdenof responsibility here, because
it's the crown that has putFirst Nations in this

(21:39):
disadvantaged kind of place insociety, and they're right about
that.
We have to accept ourresponsibility and we have to
accept that we are the onlypeople that can fix it.
That's the call to governmentyou want to reconcile with First
Nations.
Give them a chance to get outthere and develop resources.
Let them use their land.
Let's share in the benefits ofthat and then let's use those

(22:02):
benefits to try and build thingsand improve the infrastructure
of their community so that theirkids can be just as healthy as
ours.

Speaker 2 (22:11):
You were in government, although you weren't
yet premier, in BritishColumbia when the first consumer
carbon tax in North Americacame in in British Columbia, yes
, and that framework created inthe 2000s it actually managed to
maintain cross-party support.
It wasn't really ever anelection issue.

(22:32):
The people accepted it.

Speaker 1 (22:35):
Nobody liked it, those two.

Speaker 2 (22:37):
No one liked it, okay , well, it didn't become this
burning issue.
It was a stir in the polls, wasit?
Yeah, but you guys stayed withit over the years.

Speaker 1 (22:47):
We had the best, fastest growing economy in the
country.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
So it was because it was masked by good times that
people no, no, partly okay.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
I hate having to explain this because nobody
believes it, because it doesn't.
This goes completely againstthe conventionalism with the
carbon tax, but I'm going to try.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
Let's have it yes.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
When Gordon Campbell brought in the carbon tax, he
brought in a group of people, ofexperts, who really tried to
build something very unique, andthey did.
He implemented it and therewere changes to it over the
years.
But basically the whole ideawas the carbon tax would apply
to businesses and to goods andservices and all that stuff, and

(23:32):
then all of the revenue fromthat would go back into cutting
taxes, all of it.
So what we ended up with was avery low tax economy and by the
time I got there we were reallylike we'd really ramped up the
tax cuts.
So we had some of the lowesttaxes in Canada.
We did have the lowest taxes atone point in Canada, and so you

(23:54):
supercharge the economy lowtaxes, businesses are creating
more, people are investing more,you know, more jobs are being
created and you have gettingclose to zero unemployment.
We also did that because theeconomy is supercharged, because
you've got all these tax cuts,because it's coming from carbon
tax.
People still hated the carbontax, but people were a lot less

(24:14):
concerned about it because theyhad a lot of money in their
pockets.
They were keeping more of itbecause taxes were lower.
They were making more of itbecause businesses were
investing more in jobs.
So and when we, when I rememberaccepting an award from the
World Bank, which you know, Iknow a lot of your listeners are
going to hear and say, wow,that's a conspiracy.

(24:35):
I didn't know, it was a bigconspiracy thing.

Speaker 2 (24:39):
I don't think it was.

Speaker 1 (24:40):
I just thought it was a world big, I mean anyway, not
only did I accept it from theWorld Bank, I think I accepted
it at a climate conference inParis, just to kind of add some
color here.
Anyway, what they said when Iaccepted the award was BC is
getting the award for the bestconstructed carbon tax in the

(25:00):
world, because it's the onlycarbon tax that went 100% into
tax cuts.
So therefore, it's the onlycarbon tax that exists in an
economy where you're going to beguaranteeing growth through a
carbon tax.
And you know, I mean it's all.
The whole thing went to hellwhen the NDP got in government.

(25:21):
They took all the money andjust started putting it into
growing government.
I mean it was ridiculous.
They kept jacking up the taxand there were no more tax cuts,
so it became the slowesteconomy in the country.

Speaker 2 (25:39):
Well, in the first phase, the term revenue
neutrality, that's what you'retalking about.
That's why economists loved it.
I remember at the back of therecital the editorial pages
loved it because they'reeconomists there and, yeah,
they're going to tax it.
But, although we understoodwhat that was and it was, I
think, muted, just in the wayyou say it, because, yeah, and
it was.
I think, muted, just in the wayyou say it, because, yeah, it
wasn't a big factor.
But then in recent years, thefederal consumer carbon tax.
You started to get this linewhereas we're going to tax you

(26:02):
so we can put more money back inyour pocket.
And that must pull really well,because for years and years we
heard that repeated and everytime you stop and think you're
going to tax me, You're going totake my money away for the
purpose of putting the money inmy pocket.
Is that right government?

Speaker 1 (26:18):
I know, and it just— Makes no sense, but I mean the
proof is in the pudding though,like this is a great example the
carbon tax in British Columbiareally worked because
supercharged the economy.
People are feeling reallycomfortable.
They're making more money.
Life is easier.
Comfortable, they're makingmore money, life is easier.
So you're not really that.
You're not looking at all thethings that government's doing

(26:38):
to you to make your life harderwhen you're feeling successful
in your life.
But Canada's economy is reallydoing badly.
People are feeling reallyworried about the future.
So you're struggling and youcan't make ends meet.
You can't afford to put yourkids in hockey this year.
You look at all the goddamntaxes and you say, wait a minute
here, how come government'staking so much when I'm getting

(27:00):
less all the time?
And I just think it'ssituational.
Like taxes really come to topof mind for people when they're
struggling financially.

