Power Struggle
Improving the energy dialogue in Canada (and beyond) through honest, non-partisan, and fact- based conversations.
The energy conversation is personal: itâs in our homes, in our hands, and now, itâs in our ears. Power Struggle invites you to listen in on honest, non-partisan, and fact-based conversations between host Stewart Muir and the leaders and thinkers designing modern energy.
Watch videos at https://www.youtube.com/@PowerStrugglePod
Power Struggle
đ¨đŚ Christy Clark on Canada's Energy Future | Power Struggle Ep.4
In this episode of Power Struggle â Campaign Edition, former British Columbia Premier Christy Clark joins Stewart Muir to discuss how Canada can reclaim economic leadership in the world â and what the next Prime Minister must prioritize to get us there.
From stalled LNG projects to the need for meaningful Indigenous partnerships and long-term regulatory certainty, Clark makes a clear call: Canada must get serious about energy, investment, and growth.
Key topics:
â˘â â Why Canada's LNG sector lags behind
â˘â â Creating 100,000 jobs through energy investment
â˘â â Indigenous reconciliation through economic inclusion
â˘â â Advice for Canadaâs next Prime Minister
â˘â â How to âget to yesâ on nation-building projects
Donât miss this powerful conversation on leadership, energy, and the future of Canada.
The energy conversation is polarizing. But the reality is multidimensional. Get the full story with host Stewart Muir.
Reach out to us with thoughts, questions, or ideas at info@powerstruggle.ca
Linkedin
Instagram
Facebook
Twitter
đ§ For audio versions of our podcast visit powerstruggle.ca and listen on the go in your favourite podcast app!
Video available on Power Struggleâs YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/@PowerStrugglePod
What's the long term here? How are our children going to live the same kind of quality of life that we have? Stuart, because, like you and me, I think we are at the pinnacle at the moment unless something changes in government of how good it's ever going to get in Canada. If we turn out to be the pinnacle, we will have totally failed our children. We have to look at this bigger picture and we have to think about how we are going to change things and what we're doing now so that our kids can have a life that is at least as good as ours.
Speaker 2:Welcome to Power Struggle. I'm host, stuart Muir, and this is another episode of the Federal Election Campaign Edition. We're tackling the big issues shaping this election and really Canada's future, and we are looking particularly at issues related to energy, which is the theme of the podcast. Christy Clark is my guest today. She served as the second ever female premier of British Columbia from 2011 to 2017. Before that, she was a longstanding member of the provincial legislature. Since leaving politics, christy has become a regular political commentator. Welcome, christy.
Speaker 1:Thank you, it's nice to be here.
Speaker 2:Sure is, sure is. And here we are into the federal campaign. I don't know how many I've been paying attention to, probably nine that I covered as a journalist up until today. Wow, and you've been on the sidelines inside a lot.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you've, just I was probably delivering pamphlets, and all those nine.
Speaker 2:Knocking on doors, all that.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, well, we're back in it and it feels consequential a lot going on. What should be on the desk of the next Canadian prime minister, no matter who it is.
Speaker 1:So I do think I mean your comment about this is a consequential election. I think this is the most important election of my lifetime and yours. I don't think there's ever been one where there's so much that Canadians need to discover about ourselves and express about ourselves and embrace about ourselves, and we need to kind of dig deep, understand who we are, where we want to go, because the world is changing so much. So I think it was a prelude to my answer here. I think that it's really important that our next prime minister, whoever it is, has some clear goals. Really important that our next prime minister, whoever it is, has some clear goals. And I think the first one is to remember that we are now in the process of trying to really redefine who Canada wants to be.
Speaker 1:What kind of a country do we want to be after 10 years of stalled growth in Canada? So who do we want to be? And then, how do we want to get there? And I think the only way to get there is to create more wealth for Canadians, more jobs for Canadians, because we need to become an economic power again.
Speaker 1:And then the third thing is just remember, folks, that government can either doesn't create wealth, but government can enable the creation of wealth and government can also get in the way of the creation of wealth. And that, I think, is the great challenge 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 doing and thinking it's all going to be fine. I think we've finally run out of, 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 new wealth in the country, and that means we need to do some things differently, and that is absolutely the number one thing for government right now.
Speaker 2:Getting to yes is a phrase I've heard you say a lot of times. When we have projects that are in the national interest and that's not just a casual phrase, that's something used it goes into the formal finding of a regulatory authority. They'll say this is in the national interest. How do we get to yes for such projects?
Speaker 1:Well, I mean the way we did it. I mean we did this in British Columbia. We had a huge agenda for growth and infrastructure and attracting investment and all those kinds of things. So there's some principles you need to have. You need to, but one of them is you need to have regulatory certainty in order to get to yes, because, first of all, you won't attract any investment.
Speaker 1:One of the things we discovered is when we said to people if once you come in and you make your application, we will have a yes or a no to you in a certain number of days and we lived up to that promise, so there's certainty of timelines for them. And then you know when we would get into that process. We would. When we got out the end, there would be a certainty of the way government was going to manage the project. You know taxation and lots of those other things. So you need, in order to get to yes, you need to attract investment. That means you need to have some certainty in the process.
