Powering Tomorrow with Canada’s Energy and Indigenous Strength // Heather Exner-Pirot

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Stewart Muir (00:12):
Hi, I'm Stuart Muir.
This is Power Struggle Today onthe podcast.
I'm thrilled to welcome HeatherExner- Pirot.
Heather is a senior fellow anddirector of energy, natural
resources and environment at theMacDonald Laurier Institute in
Ottawa and she's also a SpecialAdvisor to the Business Council
of Canada and a Research Advisorto the Indigenous Resource

(00:32):
Network and Global Fellow at theWilson Center in Washington DC.
Heather, welcome to PowerStruggle.

Heather Exner-Pirot (00:39):
Okay, thanks so much for having me
Delighted to be here, Stuart.

It's great to see you today.
There's so much history we have.
Maybe we'll get into some ofthe things we've done together,
but really I just wanted to getright to the point.
In these interesting times,what do you see as the most
pressing challenge that Canadais facing on the global stage
today?

Wow, great question.
And I have to you know, beforewe get into resources, then I
guess I have to say the role ofthe United States and the
Western Alliance and thestability of the liberal world
order, and that's a tall, that'sa big problem to have.
So when the United States is,you know, saying that it wants
to invade annexed territory,whether it's the Panama Canal,

(01:20):
Greenland, or even jokes aboutCanada, and you're putting out
through some executive orderswhich I don't think would
normally stand through the testof the constitution, I think
that's a big problem for Canadaas part of this Western
Democratic Alliance.
But we have some tools in ourtoolbox.

You've been writing recently about some of
the approaches that Canadashould follow.
You had six pillars that youidentified.
I'd like to come back to those,but what do you think is the
most important one of those?

It depends on the timeframe.
I guess you know our most.
You know this is just.
You know world history of the20th and 21st century.
Oil is king.
Oil is king in the commoditiesworld.
Energy is king in the securityworld, and Canada happens to
have a ton of it.
And we are the world's thirdlargest exporter, fourth largest

(02:10):
producer and we have enormousreserves that certainly won't
exhaust in my lifetime.
So you know and I have to givecredit to Newfoundland Premier
for this line is that in thisgame of chess we're playing,
energy is the queen, and I agreewith that.
We have quite a few, you knowquite a few assets, but oil is
by far the biggest.

Well, oil takes us into energy security, energy
transition, because those havebeen at the center of so many
debates.
What do you see as theevolution of these discussions?
Because some of these ideas,particularly energy transition,
if we look at recent policymoves in the US, like pulling
out of Paris Accord- where arewe headed in that regard?

I mean, you know, I don't think one
presidential term really affects, you know, an energy transition
when you're talking about, youknow, global energy supply for 8
billion people.
United States is big, but it'snot that big that it can affect
what everyone's doing in Asia orAfrica in the next 20 years, et
cetera, et cetera.
So, and that's why I've alwaysthought, you know, regardless of
policy in Western democracies,what will drive oil demand or

(03:16):
not is, you know, the ability ofpeople to afford it in the
developing world.
And for me, energy consumptionwill increase until global
population plateaus and startsto decline.
And we are certainly reaching apeak child, peak baby.
I think we may have reached thisyear where we've seen as many
babies born in the world aswe'll see born again, and that

(03:39):
means that peak population willfollow in about 30 years or so.
We'll see between 20 and 40years, let's say, and then oil
consumption may very welldecline after that.
I also think nuclear hastremendous possibilities,
tremendous runway.
That's also great for Canadafrom an energy security
perspective because of ourincredible uranium resources.

(04:01):
But anyways, what Donald Trumpdoes or doesn't do, I don't
think will be a rounding erroron the history of oil and global
supply and demand.

One of the things you write about frequently is
how Indigenous communities areat the centre of everything, at
least in Canada and probablysome other countries, when it
comes to resource developmentand the provision of the things
that the world can't get bywithout.
So tell me about partnershipsand what's happening in that
space between industry and FirstNations Indigenous communities.

Yeah well, why don't I dive a little deeper
here, stuart, since we have thetime yes, we do.
You know this, you know people.
It's not a DEI initiative torespect Indigenous rights in
Canada.
This cannot be wished away.
It cannot be legislated awaybecause it's in a DEI initiative
to respect Indigenous rights inCanada.
This cannot be wished away.
It cannot be legislated awaybecause it's in our constitution
and there's also, you know it'san inherent right and protected

(04:53):
, you know, to some extent atthe international level too.
But anyway, shape or form,governments and proponents who
are smart are trying to be goodat this, not try to get around
it.
And so to describe to you whatis protecting the constitution,
it is a recognition andaffirmation of Aboriginal rights
and there's pretty goodconsensus and lots of legal

(05:16):
precedence that what that meansis partly an ability to practice
their culture, which includeshunting and gathering, using
these things for culturalreasons.
So almost any resourceextraction probably in
particular hydro mining, oil andgas those will have an impact
on Aboriginal rights because ithas an environmental impact.

(05:36):
And so the condition, the taskthat must be met, is that it's.
You know, there's a duty toconsult and a duty to
accommodate If there's somereasonable accommodation.
Not, there is no right to aveto, there is no right to have
zero environmental impact, butthere's a need to accommodate
the loss or the impact onAboriginal rights.

(05:57):
And so since that duty toconsult and accommodate was
affirmed around 2004, 2005, thathas really changed the game in
Canada and again proponents whowant to art print in Canada are
just are working on doing thisbetter.
And we've gotten pretty smart inthe last two decades Probably.
You know, despite all thechallenges in BC, it's
encouraged people to get smarter, in particular in BC.

(06:19):
So some of the things that wedo is procurement, training.
Just pure payments could bemilestone payments for how our
project proceeds, could beroyalties once a project is
already proceeding, the loanguarantees that provide equity.
And now we're trying to thinkof you know what are the missing
gaps?
What other kinds of programscould you have to do?

(06:39):
And the end goal here is reallya win-win that industry
benefits, indigenous communitiesbenefit, that you have
alignment in their goals and soprojects can move forward at
pace, but that everyone benefits.
And that's why I like economicdevelopment.
Maybe you too, stuart.
That's why I love resourcedevelopment, because it's not a
zero-sum game.
Canada is so rich in resources.

(07:01):
If we do this right, we can allbe very prosperous.

Is there an example, a story you could give
us of someone who's reallysucceeding there?