Speaker 2 (27:11):
Yeah, and when you look at this environmental
connection between carbon taxesand the desire to improve our
performance on environmentalmeasures, that's what we all
want to do.
When it comes to carbon taxesthemselves, canada has been a
bit of an island in the worldbecause the rest of the world
has not followed the legendaryleadership of Canada the climate

(27:35):
leadership.
You hear this phrase all thetime, as if there's some sort of
obligation.
You're allowed to be Canadianas long as you're following
climate leadership, which meansyou have to pay taxes, but is
everyone else in the world doingthat?
We just did a little study atResourceWorks.
We found out.
I was astonished by this.
I did not see this coming, butif you look at all the carbon
taxes that are paid in the worldby the 7 billion people out

(27:55):
there, one third of all thosecarbon taxes are paid by people
who live in Canada.

Speaker 1 (28:01):
What.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
Like, yeah, we're the ones paying all the carbon.
We're not necessarily payingthem to all those other
countries, but yeah, it'sastonishing.
What it means is that ourforward thinking ideas about
carbon pricing which we thoughtwould represent carbon
leadership, climate leadership,and then the rest of the world
would follow our footsteps,because we are, after all, the

(28:21):
boy scouts and girl scouts ofclimate leadership Well, that's
not what has happened.

Speaker 1 (28:25):
Wow.
And in addition to that, whereare we sitting in terms of our
climate change goals?
Have we improved?
I mean, are we meeting our netzero?
No, we're not.
And so I mean you add, I meaninsult, injury then with that
second fact, I didn't.
I mean it's hard to imaginethat we've been paying all these
carbon taxes, we're not meetingour goals and we're kind of the

(28:48):
only people in the world thatare really going big on it.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
I've always sensed that there are phases in these
things, like in everything else,and there will be this phase.
You have climate policy 1.0,and then eventually that gets
eroded and changed and then youhave climate policy 2.0.
But we haven't gotten to the2.0.
Now a fellow who runs theUtilities Commission in BC said

(29:15):
look, marc, marc, jaccard, thisdoesn't all add up to me.
I think there's a new phasecoming where it's going to be
more market-driven, the way thatwe're seeing in the US, where
Texans we think of as havingthese 10-gallon hats and they're
drilling oil wells and shoutingYahoo, right, well, actually,

(29:35):
actually they're building.
They're maybe doing all that,but they're also building wind
turbines and solar like crazy.
They're just doing all of theabove.
They're not sitting arounddebating whether they should
have one or the other, they'redoing everything.
And while they're doing that,they're reducing emissions.
Yeah, you know, under Biden,trump, obama, they reduced

(29:57):
emissions by producing morenatural gas, so there was less
coal.
That's how they did it.
You try that here and it all ofa sudden gets into these
polarizations, which is why Ithink our climate policy has
been stuck in this 1.0.
So, anyways, my idea that therecould be another way to do.
It was dismissed out of hand.
It's impossible.
It's perfect now.
Well, obviously it's notperfect now.

(30:18):
I don't know what the answer is, but maybe you do.

Speaker 1 (30:22):
Well, I don't, but I do watch Landman.
Have you watched Landman withBilly Thornton?

Speaker 2 (30:26):
Oh yeah, oh yeah.

Speaker 1 (30:27):
And you remember that scene where he's out with who's
the woman he's with.
She's the lawyer, she's thathard drug lawyer Coming into.
Yeah, I don't like all this oiland gas.
And then there's all these windturbines.
They're in the middle of thisand he says he goes, damn it.
You know he swears a lot.
He says you know, do you thinkthe oil companies would be
building these turbines if theyweren't going to make a lot of

(30:49):
money?
Money and that is exactly whathappens is the oil and gas
companies.
The energy companies are locatedin Texas, alberta, wherever
they happen to be in the world,and because they're already
investing there, that's alsowhere you start to see your
clean energy industry growing.
I mean, the clean energyindustry in Texas is growing

(31:10):
faster than any other cleanenergy industry, I think, in the
world, but certainly NorthAmerica.
And same is happening inAlberta because those investors,
and British Columbia becausethose investors are already
there.
So, you know, the clean energyrevolution is actually being
driven by all of the people thatwould, you know, be accused of
being the climate criminals, byfolks over at Greenpeace.

(31:32):
Well, you know, 2.0 is actuallyhappening because they're
making it happen.
It's just a lot more complicatedthan you know.
Those Greenpeace activists whoI used to, you know, they used
to come to my house all the timeand I think I was a target, I
don't know, but maybe not.
But I would stand at the doorfor a while and then I would
invite them in.
You know, I never persuaded anyof them, but it was always a

(31:59):
good discussion and that was oneof the key things that I would
always point out to them is thatthe expertise for this comes
from those industries.
That's where Climate 2.0 isgoing to happen.

Speaker 2 (32:05):
Yeah, and applying that to voting season 2025, I'm
kind of thinking that there hasto be a question asked about how
do we move forward?
Because if we've got, you know,all the relevant parties
federally are saying goodriddance, carbon tax, you know
federal consumer carbon tax.