Speaker 1:And then you have to have accountability on your own side, like we would say to the civil servants and they were, we had great civil servants, we really did we would say to them. Okay, here's what you need to do. Here's in your department, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, and we're going to come back and we're going to look at together and see what's not getting done and what is getting done, and that accountability in the system meant that we weren't losing track of things and there wasn't kind of you're not ending up in, oh my gosh, I'm sorry, we can't make our deadlines. We forgot about that. People were accountable. They met their deadlines. They knew what the plan was. Everybody kind of understood where 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 accountability for people who are implementing the plan underneath that.
Speaker 2:I think it would be a great goal for our conversation today, Christy, if by the end of it, someone watching will have maybe some tools that they can adopt to see whether those who are saying this is how I'll get to you are actually going to be able to do that.
Speaker 1:Okay. Number one have a timeline. Number one, absolute number one thing is you've got to have, you have to minimize the number of regulatory processes and every one of those processes has to have a timeline. That's absolutely essential. Number two you need to harmonize your processes. So you know, stephen Harper brought in this, you know, this idea that we would harmonize federal and provincial processes. So federal government would look at the provincial process, say you know, that's the same stuff we would be looking at. We trust you guys to do that part of it. Well, we're not going to try and do it again. So you know, when Justin Trudeau became the prime minister, he changed that. So we went back to these double processes. So you need timelines, you need harmonization of processes, you need certainty of treatment and taxation. And what you need to understand, I think, is what government needs to understand, is that investors bringing money into our country to create jobs and infrastructure, they want to have a return on their investment.
Speaker 2:Return A profit, goodness.
Speaker 1:And they're not in the business of just coming here to help us. They're also here to help their own bottom lines and we need to really treat businesses like they're business. That means government needs to be a lot more businesslike Not be a business, but be more businesslike in its approach to it. And my approach to it was always to sit down with the private sector guys and say, okay, look, what do you need. And then you know. I would say to them here's what we need.
Speaker 1:And once we work to understand what each of those investor and these are huge entities, lots of them are government-owned entities, right, india, oil or whatever Once you understand what each other need, then you can try and work together to get it done. So the last thing is to recognize that this is creating wealth from private sector. Investment is always a joint effort. You're not enemies. You're trying to make it work. You're going to have disagreements, but you have to understand what each other needs and then try and figure out how you can make that happen together, not by clashing and arguing and trying to feel like you're always fighting an uphill battle. That never gets you where you want to go.
Speaker 2:During your premiership BC 2011 to 2017, you were talking a lot about LNG liquefied natural gas projects and you would hear your critics say it's a pipe dream that all sorts of phrases they hurled at you because there was no way this was ever going to happen. There was no way this was ever going to happen. There were 15 or even more LNG projects that developers, like you've kind of described, came forward and said can we build that?
Speaker 1:18.
Speaker 2:18. And the critics said 18, that's a ridiculous number. Now we've got LNG happening. There's probably at least 15 projects, lng projects that didn't exist when you were talking about LNG but exist now, except there in Texas and Louisiana. So when you look back, well, hey, let's throw in Site C. Site C was mocked as needless. That's green electricity, it's as green as it gets. And you had critics say no, we don't want that green electricity, there's no need for it. Yeah, had critics say no, we don't want that green electricity, there's no need for it. Not to look back and you know gloat or anything, but honestly, what do you think when you look back from today to back then?
Speaker 1:Well, I mean, it is nice to accomplish something and have it work. I mean, aside from, you know what people thought about it at the time. I did find it really frustrating at the time, though, because it was just so obvious that we needed to diversify our markets. It was so obvious that we had so much of what the world wanted, and it was a great opportunity to create jobs in our province, and with LNG in particular and Site C, it was so obvious that it was good for the environment. I mean, lng displacing coal in Asia is a huge, huge benefit for the climate change agenda. Like, I just thought all that stuff was kind of really obvious, and I remember going to meet with it was even Stephen Harper's government. So you know, because, starting in 2011, he was still the prime minister sitting down with some of his guys they had never heard of what LNG like they didn't even know what LNG was. And then, of course, trudeau's government came in and they were immediately skeptical of the whole thing. So when I look back at it, I'm happy that we got some of this through, but I'm also really disappointed that we it's been so slow.
Speaker 1:You know, it's been so embarrassing to have the German Chancellor, the Japanese Prime Minister, come to Canada, beg us for our natural resources, our clean energy, and we say no. Why? Because we spent a decade government spent a decade trying to kill every single one of those projects and thankfully we got the Shell project far enough along that they weren't able to cancel it, but still it's far below its potential. I mean, you know, it could be eight trains, it could be more than eight trains, it could be much bigger than that and we could be hosting three huge plants, like very large plants here, and we've just got one over the line.