Yeah, I, you know, I have a great example
.
I used to work at theUniversity of Saskatchewan and
there was this one student, andshe was Indigenous, from La
Ronge, and you know I hadcreated a little, a little loan
program for students as I.
You know.
I had created a little loanprogram for students as I had
heard and realized A lot of themwere missing classes because
they couldn't afford groceries,couldn't send their school

(07:31):
because they didn't havegroceries for their kids and
couldn't go to their clinical ortheir class because they had to
stay home.
All these little things.
That a couple hundred dollarsto someone else was kind of a
make or break point.
So we had this little tiny loanprogram, kind of emergency loan
program for students, and this,I'll say, woman, you know, she
was young, in her early 20s,from La Ronne.

(07:53):
Jasper didn't tell, he didn'tsay why or didn't ask, I just
took her word for it.
I later found out, stuart, thather mother had committed suicide
and she did the money to payfor the funeral and she paid
back that loan.
You know I never pressed anyone,you know, it was kind of an
open-ended thing and all theloans were paid back and I
didn't mind.
She paid back that loan in sixmonths while she was still at

(08:15):
school, still doing her nursingfourth year nursing.
That's a tough year and I justthought the different steps that
a lot of these students and,stuart, you're friends with a
lot of people in thesecommunities too what they have
to go through to achieve whatwas, you know, an easy path for
someone like me and there's noone that you know that's you
know, from an Indigenous andNorthern remote community that's

(08:37):
now an engineer or a nurse or achemist or a welder that didn't
have a harder time gettingthere than almost every other
white person that you know.
And that's been my experiencewith the dozens of people that I
know.
So, yes, it may take you oryour company a little bit of
extra effort, a little bit ofextra time to mentor or to teach

(08:57):
or to be patient or bringsomeone up to speed, but I
promise you that extra 5% ofeffort that you require.
I promise you they're giving95% extra effort than any of
your other employees to get tothat point.

That's a real testament to where your work
began.
I'm intrigued how you thenbridged into these national
economic conversations.
I have to say kudos to you,heather, because you're almost
always the first, or one of thefirst off the mark to give an
accessible, rational explanationto developing news, and I look

(09:34):
to you for that and I thinkyou're increasingly recognized
for that.
So I think you're clearlysucceeding in your analysis
becoming available to the many.
But how do you go from thestory you've described of
working with people on campusand then now you are an
influential commentator onglobal affairs and national

(09:54):
affairs in Canada and beyond?

Yeah, great question.
So where I started?
I think I always make this jokeIf you were my age in the 90s
and you were kind of leftist,leftist, liberal, white girl,
you went into internationaldevelopment.
Nowadays you go into climatechange or environmental studies,
but back in my day it was stillinternational development.
And so, you know, I did studyabroad in Guatemala, I went to

(10:19):
South Africa, I did my master'sresearch in southern Chile, all
these things.
And then came back and did aninternship in Geneva and you
know.
So it's kind of alwaysinternational development,
international security, humansecurity.
There was an overlap.
And then did my PhD in Arcticstudies and was working, really,
really went from Arcticsecurity and development to

(10:40):
Northern security anddevelopment, to indigenous
development, to resourcedevelopment, and so I would say
that I came into resourcedevelopment from the back door,
from the perspective of how doyou make this work, you know,
for you know how do you getIndigenous communities and
industry aligned.
But my PhD was on pretty, youknow, standard IR stuff on the
Arctic, arctic security, and Ialways kept up with that too.

(11:01):
I mean the Arctic Council, forexample.
We've kept up with that too.
I mean the Arctic Council, forexample, when Ukraine was
invaded by Russia.
That's when my work switchedfrom really kind of that
industry, indigenous alignmentand resource development in
Western and Northern Canada tothe energy security side and the
critical minerals.
And how do we use this inCanada, you know, to our

(11:22):
advantage and to advance our ownvalues and interests.
And that was when MLI created aprogram out of it.
So I think you know, foreveryone, the zeitgeist switched
, you know, obviously, you knowthere's a, you know we think
about 1991, we think about 2001.
And now I think we'll thinkabout 2022 as the year that you
know the world changed and andmy position changed with it,

(11:44):
because the world changed too.

Your journey, heather, is interesting.
I I relate to that.
I suspect a lot of peoplerelate to this because you've
come into being a commentator onon global affairs, but the
natural resource side of thatbecause of your social interests
.
And um, I look at it the sameway.
I mean, to me the greatestbeneficiary in Canada and any

(12:10):
country where natural resourcesis a large driver of the economy
is governments, because of thetax revenues.
You stack up all the benefitsLike there's no company that
makes more money than thegovernments do out of
responsible resource development, and then it's on the
government to distribute thebenefits of that to the people.
So I think the most genuineposition that could exist in

(12:33):
Canada is to say to support thepeople.
We need to make sure this isdone right, because if it isn't
and things get mucked up and thebenefits aren't there, then
we're going to see a loss ofquality of life first of all.

Yeah, and I'll tell you my origin story in
a way, stuart.
I remember I was working at theInternational Center for
Northern Governance andDevelopment at the University of
Saskatchewan and Cameco was abig funder of that and a lot of
our students were coming fromNorthern Saskatchewan and it was
as a way to recruit and a wayto get social license.
But it was a very good thingchemical was doing and I think

(13:07):
they're ahead of the curve inIndigenous industry relations
and obviously a very powerfulUranium mining company.
Yes, uranium mining company andwe can get into it.
But Saskatchewan has therichest uranium reserves in the
world and they're the number onetwo exporter in the world right
now.
And I remember my boss at thetime doing a radio interview and
saying and talking about how,you know, the indigenous

(13:29):
communities wanted to see moredevelopment.
And I was just new to the jobat the time, you know, coming
back from Geneva and I, you know, 24 years old, in Saskatchewan,
that was the first time in mylife I had heard someone talk
about a positive relationshipbetween a mining company and
Indigenous communities.
And then you start to wonderwhy haven't we heard this before

(13:52):
?
Because then when you start toget into it and you know, stuart
, when you work with communitiesand when you work with industry
, they usually have quite closerelationships, closer than
certainly they would have withOttawa either of them and so
started to explore that this wasat the time of the last
commodity cycle.
The commodities boom inSaskatchewan had a big impact on
Saskatchewan psychologicallywhen we went from a have-not to

(14:14):
a have almost permanently.
Now we're the second richestprovince generally and that was
a big change.
And also that was a time whereIndigenous communities and their
economic developmentcorporations were really
starting to get into the supplychain and all the conversation
was about was how to preparepeople for the supply chain,
what kind of training, how toset up good governance and

(14:35):
boards for economic developmentcorporations, all that kind of
stuff.
It was development andgovernance it was, and then the
what's-to-win blockades came.
Governance it was, and then thewhat's the one blockades came
and I saw from a national mediaperspective, what I thought was
just a pure distortion of thesituation, knowing, as I did
intellectually and from knowingsome people in the communities

(14:56):
that most 21st nations hadsigned on that people and I knew
the work because I had done inSaskatchewan.
I knew the work it took todevelop those economic
development corporations, to getthose contracts, to get that
procurement, to get peopletrained up, to get them
certified, to go through theirsafety, to get their 3A all the
things that you have to do tohave that opportunity.