(32:25):
But then someone's asking,maybe, well, what's coming in
its place?
That's a good question what iscoming in its place?
What should come in its place,place?

Speaker 1 (32:34):
that's a good question.
What is coming in its place?
What should come in its place?
Well, I think what thegovernment should do is figure
out how to do sustainabledevelopment of our resource
sector and then start thinkingabout the problem as a problem
for the world.
Because you know the fact thatChina is building, you know, a
new coal-fired factory.
Every day is terrible foreverybody and we need to help

(32:55):
them not build coal firedfactories by getting them our
LNG.
And you know climate change isnot something that Canada can
really control.
We can only play a part, likeevery other country can, in
trying to diminish the impactthat we're having on the earth,
but some countries have a lotmore, a much bigger impact than

(33:15):
we do India, china, japan, southKorea, the United States.
We need to be doing what we canto supply those countries with
all of the clean energy that wecan and all those clean energy
sources and clean energytechnology to try and reduce
their emissions, because that'llbe good for all of us.
I mean that really, to me,should be the priority for the

(33:39):
next government.
And do we replace the carbon tax?
Probably not.
I mean, I think there are waysto structure it for industrial
emitters that will work, but Idon't think a consumer carbon
tax is something that you canmake fly in Canada anymore.
And the worry, though, forCanadians has to be, after
governments have been out therehoovering up all the carbon tax

(34:02):
and dumping it into governmentcoffers, as they've been doing
so generously in BritishColumbia, how are they going to
fill that hole in their budgetwhen they get rid of the carbon
tax?
I mean that's not really anenvironmental question.
Then it becomes a healthcaresustainability question,
education sustainabilityquestion.
I mean there's a lot moreproblems that are going to come

(34:24):
from canceling the carbon taxbecause governments have been so
greedy in using it.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
And that's not a trivial amount of money.
That's a couple of billiondollars.
I don't know if we know theexact amount right now because
it's not all out there, but alot of money.
You mentioned India, youmentioned China, you mentioned
getting Canada's resources there.
So that's a conversation wecould have had at any time over
the last dozen years, but nowit's a different conversation

(34:53):
because Trump any time over thelast dozen years.
But now it's a differentconversation because Trump.
And suddenly we're talkingabout how the fact that we're
sending 95% plus of our oil tothe US is a different situation.
We can't get our oil to othercountries that want it and would
pay a good price for it,because we don't have pipelines

(35:13):
that go to the ports, except wenow have Trans Mountain, which
is now completed, which mygovernment approved.
I'd love to come back to thatdecision process, the five
conditions, and it's so relevantfor today.
But before doing that, I'd liketo just ask you, you know, if

(35:41):
we have the situation wherewe're tied to Trump?
You know our number one mostvaluable export is crude oil,
nothing else.
A lot of people might be awareof it and prefer not to think
about it because they have, youknow an emotional reaction to
hearing that crude oil is reallyimportant, and them being
Canadian.
But it's just a fact.
The number two export is theauto sector automobiles and auto

(36:03):
parts and that whole sectorlooks like it is in very tough
times.
And imagine a situation where wehave, say, the number one most
valuable export, crude oil.
That is, by legislation put inplace by the federal government
that is radically diminished inits value.
And then the auto sector,buffeted by the winds of cheap

(36:27):
EVs from China, plus theprotectionism of Trump, that's
also wiped out and we say thosetwo sectors are not going to
contribute to Canadianprosperity.
Suddenly we're going way downthe list and we'll be more
reliant on a smaller basket.
Sounds like that could be notwhat Canadians expect in terms
of their economic well-being.

(36:47):
So I'm trying to get to aquestion here what does Canada
have to do in terms oftechnology, society, politics to
get oil and gas to the coastsso it can be monetized?

Speaker 1 (36:59):
Well, I mean, this was part of our plan for BC was
really?
We decided early on that if wewanted to build, if we wanted to
create a stronger economy, weneeded to have more export
markets.
Because, you know, everybody,we knew everybody was just
shipping to the States at aterrible, at a discount.

Speaker 2 (37:17):
We knew, we had a discount as well.

Speaker 1 (37:18):
Right, yeah, we knew we can get more money for our
oil and for our natural gas andfor our minerals If we were
shipping them, if we had a lotmore than one customer competing
for what we were doing.
And you know, when we saw TMXfirst day open, holy smokes we
saw the price of our and holysmokes, we saw the price of our,
the value of our resources justbump up that day.
So it was.