Speaker 1:Stuart, we started that in 2011. 2011. And here we are in 2025 and we're sending out our first shipment. I mean, if we want to compete and we want to improve the standard of living for Canadians, we got to do better than that and I can tell you we lifted heaven and earth as a government. The entire provincial government was devoted in some part to making this stuff happen and we still, we still were only able to get one through the tiny, tiny little pinhole of the federal government and then, of course, subsequent NDP governments.
Speaker 2:A year ago you hosted, the president of Poland came to Vancouver and I know the two of you had a tĂŞte-Ă -tĂŞte conversation on the margins of the events that ResourceWorks hosted in Vancouver. What did President Duda say about LNG? Did he talk about it in private?
Speaker 1:He is a very direct person, which is awesome. I mean, you know, I have a lot of Polish friends in my life privately and they are also very direct people and he just was sort of shaking his head like what's the matter with Canada? I don't like you guys. His view is we are sitting on top of all of this incredible wealth, from natural gas to tungsten to you name it and we just leave it in the ground. And he's sitting over there facing a hostile Russian invasion in the country next door to him and thinking you know, we'd like to stay a democracy, we'd like to be able to defend Western values in Europe, and instead of helping us, you're just deciding to leave all this stuff in the ground rather than participating in making and supporting a better world.
Speaker 1:That was very much his view of it and I mean I tend to agree with that. I think Canadians should be fully engaged in the world, in supporting democracy, exporting our shared values. We should be fully engaged in the fight against climate change and we're just sitting on the sidelines. It makes no sense to me and it certainly didn't make sense to the president of Poland.
Speaker 2:Well, he had missiles flying over Polish territory from Russia while he was here and the Canadian officials were telling him you can't talk about LNG, president. You can talk about hydrogen, green hydrogen, and you can go to Edmonton and you can tout it at the hydrogen show, but you can't talk about LNG. Now, I'm not sure whether he felt that anything they told him was what he could or couldn't talk about, but it sounds like he was talking about LNG.
Speaker 1:Yeah, privately, I mean certainly I just't talk about, but it sounds like he was talking about LNG. Yeah, privately, I mean certainly I just you know, but it's all the clean energy.
Speaker 2:I think that everybody's interested in. I mean they should be interested in it Right, absolutely.
Speaker 1:We need to figure out how to make semiconductors and other really high-tech product in the democratic Western world so that we can supply each other and we can create a bulwark against all these autocratic regimes around the world which are on the move. So really important that we do that. And it's not just clean energy, it's also all the minerals, critical minerals, that we have. There's, I think, one operating mine in the United States that produces critical minerals at the moment. Think how Canada could supply the world and how important we could suddenly become again and the role that we could play if we decided to get to yes on some of those resource projects.
Speaker 2:Well, we'll have to go back later to the timeline and the harmonization, the certainty questions, because that is your idea of what's at stake, what's needed for this. You know it's a decade now since some of the big pieces that you were driving in the BC government on indigenous reconciliation really began to, I think, emerge into the public view. I'm thinking about things like the Great Bear Rainforest, but probably something that affected more First Nations was the impact benefit agreements. You had hundreds and hundreds of First Nations that were beginning to enter into the economy through the proliferation of opportunities in often remote places in BC. Ten years later, you still hear about clean drinking water not being available to First Nations. You still hear about the social barriers that face First Nations. Have we made progress?
Speaker 1:Yeah, we've made progress. I think we have. I really got focused on Indigenous reconciliation when I was a premier because I started to visit First Nations and it's really I mean, in some of those communities they're doing okay. In others it's really shocking the standard of living that people live with in many of those communities and most Canadians don't see that very often, although if you live in Vancouver, you can visit the largest indigenous community in British Columbia and it's called the Downtown Eastside, which also has the highest rate of early female death. Guess what it's in Downtown Eastside, guess what? It's. Driven by poverty, it's driven by the history of colonization, all those other things.
Speaker 1:So I think we have, as a generation, a chance to really do something to reconcile with First 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, which obviously I think was the worst thing that colonizers did to harm First Nations people. The second thing was we took away their land. And how have Indigenous people survived on their land all these years, like for millennia? What is it about the land that's so important? It's the resources in the land, it's the wood, it's the minerals, it's the food, it's the hunting, all of those things that are on the land. So when we took away the right to use the land from First Nations, we took away their right to create wealth, their opportunity to create wealth.
Speaker 1:Now the opportunities to create wealth from resources today are very different and much more enriching, and it's complicated because there are lots of existing corporate interests that you know that have the rights to harvest and other things on that land.
Speaker 1:But I think it's pretty fundamental for us, if we want to reconcile, to say, okay, look, you're going to have rights back to your land and we're going to help you. We're going to support you and partner with you in developing resources and wealth from that land that has traditionally been yours. We're going to do it together and you are going to start to see some benefits from your land again. And it's because we are open to finding and developing new resources, new sources of revenue, like liquefied natural gas. Like you know, these critical minerals that we're discovering are so vital for the world. Now that we have these opportunities to allow First Nations to create wealth in their own communities, to participate in that, to be owners and workers. Along with you know, other investors from around the world, including us, because they need the chance to be able to develop their own communities with money that they've created, so that they can choose their own futures and they might decide to design communities completely different from ones that are familiar to us. But let them. I mean to me that's reconciliation.