(15:16):
And no one even saw it.
You were staring right at itwith their eyes and not a single
media story or, I have have tosay, government of BC or federal
government.
No one saw that side of thestory and that's where I say I
got radicalized and made it, youknow, my life's mission to
celebrate and platform and boostthose people in Indigenous and

(15:39):
Northern communities trying todo something good for themselves
and for their communities andto not let seller naysayers who
don't know anything about theirlives or what they're trying to
do undermine them from afar.

Would you agree there was a carefully managed
spectacle for the benefit of themedia age and the different
channels by which peoplecommunicate.
That was in contrast to thestory on the ground.

I absolutely agree that
environmental NGOs and I hadseen this work with my work on
the Arctic, by the way, andthere had been a huge people
will probably remember this thebig Greenpeace campaign, save
the Arctic in 2008.
And again, where I had beenworking with several Indigenous
communities and on the NorthSlope of Alaska, where the
Inuvialuit, I think, were quiteprosperous, had the wealthiest

(16:31):
Indigenous Second Amendmentcorporations in the world had
real rights to the money comingin.
In fact, that Alaska SettlementAct Native Settlement Act came
out of the fact that there wasoil wealth in Alaska and wanting
to pave the way for somegovernance of an amendment of
resources and sharing ofresources.
So I knew what Greenpeace wassaying and where people were
dressed up as polar bears inParis and Berlin and New York

(16:55):
was not at all and I'm notsaying it was totally unanimous
in Indigenous communities, but Iknew people affected by it in
those communities wanting tochoose from themselves and
having their choices absolutelylimited by what environmental
activists were doing in theSouth to feel good about
themselves While still burningoil, of course.
And I remember anotherradicalization moment Greenpeace

(17:18):
had a Save the Arctic t-shirtsale $100 cotton t-shirts and
the money went to Greenpeace.
Of course it didn't go tocommunities or anything.
It went to fund Greenpeace andI thought the hypocrisy and the
atrociousness of selling cheapcotton t-shirts which have an
environmental impact, which havea work you know, a labor impact

(17:41):
, in the name of saving theworld and thinking that you
could save the Arctic and justtotally disrespectful, not even
including voices of thecommunities there, and the seal
hunt had been the same way Again.
That was an eye-opening momentand once you see it, then you
see it everywhere and I saw iteverywhere in the what's the
Wooden Blockade.

Well, it's not that difficult to find
Indigenous voices of leadershipwho are looking for
opportunities including projects, resource projects, but lots of
other things who find thosesnatched away because an artful
and clever campaign has createda certain picture that is
influential with regulators ordecision makers and puff, it's

(18:23):
gone.

I agree and I'm taking some solace, even
though we're living in very, youknow, trying times with a lot
of volatility and a lot of fear,I'd say.
I have seen I'm sure you'venoticed, Stuart in the last year
, certainly I would say in thelast three years, on the
Indigenous side, where you don'thave to be quite so brave to
speak out, and you've knownpeople and I could name a dozen

(18:47):
Indigenous people who, when theyfirst had to say I support oil
and gas or I want this projectfor my community, how they were
belittled and destroyed anddemeaned on Facebook or social
media or in the media calledcorrupt, greedy.
I've seen, you know, you seecartoons of, you know,
caricatures of chiefs with thebriefcase stuff, with money.

(19:08):
We've come so far and now inthe last year and I think, even
in Canada with this Trump threat, where people are saying Prime
Minister Trudeau just said it.
You know, our resources arewhat make us powerful and that's
what the United States need andthey'd be crazy not to take it.
And we want to develop thesethings.
And whether it's steel, whichneeds iron, and metallurgical

(19:29):
coal or lumber or food, thegrains, the canola, the natural
gas, uranium, the germanium, allof these things are what gives
us our hard and soft power onthe world stage, and it's not
just you and I and our friendsthat see it anymore, stuart, I
would say this is a very healthymajority of Canadians have come
around to this conclusion nowalso.

We've come a long ways from.
Canada should be known for itsresourcefulness, not its
resources, haven't we?

I'll never get tired of throwing that back
in some faces.

You know there's bound to be someone watching
this, thinking well, it's allwell and good that Indigenous
people should have opportunities, but it can't be at the price
of the planet.
Maybe there's cycles and shiftsin views, but I think there's
always going to be someonehaving that concern and maybe
it's a little bit at the back ofeveryone's mind.
What are your thoughts on that?

I mean, you know, of course you know you
will find someone that doesn'twant cleaner air or a cleaner
stream.
We all want that.
I think the key is finding thebalance, and I think the balance
has been out of whack whereit's been almost misanthropic,
where you cared more aboutstreams and trees and rocks than
you did about.
You know people and theirmaterial well-being and the

(20:44):
dignity that they can havehaving heat and electricity, and
you know their own car, allthose things that we shouldn't
take for granted.
And so there's 8 billion peoplein the world.
You're not going to have asituation where there's no
environmental impact.
Now, I think the fatal flawwe've been making Europe
certainly made it was to thinkthat if we don't do it, it

(21:04):
doesn't happen, when in actualfact the answer is that if we
don't do it, it happens muchworse, in much worse places.
You know, obviously theoffshoring to China has, you
know, spurred tremendous amountsof coal use, far lower
environmental standards, farlower labor standards and, of
course, security challenges withthat too.
And I did do some analysis,stuart, and maybe you saw it,

(21:26):
but in almost every case ofmajor commodities that I looked
at, it was mining, it wasagricultural products, it was
energy In pretty much every casethink of one or two iron and
bitumen but in every other casethe Canadian commodity was in
the top decile maybe a handfulof cases quartile the mostly top

(21:46):
decile of environmentalperformers.
And so we're talking aboutthey're already the best in the
world, they're already A grade.
So to think that by making itharder for those in that top
decile to conduct their businessin Canada is better for the
world, by shifting theirproduction to China, where now
they're getting a degrade, nowthey're in the bottom quartile

(22:08):
of environmental performers,that was a big mistake.
And so and I always say thisyour best climate strategy
export more Canadian commodities, because in almost every case
it's going to be better, there'sgoing to be lower emissions for
that product in the world.
And why is that?
As much as because you knowwe're better people.
You know there's somefundamental reasons why we're
colder.