(37:38):
For us it was always diversifyour markets, find investors who
will give us a better price forwhat we have, create competition
and find a way to get it tothem.
And how do you get it to them?
You build pipelines, you buildinfrastructure.
You build infrastructure, youknow if it's for mining or
whatever.
So we decided we need to buildthe infrastructure, that we need

(38:03):
to get our resources to thecoast.
We need to find the marketsthat want to receive that and
make deals with them to purchaseour goods.
We needed to find investorsfrom overseas who would invest
the billions of dollars in oureconomy to build the
infrastructure.
To get it out.
We needed to train workers tobe able to be available to go in

(38:24):
and do that work.
I mean it was a really big,multi-pronged plan, but it was
all about getting to yes.
But it was all about getting toyes, making sure there's some
certainty for investors andtrying to do everything that we
possibly could to ensure thatthe public and Indigenous

(38:45):
communities felt like they werefairly treated and understood
how they would benefit from whatwe were trying to do, because
we were also seeking sociallicense at the same time in
order to do a social license aword that was first heard in
British Columbia, I think, at aGlobe conference.
That's right, but I mean, youknow, I don't think it's a
meaningless thing, because partof being successful in politics,

(39:11):
in trying to do big things, isunderstanding that lots of the
stuff that you want to do mightnot be understood well by the
public and people might not likeit.
So your job is not to say, oh,we're not going to do it because
we don't think people will likeit.
Your job is to say we thinkthis is really important, it's

(39:31):
going to build the future forthe province, it's so important.
We are going to invest andstake our political future our
own political future at thepolls on trying to persuade
people that this is the rightthing to do, which is what we
did with LNG and that's how wewon an election in 2013.
It was by.
It wasn't because people knewwhat LNG was or even liked it at

(39:52):
the beginning.
It was because we worked hardto explain it to people and
people decided enough of themdecided.
You know, this is the rightthing to do, and I think that is
a big problem for governmentsthese days is that, instead of
saying we're going to try and dovisionary things, we're going
to try and plan for the futureand we're going to come up with

(40:15):
ideas that maybe you know, youknow the public doesn't like.
Yet we're going to try and doour part to sell people on the
benefits of these things.
And, you know, not just try anddo what's popular, but try and
do what's right.

Speaker 2 (40:33):
Christy, you're talking straight.
You talked straight when youwere asking for votes.
You talked straight when youwere in government.
You're talking straight now.
Whenever I tune in to thepolitical rhetoric of those
seeking votes now, not everyone,but you see plenty of this
they're not talking straight.
You examine any statement it'slike what does this mean?

(40:53):
What is this word salad?
What is this tissue of nonsensethat seems to sound okay to the
press gallery?
Oh yeah, that makes sense.
It makes no sense.
That statement that's been putout there, that's on the six
o'clock news, that no one'squestion is absolute rubbish,
and yet it's.
Yes, that's right.
You never did that and you werecriticized because you talk

(41:16):
straight, but you did it.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
People don't like women who talk, especially women
who talk straight.
I don't think.
Yeah, I think women the demandon women is, I mean, is really
that we have to just be a littlebit more pleasing?

Speaker 2 (41:30):
You have to be nice.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
You have to be nice and you know, in my political
journey I did learn a lot that Ididn't know, for example,
around First Nations.
You know what's required forreconciling with First Nations.
That was a real learningprocess for me.
So I probably I do speakdifferently about that now than
I might have in 2011, because Iunderstand more things, but I

(41:52):
still just try and say what Ithink and because I think in
politics, you, as a voter, Iwant to have the ability to
choose someone based on what Ithink, what they say they're
going to do.
But if they don't say whatthey're going to do, or they say
what they're going to do andthen they say something
different, it's very confusingand it's not, then I don't

(42:12):
really have a good choice, do I?
You're not allowing me to makea choice, and I think democracy
depends on people having a clearunderstanding of where their
politicians stand.
I've always I've just alwaysthought that.

Speaker 2 (42:25):
I think it's basic respect for the people you're
trying to represent is it thecampaign machine that turns all
of this into yes, yellow, yes,you know what it is.
You know what it is.
Is they slice and dice votersnow?
The campaign machine that turnsall of this into?

Speaker 1 (42:35):
Jell-O.
Yes, you know what it is.
You know what it is.
It's slice and dice voters.
Now, I mean and this startedhappening in about 2015,.
In my estimation, in a big way,they figured out how to just
like, okay.
So Stuart is concerned aboutfunding for religious schools,
is concerned about funding forreligious schools, and Jeremy is

(43:00):
concerned about transgenderparticipation in sports, in
women's sports, transgenderparticipation in women's sports,
and Christy is concerned about,you know, carbon taxes or
whatever it is, and they sliceand dice, and they slice and
dice and then they come up withthese policies that are really
focused on important but notwidely, you know issues that are

(43:26):
going to have a wideapplication, a wide implication
for the public, and that littletiny focus on small things means
that we lose we completely losethe bigger picture, and that's
what's happened in Canada.
We've lost the bigger picture,like the big picture folks in
government is can we grow thiseconomy so that we can continue

(43:50):
to create wealth?
And because, by the way, weneed that wealth to be able to
pay for healthcare.
Continue to create wealth andbecause, by the way, we need
that wealth to be able to payfor health care, education, all
the things that make our countrygreat, and the tragedy for us
in British Columbia was we wereon the road to doing that and we
are so far off that road fromthe fastest growing economy, the
slowest growing economy, and itdoesn't take very much to fall

(44:13):
off the wagon.
Mixing a lot of metaphors here,but I think that's sort of
what's happened in Canada.
We're thinking about, well,whether or not we want to give a
tax break for people who puttheir kids into sports.
It's a great idea, but reallyis it a major announcement that
you need to make in Parliamentand, by the way, something that

(44:33):
I also supported in BritishColumbia?
But I mean, it's reallygovernment should be looking at
the big picture.
What's the long term here?
How are our children going tolive the same kind of quality of
life that we have?
Because, like you and me, Ithink we are at the pinnacle at
the moment, unless somethingchanges in government, of how
good it's ever going to get inCanada, and that will.