Speaker 2:The first wave, the indigenous business agreements that you signed, was followed by other forms of participation in the economy. Where do you think it's headed? What does the future look like for First Nations and this is a call to action for the next Prime Minister of Canada, by the way- I think First Nations are in a position to heal themselves.
Speaker 1:I mean, you know, I don't think we've done a good job of trying to heal First Nations 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 care or have been taken away by the government are Indigenous children, when they're 7% of the population. Addiction issues, all of that other heap of terrible statistics. First Nations people carry that burden terribly and you know it's not like we've done a good job of fixing it. And so, stuart, when I used to travel to First Nations and ask them what they'd want, what they wanted to do and you know we talked to them about agreements and start that conversation, two conversations would happen. One we'd sit down with the chief you know mostly men and they'd say well, you know, what about the money, what about the jobs, what about this, what about that? And you know the treaty, rights and all those sorts of things. Then we sit down with the matriarchs and they'd look at me and they'd go hey, listen, lee, our kids are being taken away and we never see them again until we find them on the downtown east side, our husbands and our uncles and aunts. They're addicted and they're being incarcerated. And like they cared about the schools, they cared about child protection, they cared about education.
Speaker 1:And what I realized is that in making agreements with First Nations people, the private sector and the government needs to be a part of it. Because if you're a private sector, you know interest, you're making investment, you're going to, you can offer jobs and you can offer revenue streams and those kinds of things, but you're not going to build a school and you're not going to have any influence in whether government is helping you create your own child protection system so that the kids aren't leaving the community when a family's in trouble. That has to be done by government. So what we did is we created a kind of a world where the private sector would go in and make an agreement and government would go in and make an agreement.
Speaker 1:The government bears the burden of responsibility here, because it's the crown that has put First Nations in this disadvantaged kind of place in society, and they're right about that. We have to accept our responsibility and we have to accept that we are the only people that can fix it. That's the call to government you want to reconcile with First Nations. Give them a chance to get out there and develop resources. Let them use their land. Let's share in the benefits of that and then let's use those benefits to try and build things and improve the infrastructure of their community so that their kids can be just as healthy as ours.
Speaker 2:You were in government, although you weren't yet premier, in British Columbia when the first consumer carbon tax in North America came in in British Columbia, yes, and that framework created in the 2000s it actually managed to maintain cross-party support. It wasn't really ever an election issue. The people accepted it.
Speaker 1:Nobody liked it, those two.
Speaker 2:No one liked it, okay, well, it didn't become this burning issue. It was a stir in the polls, was it? Yeah, but you guys stayed with it over the years.
Speaker 1:We had the best, fastest growing economy in the country.
Speaker 2:So it was because it was masked by good times that people no, no, partly okay.
Speaker 1:I hate having to explain this because nobody believes it, because it doesn't. This goes completely against the conventionalism with the carbon tax, but I'm going to try.
Speaker 2:Let's have it yes.
Speaker 1:When Gordon Campbell brought in the carbon tax, he brought in a group of people, of experts, who really tried to build something very unique, and they did. He implemented it and there were changes to it over the years. But basically the whole idea was the carbon tax would apply to businesses and to goods and services and all that stuff, and then all of the revenue from that would go back into cutting taxes, all of it. So what we ended up with was a very low tax economy and by the time I got there we were really like we'd really ramped up the tax cuts. So we had some of the lowest taxes in Canada. We did have the lowest taxes at one point in Canada, and so you supercharge the economy low taxes, businesses are creating more, people are investing more, you know, more jobs are being created and you have getting close to zero unemployment. We also did that because the economy is supercharged, because you've got all these tax cuts, because it's coming from carbon tax.
Speaker 1:People still hated the carbon tax, but people were a lot less concerned about it because they had a lot of money in their pockets. They were keeping more of it because taxes were lower. They were making more of it because businesses were investing more in jobs. So and when we, when I remember accepting an award from the World Bank, which you know, I know a lot of your listeners are going to hear and say, wow, that's a conspiracy. I didn't know, it was a big conspiracy thing.
Speaker 2:I don't think it was.
Speaker 1:I just thought it was a world big, I mean anyway, not only did I accept it from the World Bank, I think I accepted it at a climate conference in Paris, just to kind of add some color here. Anyway, what they said when I accepted the award was BC is getting the award for the best constructed carbon tax in the world, because it's the only carbon tax that went 100% into tax cuts. So therefore, it's the only carbon tax that exists in an economy where you're going to be guaranteeing growth through a carbon tax. And you know, I mean it's all. The whole thing went to hell when the NDP got in government. They took all the money and just started putting it into growing government. I mean it was ridiculous. They kept jacking up the tax and there were no more tax cuts, so it became the slowest economy in the country.