(22:28):
So in many cases you just needless energy for some things.
Ai, all AI, if you care aboutthe environment, should be in
Canada, because you need lessenergy to cool it, because we
have a lot of hydroelectricityand you know that in BC, so you
have a lot of renewableelectricity.
Our grid is quite cleancompared to other major
industrial countries and usingnatural gas instead of coal, and

(22:51):
that's going to be 50% betterin your emissions for anything
you do.
And whether we like it or not,most industrial practices still
require some industrial heat.
It cannot be electrified.
They do need that thermal heatand it's far better to do with
natural gas than with coal.
And our natural gas is actuallyquite a bit better and we

(23:12):
capture our methane fromproduction of natural gas a
whole lot better than almosteverybody else.
So again, for all these factorsnot to mention the
relationships, the ethicalrelations with Indigenous
communities, the labourstandards, for all these reasons
, if you care about theenvironment, if you care about
ESG, then in almost everyinstance you're better off at
the Canadian product.

It feels like you've gone from being a
provocateur to almost mainstream, as many people see what you're
talking about.
How is it you're gettingthrough now, and maybe you
weren't before?

I mean, part of it is just, you know,
the world's a scarier place andit was a luxury for us to be
able to focus on climate policyand put tens of billions of
dollars into EVs or greenhydrogen or some other things,
not to dismiss it, but it's aluxury and I always.
You know, for me it's thehierarchy of needs.

(24:05):
You know, for your readersaren't familiar, but it's
basically looking at a pyramidand the bottom is your material
needs and your security.
We're talking about shelter,the ability to avoid violence,
and then you might get into, youknow, a higher order and the
top is self-actualization.
Fine and good when you're a rich, comfortable society like
Canada, to start, you knowwanting to focus on, you know,

(24:29):
the environment and feminism andequality and inclusion, and
those are good things.
But if you don't cover thatbottom layer of the pyramid
people's material well-beingthen you cannot sustain the top
and we stop paying attention tothe material well-being, stuart.
So, anyways, when times aretougher, people go back to you

(24:51):
know, how am I, how is my family, how is my household, and
that's very natural, and so Ithink there's an easier story to
tell to people about.
You know, there's nothing likean energy crisis to make people
appreciate affordable, reliableenergy.

It seems that Canada has a lot of energy
options, maybe more than almostevery other country in the world
.
I mean, who has uranium andhydroelectricity, wind, solar
gas, oil, coal, what else?
What am I missing in theabundance that Canada has?
Is there anyone?

No, there's nobody, and I've seen I saw it
once and I could never find itagain so I couldn't cite it
which, you know, bother me.
But Canada is the mostenergy-secure country in the
world, but I believe that to betrue, because who else might be
close?
United States and China arealso very large and they're also
huge producers in a lot ofthese things.
They even have our uranium, andthey don't have our hydro

(25:51):
either, by the way, but becausethey have such huge populations
and internal demands, it almostcomes out flat.
You know where they're hugeproducers, but they're also huge
consumers.
Where Canada, and I would sayRussia and Australia, are a
little bit different is that wehave smaller populations, huge
resource base and we can exportmost of it.

(26:13):
You know that we don't need itfor ourselves.
So and I think there's powerthat comes from being able to
export People don't know China'shuge oil producer.
They don't know it because Chinadoesn't export oil and so it
doesn't.
It isn't able to play that card, isn't able to use it to
advance its interests.
In fact, it's still a netimporter and so it's still quite
vulnerable and that's why it'sstockpiling.

(26:34):
Australia does not have oil.
That's a big disadvantage.
I don't think it has the hydrowe have and Russia doesn't have
our uranium.
That's one area where it's veryimportant that we do beat
Russia.
Russia is a huge enricher ofuranium.
If you've ever heard thatpeople want to get off Russian
imports of uranium, it's theenriched stuff and they get that

(26:55):
raw material mostly fromKazakhstan, anyway.
So yeah, I thought about this alot, stuart you and I think the
same.
Can anyone top us?
No, a list of six things willbe right at the top on tapas no,
a list of six things will beright at the top.

It's just so intriguing.
I mean I wonder if there'sanyone who's thinking, okay, so
Canada's got all these resourcesand thinks it's a blessing.
Well, you're wrong, it'sactually a curse.
There's some academic theoryaround this Dutch disease Is
having this abundance a curse?

Great question I mean there is.
You know, there's some goodtheory and practice of a
resource curse, where a countrycan become too reliant on a
resource, and you do see that inlesser developed countries it's
certainly not necessary.
And you know the greatestexample of that is Norway, you
know, where you had goodgovernance and you had resource

(27:42):
wealth.
That is definitely a sweet spot.
Australia also is a veryresource-heavy country, more
resource dependent than Canadain terms of the profile of its
economy.
Obviously it has used that forits benefit.
And then I'll say some of theMiddle Eastern kingdoms, like
Qatar again, have used their oilwealth or natural gas wealth

(28:02):
quite in a clever way and havebecome quite wealthy societies.
So the resource curse isn'tdestiny, it's a risk, but it's
not destiny.
You know Canada has the historyand the governance and the
parliamentary church and allthose things that we have fairly
well avoided that.
Now why are we embarrassed?

(28:24):
I want to get to this, stuart,and it could have been the
answer to your last question too.
I have often wondered why wouldthe Laurentian elite if I can
say that, if it's not tooprovocative why would the
Laurentian elite be embarrassedabout our resource wealth?
And I have heard this, and Iknow you've heard it too that
we're mere hewers and haulersand we would like to move to a
knowledge economy, to think thatthat resource sector is.

(28:46):
You know, for grade 12 dropoutswho drive big trucks there's
certainly that feeling that it'sa 20th century economy, it's
not a 21st century economy.
And I think, as we urbanize,80% of Canadians, you know, live
in big cities that they've beendisconnected.