(44:56):
If we turn out to be thepinnacle, we will have totally
failed our children.
We have to look at this biggerpicture and we have to think
about how we are going to changethings and what we're doing now
so that our kids can have alife that is at least as good as
ours, because they can't affordhomes.
The climate is not going in theright direction.

(45:17):
We are not producing jobs andresources and wealth in Canada
that we should be, and until westart creating that wealth, we
can't create a better future forour kids.
And that is kind of like Idon't want to dead end the
future for Hamish, my son, and Idon't think anybody else wants
to do that for their children,but that's where we're at today

(45:38):
and that is really this kind ofexistential choice that we have
in this election.
That's why this is such animportant election.
What kind of future do we want?
Because we're kind of at thepoint of failure unless we
decide we're going to choosesuccess here.

Speaker 2 (45:57):
So let's give a recommendation, If you can give
a recommendation to those whoare on the hostings looking for
votes for the rest of thecampaign.
How should they address this?
What can they do in how they'retalking about things, how
they're answering questions?

Speaker 1 (46:13):
I think candidates need to broadly grasp the fact
that this isn't about talkingpoints anymore.
This is about the future of thecountry and whether or not we
are going to remain a wealthycountry or whether or not we're
going to continue to slip.
And I, you know, I am a realoptimist for Canada, Like I just
think we are so rich, we haveso much wealth in this country

(46:35):
that we are choosing not toshare with Canadians and share
with the world.
So I'm very optimistic that wecan make those the right choices
.
So what my hope would be andlook, I'm not going to argue,
this may not be a winningpolitical message.
Maybe it's all about the littlethings now, Maybe that's how
you win.
But I hope that candidates getout there and start thinking
this is more about.

(46:56):
It's not just about whether ornot I get to win or my party
gets to win.
It's about trying to influencethe discussion so that we can
each candidate can be a realplay, a real meaningful role in
making our country wealthy again, so that we can support all the
shared values that we have,Talking to their constituents

(47:19):
about how they want to do thatand convince people that we need
to do something differently.
I mean, if every candidate wasdoing that out there and the
debate was not rather than yougot to stop them from doing that
, you got to stop them fromdoing that, and the debate was
about you know, well, they thinkthey're there.
Here's what they're reallygoing to do to change the

(47:39):
country.
Well, here's what I'm going todo to change the country.
If everybody was trying to talkabout how we're going to make
it better rather than just abouthow everybody else was going to
make it worse, we would have abetter political debate in the
country.
But that's not what's happeningnow.

Speaker 2 (47:53):
Yeah, and now I don't think anyone is making a lot
more money than they did fiveyears ago.
But they go to the grocerystore and the hundred bucks they
spent five years ago doesn'tfill the grocery cart the way it
used to, that's for sure.
Doesn't fill the basket, andthe houses have not become
affordable.

Speaker 1 (48:15):
It's harder to get a hundred bucks now, too, in your
pocket because too much is goingback.

Speaker 2 (48:20):
Yeah, and in the last decade we've gone as a country
from having, if you did, theequivalent to the United States.
What if we were a state of theUnited?
Having, if you did it, theequivalent to the United States.
What if we were a state of theUnited States?
The Economist magazine did this?
We would be the equivalent 10years ago of Montana.
Now we're the equivalent ofAlabama.
Alabama is one of the poorestof the United States states, so

(48:41):
Canadians are living at a levelcomparable to the US of the
state of Alabama.
That's where we are now.

Speaker 1 (48:49):
You know why I don't mind and I know a lot of people
do when religious people come tomy door and try and convert me.

Speaker 2 (48:54):
Why don't you mind?

Speaker 1 (48:55):
I don't mind, because they're always talking about
hope.
Yeah, I mean they come to thedoor with various different
theories of you know whathappens after death and how to
get there and all that sort ofstuff and how to live your life.
But I find them mostly to bevery hopeful people Because and
what they're trying to do whenthey talk to me is give me a

(49:17):
sense of hope they're trying totalk to me about how the future
can be different, their view ofthat.
Now, you know, most of the timeI don't agree with them, but I
think if political candidatesand political parties would
think about their interactionwith the public in that sort of
way, how are we going to talk toCanadians about a hopeful

(49:39):
future, how things are going tobe different and how?
I mean because, of course, thisis something that religious
people also tell you at thedoorstep.
It means you have to changesome things.
It might mean you have to makesome sacrifices in the way you
live your life now.
But as political people, if wewant to be honest about trying
to build a better future andgiving people hope for our kids

(50:02):
and their future, maybe weshould be talking to them
honestly about change and abouthow sometimes change is
difficult and you know,sometimes change means we do
have to make some sacrifices inorder to have some benefits.
So you know, I mean it's notthe best comparison in the world
, but it's not a bad one,because it's still a

(50:24):
door-to-door kind of interactionthat you're having and the
person on the other side-doorkind of interaction that you're
having and the person on theother side of the door generally
, whether you're a religiousperson or a politician doesn't
want to have the conversation atall as you're standing there.
So there are some things incommon, but they're both about
hope.