Speaker 2:Well, in the first phase, the term revenue neutrality, that's what you're talking about. That's why economists loved it. I remember at the back of the recital the editorial pages loved it because they're economists there and, yeah, they're going to tax it. But, although we understood what that was and it was, I think, muted, just in the way you say it, because, yeah, and it was.
Speaker 2:I think, muted, just in the way you say it, because, yeah, it wasn't a big factor. But then in recent years, the federal consumer carbon tax. You started to get this line whereas we're going to tax you so we can put more money back in your pocket. And that must pull really well, because for years and years we heard that repeated and every time you stop and think you're going to tax me, You're going to take my money away for the purpose of putting the money in my pocket. Is that right government?
Speaker 1:I know, and it justâ Makes no sense, but I mean the proof is in the pudding though, like this is a great example the carbon tax in British Columbia really worked because supercharged the economy. People are feeling really comfortable. They're making more money. Life is easier. Comfortable, they're making more money, life is easier. So you're not really that. You're not looking at all the things that government's doing to you to make your life harder when you're feeling successful in your life. But Canada's economy is really doing badly. People are feeling really worried about the future. So you're struggling and you can't make ends meet. You can't afford to put your kids in hockey this year. You look at all the goddamn taxes and you say, wait a minute here, how come government's taking so much when I'm getting less all the time? And I just think it's situational. Like taxes really come to top of mind for people when they're struggling financially.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and when you look at this environmental connection between carbon taxes and the desire to improve our performance on environmental measures, that's what we all want to do. When it comes to carbon taxes themselves, canada has been a bit of an island in the world because the rest of the world has not followed the legendary leadership of Canada the climate leadership. You hear this phrase all the time, as if there's some sort of obligation. You're allowed to be Canadian as long as you're following climate leadership, which means you have to pay taxes, but is everyone else in the world doing that? We just did a little study at ResourceWorks. We found out. I was astonished by this. I did not see this coming, but if you look at all the carbon taxes that are paid in the world by the 7 billion people out there, one third of all those carbon taxes are paid by people who live in Canada.
Speaker 1:What.
Speaker 2:Like, yeah, we're the ones paying all the carbon. We're not necessarily paying them to all those other countries, but yeah, it's astonishing. What it means is that our forward thinking ideas about carbon pricing which we thought would represent carbon leadership, climate leadership, and then the rest of the world would follow our footsteps, because we are, after all, the boy scouts and girl scouts of climate leadership Well, that's not what has happened.
Speaker 1:Wow. And in addition to that, where are we sitting in terms of our climate change goals? Have we improved? I mean, are we meeting our net zero? No, we're not. And so I mean you add, I mean insult, injury then with that second fact, I didn't. I mean it's hard to imagine that we've been paying all these carbon taxes, we're not meeting our goals and we're kind of the only people in the world that are really going big on it.
Speaker 2: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 you have climate policy 2.0. But we haven't gotten to the 2.0. Now a fellow who runs the Utilities Commission in BC said look, marc, marc, jaccard, this doesn't all add up to me. I think there's a new phase coming where it's going to be more market-driven, the way that we're seeing in the US, where Texans we think of as having these 10-gallon hats and they're drilling oil wells and shouting Yahoo, right, well, actually, 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 the above. They're not sitting around debating whether they should have one or the other, they're doing everything. And while they're doing that, they're reducing emissions.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you know, under Biden, trump, obama, they reduced emissions by producing more natural gas, so there was less coal. That's how they did it. You try that here and it all of a sudden gets into these polarizations, which is why I think our climate policy has been stuck in this 1.0. So, anyways, my idea that there could be another way to do. It was dismissed out of hand. It's impossible. It's perfect now. Well, obviously it's not perfect now. I don't know what the answer is, but maybe you do.
Speaker 1:Well, I don't, but I do watch Landman. Have you watched Landman with Billy Thornton?
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, oh yeah.
Speaker 1:And you remember that scene where he's out with who's the woman he's with. She's the lawyer, she's that hard drug lawyer Coming into.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I don't like all this oil and gas. And then there's all these wind turbines. They're in the middle of this and he says he goes, damn it. You know he swears a lot. He says you know, do you think the oil companies would be building these turbines if they weren't going to make a lot of money? Money and that is exactly what happens is the oil and gas companies.
Speaker 1:The energy companies are located in Texas, alberta, wherever they happen to be in the world, and because they're already investing there, that's also where you start to see your clean energy industry growing. I mean, the clean energy industry in Texas is growing faster than any other clean energy industry, I think, in the world, but certainly North America. And same is happening in Alberta because those investors, and British Columbia because those investors are already there. So, you know, the clean energy revolution is actually being driven by all of the people that would, you know, be accused of being the climate criminals, by folks over at Greenpeace. Well, you know, 2.0 is actually happening because they're making it happen.