(29:07):
They've not seen farms, theydon't know where their food
comes from.
They think their food comesfrom the grocery store.
They think their ham comes fromthe deli.
They've not seen the pig andthey think their furniture comes
from Ikea.
They have not seen the forestsand the mills and you know that
supply chain.
They think they're.
You know they plug in to, youknow a plug in the wall.

(29:29):
They don't understand or thinkabout where the electricity
comes and all the steps comebefore that to get their
electricity.
They think their heat comesfrom turning up the thermostat.
They don't think about the pipeand the gas and the production
all the way.
And so I think it's been.
It's the disconnect in oururbanized 21st century society
that people have taken forgranted because we've made it so

(29:52):
cheap and affordable andreliable, you could take it for
granted.
Taking it for granted is agreat luxury, a great thing that
we have, but I think peopleneed to appreciate that if you
don't take care of those thingsand that's the situation we're
in now if you don't take care ofthose things and that's the
situation we're in now if youdon't take care of those things,
they will not be cheap andreliable.

For very long We've been talking about Canada.
We're next door to a countrythat's in the news a lot at the
moment the United States.
What are the energyrelationships?
How reliant is one on the otherand vice versa?

If you ask me, we are fully interdependent
and it would be like removingwhat's it called when a Siamese
twin It'd be so hard to removethat Siamese twin, the veins and
the vessels and everythingYou're going to bleed out.
So, and this has been built upover a century, this is not

(30:45):
something that we started in the80s and you could, you know,
slowly roll it back.
Our grid is perfectlyinterdependent.
Our pipelines are almostperfectly independent, our
refineries so not to like, we'retalking about raw materials,
but I'm talking about thetransmission lines and the
pipelines and the refineries andthose things, and the pipelines
and the refineries and thosethings, and if you look at any

(31:08):
map of electric networks and thepipeline, this is a continental
endeavor.
And one thing we have to offerand I think we all know this,
which is a blessing, this is asilver lining, we all know this
is that the United Statesimports.
Even as they become the world'slargest producer of oil, they've
kept importing more and moreCanadian oil as their imports of
, you know, opec oil or Russianoil, has gone down and so that

(31:31):
this month, in fact, the UnitedStates imported a record amount,
more oil than any other countryhas ever imported from any
other country in the history ofthe world 4.4 million barrels a
day on average in that firstweek of January.
And it may well, you know, bethat this week and next week and
next month as well, and so youcannot replace, you know, 4.4

(31:54):
million barrels especially, andpeople may know this already,
but in case that, a lot ofCanadian oil is of the heavy
variety.
That's the grade it is.
A lot of the refineries in themidwest and the gulf of mexico
are optimized to processcanadian heavy oil, and so it's
not that easy to displace thatheavy oil with their lighter,

(32:15):
which is why they importcanadian heavy and export some
of their sweet lake crude ofshale, because the refinery
system doesn't want it or needit, and so it's.
You know we do have someleverage here and it is against
American interests, at the endof the day, to not take
advantage of this incredibleaccess not having to cross ships

(32:35):
, not going through the Red Sea,not going through the Panama
Canal, crossing a pipe over yourown border of this very secure
supply of oil.

Is there a danger that someone who thinks who's a
resident of the US thinks thatmaking America great again
necessitates making Canada, notgreat?

I mean, I think we all know who in the
United States might have thatfeeling that they were dealing
with someone who's, you know, inan extremely powerful position
and sees the world through awin-lose perspective.
And this is, you know, it is atumultuous time, for sure.
But America is more than Trump.
Canadian-american relationshipis more than one president and

(33:19):
one prime minister and, like Isay, we've been developing this
interdependence over 100 years,economically, through world wars
, and, you know, maybe we'll bein a rough ride for a year or
two years or four years.
I hope not.
Maybe we will.
At the end of the day, if youknow, you believe in realpolitik
, just the politics ofpragmatism.

(33:39):
It's in the united statesinterest to use canadian
resources, it's in Canada'sinterest to sell them our
resources, and we may go fromsome volatility, but that trend
is going to be clear, I think,across decades.

Going back a little bit when we were talking
about the benefits and how wedescribe them for natural
resources, because the Canadianeconomy really is a resource
economy.
If you consider the life cycleof some valuable resource, you
know, maybe it's a timber or anatural gas or an ore body like
uranium or copper, and it existsthere and there's things that

(34:17):
will happen to it before itbecomes a product in the
marketplace a whole lot ofthings.
And I think there's someeconomic analysis that when you
break down all of the thingsthat create that commodity as
something that can be put onto aship or a rail car and then it
moves along, that, contrary tomaybe the popular notion,

(34:43):
certainly one thing that camenaturally to me, I would have
said well, the value in thatevolution is to be had at the
end.
Where you've got themanufacturing, you're going to
make way more money and theeconomy you want to have is
making things.
That's how you get rich.
All that stuff, like you say,the hewing of wood and hauling
of water.
There's nothing in that, butactually, if you look at it au

(35:05):
contraire, am I right?

I mean statistically.
Yeah, let's look at this bothsides of the equation.
You know this is statistics,ken, I think you know you and I
know it, but maybe not all yourlisteners know it.
But oil and gas is the mostproductive sector of the economy
.
The value you get per hourworked is in.
You know the high.
You know I've seen some whereoil sands is $1,000, but others

(35:30):
I've seen would go up to $700.
Depends how you count, if we'retalking about average, median,
that kind of thing.
But where the average Canadianworker generates, let's say, $52
an hour for Canadian GDP, anoil sands worker will do $7,800,
$900.
Mining also.
Mining would be almost the nexthighest productivity and it
could be as high as $600 for apotash worker if potash prices
are good.
But usually I think an averageabout you know, somewhere around

(35:52):
$250, between $200 and $300anyways.
So those workers doing thatprimary extraction are providing
a tremendous amount ofproductivity and GDP to the
Canadian economy and it's notlow skilled work, you know.
That's when I find insulting,maybe from Western Canadian
perspective, to think that theoil sands is easy work and not

(36:17):
to appreciate.
You know the engineering geniusto figure out how to take that
product which was not worth muchin the 70s, and turn it into
and I did the analysis withBrian Ramillard a few weeks ago.
We spent a trillion dollars incapital spend and operational
spend on that project.
It was generated much more thanthat to the Canadian economy.