Speaker 2 (50:40):
Well, if you're opening the door to have the
conversation, that's the firststep, and I think candidates who
are fanning out aroundneighborhoods in Canada right
now are just hoping someone'shome that they can take an age
with and yeah, so what gives youhope then?

Speaker 1 (50:54):
Because I think I mean we were successful in
British Columbia in building thestrongest economy and lowest
taxes and you know we didattract.
We didn't meet our fullambition but we did.
Certainly we've got one goingnow and you can't turn that back
.
We've got TMX open and ready.
We got public support for itthrough the five conditions and

(51:15):
we were successful in that.
We made a long.
We made a big, long journey notthere yet for Indigenous
reconciliation, which I think isan example for the country.
So I mean I'm hopeful becausewe succeeded in so much and we
were doing stuff that a lot ofpeople at first thought was nuts

(51:36):
.
I mean you remember how themedia would mock our government
and our ideas as crazy, stupid,off the wall can never happen.
You know it was it was.

Speaker 2 (51:45):
Yeah, that was it was it was.
It was quite an era, like youwalked out in halifax on the
premieres yes, that's right, Idid what?
What was happening there?
What?
What year was that?
Was that 20?
It was 2012 2012 yeah, so youwent out.
It was the.
Was it an annual premierconference?
I was a federation, so they'rethere all 10 plus the

(52:05):
territorial ones.

Speaker 1 (52:08):
And the five conditions wasn't it.

Speaker 2 (52:11):
I don't remember 100% .
If it was the five conditions,was it pre-five conditions?

Speaker 1 (52:18):
No, five conditions were before the 2013 election.
It was when I met with AlisonRedford for a Frosty meeting.

Speaker 2 (52:24):
Yeah, but you had it.
You said I'm done and youwalked out.
I think that really set thestage for you being noticed as
someone who was actually goingto do dramatic things, break
things up and were people upsetwith you.

Speaker 1 (52:41):
Well, I don't remember.
The reporting on it was verypositive in my direction.
Yeah, people were.
You know, there was a real mixat the table at the time, like
there were some really sensiblepeople around the table.
Dalton McGinty was sensible,jean Charest, I think, was there
, I can't remember who was there, mr Sensible.
And there were a few others, butthere were some that were just

(53:02):
not sensible.
But the thing about the fiveconditions that drove everybody
crazy was that how can you, as aprovince, put five conditions
on the expansion of resourcedevelopment?
This was the Alberta argument,and my argument back was listen,
people, you're going to have tomeet these conditions anyway,
like you can't build a pipelinewithout Indigenous engagement in

(53:24):
it.
That was one of them.
You can't build a pipelinewithout safety.
You can't build a pipelinewithout still, you know good,
coast Guard, spill management,you know, and the other ones
that we had, and they were allthings they had to do anyway.
So why don't we make it public?
Why don't we talk to the publicabout it and make sure that
everybody knows you guys aregoing to try and do this right,

(53:47):
like it just made eminent sense.
But well, everybody went nutson me.
The environmental people wentnuts on me, and then the
business people went nuts on me.

Speaker 2 (53:58):
I was just trying to, yeah, there was a lot of how
dare you in that.
It's almost like I got to pauseand say what were the five
conditions.
But let's do that in a secondbecause I think, listening to
you, I think people are piecingtogether, even if they've never
heard of the five conditions,that it had to do with the Trans
Mountain Pipeline and BritishColumbia as a province, saying,

(54:18):
well, you want to build thatthing, we've got these five
conditions that you are going tohave to follow.
Now the you was the federalgovernment or the proponent
company.

Speaker 1 (54:26):
It was the proponent companies, yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:28):
Yeah, well, I'll tell you to this day.
You mentioned the fiveconditions in Alberta in certain
circles and they'll tear yourhead off.
I know they say you're from BCand you think those were a good
idea.

Speaker 1 (54:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:38):
Because they saw it as a direct affront on the
rights of Alberta which areenshrined in the constitution.
You know, in the 1930s andevery Albertan must be taught
this as a school child, althoughno one else in any other
province knows it the federalgovernment devolved the control
of natural resources to theprovinces, but it's like the

(55:00):
catechism in Alberta and it wasa direct affront to that belief
that you know in Alberta and itwas a direct affront to that
belief that you know.
And plus, you're not thefederal regulator, you're
British Columbia.
How dare you put conditions on?
It's not your job, it's afederal job.
So to this day, I think there's, but at the same time there's a
well, yeah, it did get built.
I mean, yeah, it was built overbudget, but that's a whole

(55:24):
bunch of other reasons aroundthat.
Anyways, the five conditionsthere should be.
I would hope at some pointsomeone does a dissertation on
it.
So it's all out there for therecord.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
We should have called them the five enabling
conditions.