Speaker 1:It's just a lot more complicated than you know. Those Greenpeace activists who I used to, you know, they used to come to my house all the time and I think I was a target, I don't know, but maybe not. But I would stand at the door for a while and then I would invite them in. You know, I never persuaded any of them, but it was always a good discussion and that was one of the key things that I would always point out to them is that the expertise for this comes from those industries. That's where Climate 2.0 is going to happen.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and applying that to voting season 2025, I'm kind of thinking that there has to be a question asked about how do we move forward? Because if we've got, you know, all the relevant parties federally are saying good riddance, carbon tax, you know federal consumer carbon tax. But then someone's asking, maybe, well, what's coming in its place? That's a good question what is coming in its place? What should come in its place, place?
Speaker 1:that's a good question. What is coming in its place? What should come in its place? Well, I think what the government should do is figure out how to do sustainable development of our resource sector and then start thinking about the problem as a problem for the world. Because you know the fact that China is building, you know, a new coal-fired factory. Every day is terrible for everybody and we need to help them not build coal fired factories by getting them our LNG.
Speaker 1:And you know climate change is not something that Canada can really control. We can only play a part, like every other country can, in trying to diminish the impact that we're having on the earth, but some countries have a lot more, a much bigger impact than we do India, china, japan, south Korea, the United States. We need to be doing what we can to supply those countries with all of the clean energy that we can and all those clean energy sources and clean energy technology to try and reduce their emissions, because that'll be good for all of us. I mean that really, to me, should be the priority for the next government.
Speaker 1:And do we replace the carbon tax? Probably not. I mean, I think there are ways to structure it for industrial emitters that will work, but I don't think a consumer carbon tax is something that you can make fly in Canada anymore. And the worry, though, for Canadians has to be, after governments have been out there hoovering up all the carbon tax and dumping it into government coffers, as they've been doing so generously in British Columbia, how are they going to fill that hole in their budget when they get rid of the carbon tax? I mean that's not really an environmental question. Then it becomes a healthcare sustainability question, education sustainability question. I mean there's a lot more problems that are going to come from canceling the carbon tax because governments have been so greedy in using it.
Speaker 2:And that's not a trivial amount of money. That's a couple of billion dollars. I don't know if we know the exact amount right now because it's not all out there, but a lot of money. You mentioned India, you mentioned China, you mentioned getting Canada's resources there. So that's a conversation we could have had at any time over the last dozen years, but now it's a different conversation because Trump any time over the last dozen years. But now it's a different conversation because Trump. And suddenly we're talking about how the fact that we're sending 95% plus of our oil to the US is a different situation. We can't get our oil to other countries that want it and would pay a good price for it, because we don't have pipelines that go to the ports, except we now have Trans Mountain, which is now completed, which my government approved. I'd love to come back to that decision process, the five conditions, and it's so relevant for today. But before doing that, I'd like to just ask you, you know, if we have the situation where we're tied to Trump?
Speaker 2:You know our number one most valuable export is crude oil, nothing else. A lot of people might be aware of it and prefer not to think about it because they have, you know an emotional reaction to hearing that crude oil is really important, and them being Canadian. But it's just a fact. The number two export is the auto sector automobiles and auto parts and that whole sector looks like it is in very tough times.
Speaker 2:And imagine a situation where we have, say, the number one most valuable export, crude oil. That is, by legislation put in place by the federal government that is radically diminished in its value. And then the auto sector, buffeted by the winds of cheap EVs from China, plus the protectionism of Trump, that's also wiped out and we say those two sectors are not going to contribute to Canadian prosperity. Suddenly we're going way down the list and we'll be more reliant on a smaller basket. Sounds like that could be not what Canadians expect in terms of their economic well-being. So I'm trying to get to a question here what does Canada have to do in terms of technology, society, politics to get oil and gas to the coasts so it can be monetized?
Speaker 1:Well, I mean, this was part of our plan for BC was really? We decided early on that if we wanted to build, if we wanted to create a stronger economy, we needed to have more export markets. Because, you know, everybody, we knew everybody was just shipping to the States at a terrible, at a discount.
Speaker 2:We knew, we had a discount as well.
Speaker 1:Right, yeah, we knew we can get more money for our oil and for our natural gas and for our minerals If we were shipping them, if we had a lot more than one customer competing for what we were doing. And you know, when we saw TMX first day open, holy smokes we saw the price of our and holy smokes, we saw the price of our, the value of our resources just bump up that day. So it was. For us it was always diversify our markets, find investors who will give us a better price for what we have, create competition and find a way to get it to them. And how do you get it to them? You build pipelines, you build infrastructure. You build infrastructure, you know if it's for mining or whatever.
Speaker 1:So we decided we need to build the infrastructure, that we need to get our resources to the coast. We need to find the markets that want to receive that and make deals with them to purchase our goods. We needed to find investors from overseas who would invest the billions of dollars in our economy to build the infrastructure. To get it out. We needed to train workers to be able to be available to go in 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 to yes, making sure there's some certainty for investors and trying to do everything that we possibly could to ensure that the public and Indigenous communities felt like they were fairly treated and understood how they would benefit from what we were trying to do, because we were also seeking social license at the same time in order to do a social license a word that was first heard in British Columbia, I think, at a Globe conference.