(36:37):
That's just the spend and so weturned it into a trillion
dollar asset because ofengineering genius you know what
I mean To figure out how toturn that bitumen into something
that's economic and same withall kinds of mining and same
with all kinds of resourcedevelopment.
You know TMX.
You know I met a couple monthsago to celebrate TMX.

(36:59):
As Ian Anderson pointed out, hewas the CEO of the project until
a couple years ago.
You know that's probably thebest pipeline in the world.
Yes, you know it was certainlyover budget and I wish that
hadn't happened.
So, but when you look at theengineering that went into
creating TMX and the standard ithas and you know, it's the
Rolls Royce of pipelines that wenow happen to have in Canada

(37:23):
and, okay, we might just need aCivic.
I hope we just build a civicnext time.
But to put a pipe throughmountains and to do it in the
way they do it, it takesengineering brilliance, and so I
just wish people wouldappreciate what the chemists,
what the geologists, what theengineers, what the financial
guys do.
These are very highlycompetitive, world-class sectors

(37:47):
, and you don't get there justbecause you have a good deposit
in the ground.
There's lots of places thathave ore bodies in the ground.
They're just sitting there, andwe've got a few of those out.

And I would point out that the example you just
cited, the Trans MountainPipeline that goes from Edmonton
to the Vancouver area, theTrans Mountain Pipeline that
goes from.
Edmonton to the Vancouver area.
It was built with the approvalof 50 First Nations and that
approval was secured by IanAnderson.
You've mentioned his work.

Why do you think they approved it?
For some that and people shouldknow sometimes these great deals
that you hear about came downto the CEO and Ian Anderson
should probably have a statue indowntown Calgary because the
oil that we can ship through andthe royalties Alberta gets from
.
But he did the work of having achief-to-chief relationship with
so many of those nations wherethey felt and they did, you know

(38:36):
, could call him on his phoneand he would answer negotiated.
And again, you know this partof the cost, it didn't need to
be $34 billion, this part of thecost, it didn't need to be $34
billion.
But you won't maybe mind, as aCanadian, that we spent a little
bit more money on it to avoidsome very important cultural
sites, you know, to avoidharming some particular species,
and that they you know thatthey listened to and even

(38:58):
righted some wrongs from the1950s version of Trans Mountain
where that was kind of done andjust, you know, just pushed
through no consultation, did notcare what the local community
thought, and righted some wrongsof what that pipeline did in
the past and now they will geteconomic benefits from it.
So again, you know that's anexpensive example but it's still

(39:19):
also a good example of howindustry and indigenous groups
can come to an alignment, canfind a win-win.

That kind of brings us full circle back to
conversations you've been havingabout energy resources
reconciliation, and I mentionedthis early on.
You have identified six factorsthat will build Canada and its
future prosperity.
You mentioned a couple of them.
We talked about those, but I'dlike to go back to that and just

(39:48):
list through them and just tryto put that out there, because
there are six factors that everyCanadian needs to know.

Yeah, thanks, stuart, and you know,
but my thinking too was, in thistime, very Canadian.
There's just a hand ring forthe last two months of the ways
in which we're vulnerable to theUnited States.
And to remind everyone thatguess what?
We're enormously rich, we havean abundance of everything and
that makes us very powerful.
If we would like to exercise it, we have a ton of options of

(40:15):
using our resources to advance,you know, our prosperity and our
security and that of our allies.
By the way, everyone knows, andit won't be a surprise on your
show, you know I disagree withwhat the Trudeau government has
done.
They've made very damagingpolicies.
Some provincial governmentshave made some damaging policies
, but beyond that, what do so?
What do you want specificallyto fix that?

(40:36):
We can all complain all dayabout what's been done, but what
specifically should we do toimprove the situation?
And that's where this list camefrom.
So, number one more pipelines.
And I think that's obvious toeverybody.
But to be even more specificthan that, northern Gateway
Pipeline and Prince Rupert GasTransmission Pipeline.
First of all because a lot ofthe legwork has been done and so
they'll be able to get doneeasier.

(40:57):
Second of all, because itdiversifies us away from the
United States.
Third of all, because it'sbeside the resource, it's beside
the oil sands.
It because it's beside theresource, it's beside the oil
sands, it's beside the money,and so logistically I think it
makes a lot more sense.
And fourth of all, because Ithink Asia is an obviously
growing market, regardless ofwhat you might think about, you
know, plateauing demand in theUnited States or Europe or
whatnot.

(41:17):
I don't think anyone reasonablewould look at the demographics
of Asia and say that there's notgoing to be more energy demand
there.
And so that's, you know.
So pipelines number one, numbertwo, reform the Impact
Assessment Act that's Bill C-69,no more pipeline spills.
And now we're all you know.
You know it's a mantra that weneed to repeal it or reform it,
replace it.
Specifically, what do peoplewant?

(41:43):
You can't, you can't justrepeal it.
You can't have the Canadianfederal government not having
environmental assessment,because they have some
constitutional duties to do someof this and they would be sued
if they just did nothing.
I think the easiest way to getdevelopment, to get investors,
proponents interested in Canadaagain, is just to be so narrowly
focused on the constitutionaldivision of powers that the
federal government I almostdon't care what the Impact

(42:05):
Assessment Act says.
I don't want it to touch mines,I don't want it to touch
refineries, I don't want it totouch, you know, oil sands.
So it can say what it wants,but it should not apply to any
of those things that are underprovincial jurisdiction.
And natural resources is underprovincial jurisdiction.
Nuclear is a federalresponsibility you have to have
you know.
It's not going to be Alberta,you know Alberta deciding what

(42:27):
capital power regulating itsnuclear plant, if it does one in
Alberta, it will still be theCanadian Nuclear Security
Commission.
It has to be under ourinternational treaties.
So they should be excellent.
The CNSC should be an excellentnuclear regulator.
They're pretty good.
Um, they still needinterprovincial pipelines, still
have to be a federaljurisdiction.
So that's the Canadian energyregulator.
They have to be good.

(42:48):
And then there's some things onfederal lands, uh ports, that
kind of thing, that you mightstill need an impact assessment
act, uh agency for.
The third thing is on nuclear,and this was maybe the most
provocative or the most kind offorward thinking one is you know
, obviously we had this greaturanium.
We actually have in Ontarioquite a good nuclear sector.
I think the next logical step,thinking of the next decade you

(43:13):
know of energy and thinking ofCanada's place in the future is
for us to start enrichinguranium, which is a very small
club.
Our CANDU reactors have neverneeded enriched uranium.
They use natural uranium, sowe've never had to import
enriched uranium.
But OPG, ontario PowerGeneration, is building right
now a small modular reactor.
Saskatchewan will probablybuild a few and I think we'll

(43:34):
have more SMRs and microreactorsin Canada.
That means we will needenriched uranium and I think we
start doing it and I think it'sa tremendous export opportunity.