Speaker 2 (55:37):
Yeah, there we are.

Speaker 1 (55:39):
Because really they—.

Speaker 2 (55:40):
They'll pay more religious ring to it.
The five holy conditions?

Speaker 1 (55:44):
Well, no, we would have made it sound like the
commandments or something,because the point of it was to
try and enable the pipeline tobe accepted by the public in
British Columbia, who werewholly against it.
I mean not entirely.

Speaker 2 (56:00):
The other wholly, yes Eventually won very strong
support at the critical moment.
That was before the fiveconditions.
So I think you could look backand say, look, the reason it got
that support when it needed it,you know, in the final stages
of the regulatory process, wasbecause of this rather bold,
outrageous five conditions thatyou brought forward.

Speaker 1 (56:22):
I mean.
But the thing is about them isit was all stuff they were going
to have to do anyway it wasthey were going to.
It was so the five conditions,let's see if I can remember them
all now.
Indigenous, terrestrial yeahWith terrestrial spill.
Safety there.
Safety yeah, so with that.
And the province looked afterthat with the companies.
We wanted the Coast Guardboosted by the feds.

Speaker 2 (56:41):
So the maritime was spilled.
Coast Guard was ridiculous,totally legit issue.

Speaker 1 (56:46):
It's got to be managed out here.

Speaker 2 (56:47):
It's got to be safe.

Speaker 1 (56:50):
Absolutely.
Then we had the one they reallydidn't like.
There had to be some benefitfor British Columbia, so some
financial benefit from the thing, yeah, and they set that up and
we negotiated that kind of.
At the end it was sort of a,there wasn't really a.

Speaker 2 (57:04):
I don't know if those checks are flowing now.
Is that a check with theaccountants?

Speaker 1 (57:08):
That's a good question.
I have no idea.
And then there was Indigenous.
That was critically important,probably the most important,
which of course they were goingto have to do anyway.
Yeah, and it was underway, butthere was still some and then
the fifth was it had to pass itsreview, which it was going to
have to pass anyway.
So we were trying to set outfor the public in British

(57:30):
Columbia kind of a set ofgoalposts that were all going to
have to be met, basically,anyway, but help the public
understand that they were goingto get a chance to check them
all off and make sure it was alldone right, that it was all
done in the light of day, thatit was all done right and it was

(57:51):
.
I mean, we always thought of itas enabling.
But you know, I understand thatAlbertans felt a different way
about it.
But you know, good luck tryingto do it without Indigenous
reconciliation.
Well, which I think they allfigured out by now.

Speaker 2 (58:03):
Right, it's different .
It's a totally different thingnow, and you can't say that, say
, in the oil sands, they weren'talready doing that?
They had great relationshipswith the First Nations in that
area.
They were doing this.
No, that's not true, though,stuart.
It wasn't true for.

Speaker 1 (58:17):
Gateway.

Speaker 2 (58:20):
For the corridor.
They had.

Speaker 1 (58:21):
Yeah, because part of this was Gateway.
Right, it wasn't just TMXGateway was part of that
conversation.

Speaker 2 (58:25):
Well, I'm thinking of the production areas in
northern Alberta where they'vehad these longstanding
relationships, and the referenceto that second pipeline, the
Northern Gateway Pipeline, whereit became subject to this
outcry and a lot of it was atleast seemingly driven by First
Nations that had issues, yeah,yeah, so these things were

(58:45):
running.
It wasn't just one pipelineproject.

Speaker 1 (58:47):
Yet to go back there, Plus it was coastal gas link
right.

Speaker 2 (58:50):
Yeah, and then Site C although that was this, it was
a disruptive, large scaleproject that suddenly you know
you had four or more majorcapital projects happening all
at the same time in BC.
I think it created somethingthat in itself we should look at
.
That would be a wholeconversation, because how often
do you see in Canadian historyone province, one small place

(59:13):
subject to a huge amount ofthings going on and for 10 years
we've actually had paychecksflowing?
We've had things being built,it's created a huge economic
lift.
Suddenly that construction partof it is almost 100% over for
that wave.

Speaker 1 (59:28):
I know it's a real crash for the national economy.

Speaker 2 (59:31):
I mean there was an uptick in our national GDP as a
result of the LNG project, theShell project alone, right, yeah
, just from it being built andnow when it goes from
construction phase totransporting LNG as a commodity,
that goes against the GDP,that'll be much easier to
measure.
It's going to be suddenlythere'll be half a percentage
point or a percentage point liftin Canadian GDP, just like that

(59:53):
.
Only a few weeks away after theend of the federal election,
it'll be happening historic.