Speaker 1:That's right, but I mean, you know, I don't think it's a meaningless thing, because part of being successful in politics, in trying to do big things, is understanding that lots of the stuff that you want to do might not be understood well by the public and people might not like it. So your job is not to say, oh, we're not going to do it because we don't think people will like it. Your job is to say we think this is really important, it's going to build the future for the province, it's so important. We are going to invest and stake our political future our own political future at the polls on trying to persuade people that this is the right thing to do, which is what we did with LNG and that's how we won an election in 2013.
Speaker 1:It was by. It wasn't because people knew what LNG was or even liked it at the beginning. It was because we worked hard to explain it to people and people decided enough of them decided. You know, this is the right thing to do, and I think that is a big problem for governments these days is that, instead of saying we're going to try and do visionary things, we're going to try and plan for the future and we're going to come up with ideas that maybe you know, you know the public doesn't like. Yet we're going to try and do our part to sell people on the benefits of these things. And, you know, not just try and do what's popular, but try and do what's right.
Speaker 2:Christy, you're talking straight. You talked straight when you were asking for votes. You talked straight when you were in government. You're talking straight now. Whenever I tune in to the political rhetoric of those seeking votes now, not everyone, but you see plenty of this they're not talking straight. You examine any statement it's like what does this mean? What is this word salad? What is this tissue of nonsense that seems to sound okay to the press gallery? Oh yeah, that makes sense. It makes no sense. That statement that's been put out there, that's on the six o'clock news, that no one's question is absolute rubbish, and yet it's. Yes, that's right. You never did that and you were criticized because you talk straight, but you did it.
Speaker 1:People don't like women who talk, especially women who talk straight. I don't think. Yeah, I think women the demand on women is, I mean, is really that we have to just be a little bit more pleasing?
Speaker 2:You have to be nice.
Speaker 1:You have to be nice and you know, in my political journey I did learn a lot that I didn't know, for example, around First Nations. You know what's required for reconciling with First Nations. That was a real learning process for me. So I probably I do speak differently about that now than I might have in 2011, because I understand more things, but I still just try and say what I think and because I think in politics, you, as a voter, I want to have the ability to choose someone based on what I think, what they say they're going to do. But if they don't say what they're going to do, or they say what they're going to do and then they say something different, it's very confusing and it's not, then I don't really have a good choice, do I? You're not allowing me to make a choice, and I think democracy depends on people having a clear understanding of where their politicians stand. I've always I've just always thought that.
Speaker 2:I think it's basic respect for the people you're trying to represent is it the campaign 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 voters now? The campaign machine that turns all of this into?
Speaker 1:Jell-O. Yes, you know what it is. You know what it is. It's slice and dice voters. Now, I mean and this started happening in about 2015,.
Speaker 1:In my estimation, in a big way, they figured out how to just like, okay. So Stuart is concerned about funding for religious schools, is concerned about funding for religious schools, and Jeremy is concerned about transgender participation in sports, in women's sports, transgender participation in women's sports, and Christy is concerned about, you know, carbon taxes or whatever it is, and they slice and dice, and they slice and dice and then they come up with these policies that are really focused on important but not widely, you know issues that are going to have a wide application, a wide implication for the public, and that little tiny focus on small things means that we lose we completely lose the 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 this economy so that we can continue to create wealth? And because, by the way, we need that wealth to be able to pay for healthcare. Continue to create wealth and because, by the way, we need that wealth to be able to pay for health care, education, all the things that make our country great, and the tragedy for us in British Columbia was we were on the road to doing that and we are so far off that road from the fastest growing economy, the slowest growing economy, and it doesn't take very much to fall off the wagon.
Speaker 1: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 put their kids into sports. It's a great idea, but really is it a major announcement that you need to make in Parliament and, by the way, something that I also supported in British Columbia? But I mean, it's really government should be looking at the big picture. What's the long term here? How are our children going to live the same kind of quality of life that we have? Because, like you and me, I think we are at the pinnacle at the moment, unless something changes in government, of how good it's ever going to get in Canada, and that will.
Speaker 1:If we turn out to be the pinnacle, we will have totally failed our children. We have to look at this bigger picture and we have to think about how we are going to change things and what we're doing now so that our kids can have a life that is at least as good as ours, because they can't afford homes. The climate is not going in the right direction. We are not producing jobs and resources and wealth in Canada that we should be, and until we start creating that wealth, we can't create a better future for our kids. And that is kind of like I don't want to dead end the future for Hamish, my son, and I don't think anybody else wants to do that for their children, but that's where we're at today and that is really this kind of existential choice that we have in this election. That's why this is such an important election. What kind of future do we want? Because we're kind of at the point of failure unless we decide we're going to choose success here.