And just to break that down a little bit because
it's an interesting thing youtouched on and it's important to
understand.
So Canada has enormous inSaskatchewan uranium deposits
and, by the way, BritishColumbia voted to ban
exploration for uranium, whichthat's a side conversation but
Saskatchewan has most, or if notall, of the Commercial

(44:03):
potential uranium, All theproduction yeah, all the
production, and yet we ship itout to other countries who then
process it.
Why didn't we start processingit here a long time ago?
Is it because it's very hard orexpensive, or we don't know how
to do it?

I mean, there's nothing more regulated
in this world than enrichinguranium, Because you need this
uranium to make nuclear weapons.
And then there's one reason whyyou know, I think you know,
decades ago Canadian engineersdeveloped the candy reactor to
use natural uranium, and so thedifference, you know, is that I
think it's, you know about 1%,you know U-308, whatever it is,

(44:41):
I can't remember the exactformula and in a light water
reactor you'd need 3% to 5%.
In a microreactor you mightneed this high SA, low, immature
, and you have to just under 20%, and after that they probably
won't let you do it becauseyou're getting to weapons grade.
So we do, and I had to, youknow Cameco does and it did,
because we started in the 50sand we were a bit more ambitious

(45:02):
in the 50s.
They do mill, they doconversion and they do
conversion and they do fabricate, can-do fuel.
So they do some steps in theprocess of creating nuclear fuel
and they will call it fuelservices and, for example,
they're sending converteduranium to Ukraine.
So they do have contracts thatthey feed to other people.

(45:23):
At that stage, not just the raw,but enrichment is hard, it is
expensive.
Russia has been, as I understand, down blending a lot of weapons
grade uranium from weapons,that it's decommissioned and
that has, in a way, flooded themarket.
So Rosetom and Russian enricheduranium has been the best
competitor, I would say, onprice.
You know, the United States, Ithink, was getting 20% even of

(45:45):
its enriched uranium from Russia, and so now the situation has
changed, obviously, where, firstof all, more people in the West
are interested in nuclear andwill need more enriched uranium,
which you know we are in aperiod of decline before, and
also that we can't depend onRussia anymore, and those
factors are changing it.
Now, if we're going to triplenuclear capacity, which there's

(46:08):
31 countries that have signed onto a declaration saying that
we'll need a lot more enricheduranium.
This is where I think Canadahas an opportunity to start
doing that value add, Becausealso because, again, like I say,
we're going to start needing itfor ourselves for the first
time, and in these kinds of daysI'm not in the mood to be
reliant on the United States forenergy security.

And why would demand for uranium triple?

Yeah, it's the trifecta in electricity.
You know, as we all know, thisis affordability, reliability
and sustainability.
That is the goal.
And pick any of your sources,and I probably have two out of
three.
You know solar and wind willnot have reliability.
Natural gas and coal will nothave sustainability.
Nuclear for a long time has nothad affordability, although you

(46:54):
know Ontario's nucleargeneration obviously was
affordable.
As part of it is just the extraregulations we added after
Chernobyl and Long Island.
So we need to get nuclear to beaffordable again.
But we know that that ispossible because we had
affordable nuclear 50 years ago.
And so if we can get nuclearaffordable again and that's the
point of SMRs, to do smallmodule reactors easier to

(47:15):
finance, easier to locate, lowerregulatory burden, longer fuel
cycle then we expect that we canhave this electricity
generation.
So it's clean.
It's also very energy securebecause, unlike natural gas that
Germany would have to importevery single day from Russia,
when you have a nuclear plantyou may not need that fuel for a
few years.

(47:36):
You're pretty self-sustainablefor a few and you can get
uranium from Canada, fromAustralia, there's a few
friendly sources.
That, I think, is a feather inits cap.

There's lots of it out there.
Okay, so we're looking at sixthings.
We've covered three.
We've covered pipelines,legislation and uranium.
Let's go to four, five and six.

Great, okay .
So four for me is earningIndigenous consent.
Now, I didn't say requiringIndigenous consent.
There is no veto in theCanadian Constitution, but of
course the ideal situation is toearn it and to have it, you
know.
And so how do we do that?
And again, I think the loanguarantee program has been

(48:15):
wildly successful.
The Alberta program has givenout, I think, $800 million.
There's a couple billion dollardeals on the horizon.
The federal government hasadopted it because it was so
successful.
It's been a game changer.
The loan guarantee program BChas one.

And the loan guarantee program.
That's where agovernment-backed entity is
providing guaranteed loans.
So a First Nation which hastrouble going to a bank because
their property is heldcommunally so the bank's not
going to be able to repossessthat land, is that?

right.

And so the government say well, this First
Nation should be able to investin that project, but you can't
get the money from the bank, sowe're going to loan you those
funds.

Exactly, and that's been a game changer.
you're saying it has been a gamechanger on pipelines for sure.
Now the thing about the LoanGuarantee Program is it works
best with long-term kinds ofutility, kind of grade projects
like transmission lines, likepower plants, like pipelines.
It's not a great fit forextraction, it's not a great fit
for mines and it's not a greatfit for upstream oil and gas.