Speaker 1 (59:59):
And it could still double in size in terms of its
exports, maybe even more thandouble.
But Shell did a study and theyquantified all this to 100,000
jobs were created as a result ofthat project being constructed.
100,000 jobs across Canada,most of them in BC, most of the
plurality of them in the regionin the Northwest and a huge

(01:00:22):
number of them Indigenous jobs.
That's from one project.
And I remember saying we'regoing to create 100,000 jobs
from LNG.
I was thinking from five plantsand every other, like you know,
again, lead balloon.
Everybody thought it was a joke.
Well, it turns out we create100,000 jobs with just one
project.

Speaker 2 (01:00:39):
Yeah Well, all those American LNG plants down at the
Gulf of Mexico or Gulf ofAmerica or whatever it's called
today, those 15 that maybe theyhad been built here.
There are economists whoattribute the current wealth and
standing of the United Statesin no insignificant way to those
very projects, because theyhave become, in only a few years

(01:01:02):
, the world's biggest exporterof liquefied natural gas.
And they're a wealthy countrynow.

Speaker 1 (01:01:07):
And we started our LNG journey in 2011.
That's when we started.
And how many LNG plants theAmericans have then?
None, none.
And we are opening our firstone in 2025, so 14 years later.
And they have how many?
In that period of time, theyhave become the biggest gas
exporter in the world when theydidn't have anything when we

(01:01:30):
first started in BritishColumbia.
What is the difference betweenthe two jurisdictions?
Regulatory uncertainty andendless, endless process that
gets in the way of the.
You know, one of the things I'mhopeful about in the election
is that either one of these,both of the major parties are

(01:01:51):
saying they're going to try andyou know address the regulatory
burden in the country in thefederal civil service.
I mean, I think it's 50% biggeror close to 50% bigger now than
it was 10 years ago.
It is going to be very, veryhard work to go in there and try

(01:02:13):
and get the public servicefocused again on the really big,
important things at the sametime that you're downsizing it.
I don't know how they're goingto get control of the regulatory
environment when there isn't acivil service that's really
focused on it.
We had great control over itwhen I became the premier
because I inherited a civilservice, from my credit, from

(01:02:33):
Gordon Campbell, and he'd left areally really solid you know
focused group of people to workwith, so it was pretty easy to
kind of get that going.
But whichever, whether it'sPrime Minister Carney or Prime
Minister Polyev, they have gotone hell of a task ahead of them
in trying to change theregulatory environment so that
we can attract investment andjuice up the economy with a

(01:02:56):
civil service that is reallymessy, really big, really
unfocused.
What a big challenge it's a hugechallenge, huge, and I don't
underestimate the size of that.
But I'm very hopeful thateither one of them is really
going to bring a lot of um, alot of desire to get this done,

(01:03:17):
like I think that both of themreally want.
They understand that it's aproblem and they really want to
try and change it.
So I you know theirdetermination is going to really
count for something.

Speaker 2 (01:03:30):
Christy, one single piece of advice for the next
prime minister to succeed tolead from his principles.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
We have to be done with the days of prime ministers
and leaders in this country whoonly care about the polls and
only care about hanging on togovernment.
We can't afford that.
Right now.
We've got this tariff war withthe United States.
We've got an incrediblyunstable world.
We've got democracy underattack in every single corner of
the world.
Pretty much Climate change islooking us in the eye.

(01:04:15):
I mean, we are really at apivotal moment that people are
going to look back to in historyand like a Churchillian moment,
and our next prime minister is,I hope, will fill those shoes
and decide to say I'm going tobe big and I'm going to be brave
and I'm going to look thisproblem in the face and I'm

(01:04:36):
going to try and do what's rightfor the country, not what's
right for me and not what'sright for my party.
I'm going to do what's right forthe future of our kids.
And it's going to be a hell ofa task.
It's going to be a Herculeaneffort and I don't, in lots of
ways, I don't really wish it onanybody, but at the same time,
what an incredible opportunityfor one of those men to make a

(01:04:59):
difference that no primeminister has made in this
country, probably since theSecond World War.
And you know, where there'schallenge, there's opportunity.
Where there's worry, there'salso hope.
And I hope that our next primeminister just decides to be big,
to just take up that space andto really truly be brave and

(01:05:22):
lead in Canada, because that isthe only way we're going to make
a difference, the only way thatCanada is going to be.
Canada is going to be a countrythat grows and thrives and
prevails and has a chance toshare all these great values
that we have as a country withthe world.

Speaker 2 (01:05:39):
Thanks for tuning into this special campaign
edition episode of PowerStruggle.
I'm Stuart Muir and I hope youfound today's conversation with
Christy Clark as insightful as Idid.
We've got a lot to unpack whenit comes to Canada's future,
especially around energy, sowe'll be back soon with more big
questions and blunt answers.
Until then, keep challengingwhat you hear, keep looking at

(01:06:01):
the bigger picture and rememberthat the future of our country
isn't just happening.
It's being shaped every day bythe choices we make.
Thanks for listening and we'llsee you next time on Power
Struggle.

All Episodes

🇨🇦 Christy Clark on Canada's Energy Future | Power Struggle Ep.4

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}🇨🇦 Christy Clark on Canada's Energy Future | Power Struggle Ep.4