(49:13):
And so maintain, build,capitalize that, use that,
leverage the.
You know the kahunas out ofthat one.
But we do need a couple othertools in the toolbox.
So what I hope this nextgovernment may do they've talked
about a first first nationsresource charge where they give
up some but the federalgovernment tax take that's fine,
I think, some Indigenousspecific investment tax credits,

(49:35):
royalty credits, royalties,trust structures.
I prefer anything where theproponent and the Indigenous
community can negotiate itthemselves and not have to apply
for government things or getapproved by the government,
because I think it goes fasterthat way.
But in general, you know, if wecan all come up with three or
four different kinds ofincentives, programs that would

(49:55):
align industry and Indigenousbenefits, I think that's good.
Number five is on criticalminerals.
So what would I do for myimpact assessment act?
I've been focusing less onenergy, transition metals,
battery metals because of demandfor EVs and certain yada yada.
But in terms of a securityaspect, our dependence on

(50:16):
Chinese critical minerals fordefense supply chain.
It's usually not the big moneymakers, it's usually not the
zinc or the copper or the nickelor the iron I'm worried about.
It's usually kind of thebespoke niche metals that are
often byproducts of those.
So now I'm talking about rareearth elements, I'm talking
about germanium, I'm talkingabout gallium, I'm talking about
scandium, those things that arenot really economic on their

(50:39):
own, those small markets andChina has cornered the market on
processing them.
But we need them and it's bigleverage that China has been
using and using as exportrestrictions.
So I would like to useDepartment of Defense spending,
d&d spending, part of our 2% GDPspend to meet our NATO
requirements, to help thingslike tech in Trilobc, I would

(51:01):
say Rio Tinto in Quebec,everywhere where we're
processing kind of these thingsthat have a big market, to help
them process those nichecommodities that have a small
market that we actually need fora defense supply chain.
There's about a dozen that NATOidentifies that you need for a
supply chain.
So that would help get ourprocessing going and also
protect our security.
And then the last one istransportation.

(51:21):
We all know, you know, we'veseen the railroad strikes.
Every time, you know, labornegotiations come up, just the
entire country just brazesitself.
This is not sustainable.
We all know, you know, we'veseen the railroad strikes.
Every time, you know, labornegotiations come up, just the
entire country just brazesitself.
This is not sustainable.
It's not of the nationalinterest.
If we need to use our resourcesfor our soft and hard power and
to expand our economy, we can'tbe held hostage by labor action
at ports and railroads.

(51:42):
And so, using some more toolsin the toolbox again with the
Canadian Labour Code, the one Isuggest that I think might be
reasonable, that came up in thelast stoppage, was for the
Canadian Labour Code to bechanged so that the government
can impose binding arbitrationbefore a work stoppage occurs.
And so it's not to take awayunion rights, it's not to reduce

(52:03):
their ability to negotiate withtheir employers, but before a
work stoppage.
We don't need to wait a coupleof days into the work stoppage
to start using some of thesetools.

And when you look at supply chains and the
complexity of ports andtransportation and the
expectation that the world canacquire the things it needs from
Canada, is your position innumber six on binding
arbitration kind of a signifierof just how important it is to
be able to satisfy what theworld expects from Canada?

Yeah, I mean, there's an economic side,
for sure that you want to be areliable supplier.
You know that if you're, ifyou're, you know producing food
goods or some you know mineralproduct, that you want your
customer to be happy on theother side of the world.
But also to the point thatwe're talking about things that
are very important to people'swell-being, when we're talking
about grains, when we're talkingabout metals, when we're

(52:52):
talking about propane, what haveyou?
You can't be playing politicalgames with these things.
And so if we want to make somehate and again we have an
opportunity here One of ourbiggest competitors, by the way,
the United States, is acompetitor on a lot of
commodities.
They're not looking as reliablemaybe as Canada is right now.
They're doing you know kind ofa lot of things.

(53:13):
We can compete with them headto head on some of these things,
compete with Russia, Competewith China, which you know we
want to reduce their marketshare.
So let's be, let's make it aseasy as possible for our allies
and for those who arenon-aligned to choose a Canadian
product versus a product fromsomeone that I don't think is as

(53:33):
benign to world interests as weare.

Heather, this has been a fascinating discussion.
You've covered so much ground.
Your view of the world is sopractical and rooted in the
facts of the world is sopractical and rooted in the
facts.
I'd love to end on a upbeat note, because I know that when you
engage with audiences that I'vebeen in and even people will
tell me have you seen that?

(53:57):
Heather Exner- Pirro she's sucha great speaker.
I know that in what youresearch and share, there's
actually an incredibly positivevision for the future.
Research and share there'sactually an incredibly positive
vision for the future and I wantto leave the impression, as we
bring this episode to a close,that you are actually an
incredibly optimistic andpositive and inclusive thinker,

(54:19):
and I'd like you to help mebring that home here.

Well, thanks so much, stuart, for the
kind words and I yeah, you knowI respect so much what you do,
because this is why I loveresource development.
This is why I love resources andthink about commodities of my
sleep is because I think Canadahas good values and interests.
I think the rest of the worldwill benefit from having access

(54:42):
to energy, minerals and foodthat it can purchase from
somebody who is not anauthoritarian state, it's not a
superpower that is going to havestrings attached, but it's
someone that just can provideyou the basic essentials that
your people need in a way thatis fair, that is ethical and is
pretty good environmentalpedigree as well, and that at
home, that doing that good inthe world, providing things that

(55:05):
people need in a responsible,reliable way, actually increases
our own prosperity at home.
And, like I say, there don'tneed to be losers in resource
development.
We are so rich in this country,we have such an abundance,
we've been blessed.
I don't want any poor FirstNations, I don't want any poor
Inuit communities, and theydon't have to be if they can

(55:26):
also leverage their resourcesand they can work with industry
to leverage their resources togain that wealth, get those jobs
, get those revenues, build thatinfrastructure, all the things
that Canada's resource sectorhas given to us.
So if I'm pragmatic, it'sbecause I'm from Saskatchewan
and we always say, you know, gether done.

Well, that's true, those from Saskatchewan and we
have lots on the West Coastwhere I'm here in Vancouver are
making this a better place,practical problem solvers, and
we're lucky to have them.
And you, so I really appreciatethat you've inspired and
challenged us.
I hope you're challengingpeople, because the show is

(56:07):
called Power Struggle, becausethese things aren't easy.
We struggle inside ourselves,sometimes amongst each other,
between each other, and becauseof people like you, I think
we're resolving that struggle ina good place.

I hope so.
Yeah, we can hope.
I think in the medium term allthis nonsense will actually turn
out to be pretty good forCanada.
Shake us out of our complacencya bit, since wax has turned out
to be pretty good for Canada.

Shake us out of our complacency a bit.
Well, I'm happy that's a likelyoutcome in your view, so we'll
come back to you in future andsee how it's unfolding.
So we've had Heather ExnerPirro here today and I'm Stuart
Muir with Power Struggle.
Thanks for tuning in.

Super.
Thanks so much, Stuart.

All Episodes

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;}Powering Tomorrow with Canada’s Energy and Indigenous Strength // Heather Exner-Pirot

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

All Episodes

Powering Tomorrow with Canada’s Energy and Indigenous Strength // Heather Exner-Pirot

On Purpose with Jay Shetty