Speaker 2:So let's give a recommendation, If you can give a recommendation to those who are on the hostings looking for votes for the rest of the campaign. How should they address this? What can they do in how they're talking about things, how they're answering questions?
Speaker 1:I think candidates need to broadly grasp the fact that this isn't about talking points anymore. This is about the future of the country and whether or not we are going to remain a wealthy country or whether or not we're going to continue to slip. And I, you know, I am a real optimist for Canada, Like I just think we are so rich, we have so much wealth in this country that we are choosing not to share with Canadians and share with the world. So I'm very optimistic that we can make those the right choices. So what my hope would be and look, I'm not going to argue, this may not be a winning political message. Maybe it's all about the little things now, Maybe that's how you win.
Speaker 1:But I hope that candidates get out there and start thinking this is more about.
Speaker 1:It's not just about whether or not I get to win or my party gets to win. It's about trying to influence the discussion so that we can each candidate can be a real play, 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 about how they want to do that and convince people that we need to do something differently. I mean, if every candidate was doing that out there and the debate was not rather than you got to stop them from doing that, you got to stop them from doing that, and the debate was about you know, well, they think they're there. Here's what they're really going to do to change the country. Well, here's what I'm going to do to change the country. If everybody was trying to talk about how we're going to make it better rather than just about how everybody else was going to make it worse, we would have a better political debate in the country. But that's not what's happening now.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and now I don't think anyone is making a lot more money than they did five years ago. But they go to the grocery store and the hundred bucks they spent five years ago doesn't fill the grocery cart the way it used to, that's for sure. Doesn't fill the basket, and the houses have not become affordable.
Speaker 1:It's harder to get a hundred bucks now, too, in your pocket because too much is going back.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and in the last decade we've gone as a country from having, if you did, the equivalent to the United States. What if we were a state of the United? Having, if you did it, the equivalent to the United States. What if we were a state of the United States? The Economist magazine did this? We would be the equivalent 10 years ago of Montana. Now we're the equivalent of Alabama. Alabama is one of the poorest of the United States states, so Canadians are living at a level comparable to the US of the state of Alabama. That's where we are now.
Speaker 1:You know why I don't mind and I know a lot of people do when religious people come to my door and try and convert me.
Speaker 2:Why don't you mind?
Speaker 1:I don't mind, because they're always talking about hope. Yeah, I mean they come to the door with various different theories of you know what happens after death and how to get there and all that sort of stuff and how to live your life. But I find them mostly to be very hopeful people Because and what they're trying to do when they talk to me is give me a sense of hope they're trying to talk to me about how the future can be different, their view of that. Now, you know, most of the time I don't agree with them, but I think if political candidates and political parties would think about their interaction with the public in that sort of way, how are we going to talk to Canadians about a hopeful future, how things are going to be different and how?
Speaker 1:I mean because, of course, this is something that religious people also tell you at the doorstep. It means you have to change some things. It might mean you have to make some sacrifices in the way you live your life now. But as political people, if we want to be honest about trying to build a better future and giving people hope for our kids and their future, maybe we should be talking to them honestly about change and about how sometimes change is difficult and you know, sometimes change means we do have to make some sacrifices in order to have some benefits. So you know, I mean it's not the best comparison in the world, but it's not a bad one, because it's still a door-to-door kind of interaction that you're having and the person on the other side-door kind of interaction that you're having and the person on the other side of the door generally, whether you're a religious person or a politician doesn't want to have the conversation at all as you're standing there. So there are some things in common, but they're both about hope.
Speaker 2:Well, if you're opening the door to have the conversation, that's the first step, and I think candidates who are fanning out around neighborhoods in Canada right now are just hoping someone's home that they can take an age with and yeah, so what gives you hope then?
Speaker 1:Because I think I mean we were successful in British Columbia in building the strongest economy and lowest taxes and you know we did attract. We didn't meet our full ambition but we did. Certainly we've got one going now and you can't turn that back. We've got TMX open and ready. We got public support for it through the five conditions and we were successful in that. We made a long. We made a big, long journey not there yet for Indigenous reconciliation, which I think is an example for the country. So I mean I'm hopeful because we succeeded in so much and we were doing stuff that a lot of people at first thought was nuts. I mean you remember how the media would mock our government and our ideas as crazy, stupid, off the wall can never happen. You know it was it was.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that was it was it was. It was quite an era, like you walked out in halifax on the premieres yes, that's right, I did what? What was happening there? What? What year was that? Was that 20? It was 2012 2012 yeah, so you went out. It was the. Was it an annual premier conference? I was a federation, so they're there all 10 plus the territorial ones.
Speaker 1:And the five conditions wasn't it.
Speaker 2:I don't remember 100%. If it was the five conditions, was it pre-five conditions?
Speaker 1:No, five conditions were before the 2013 election. It was when I met with Alison Redford for a Frosty meeting.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but you had it. You said I'm done and you walked out. I think that really set the stage for you being noticed as someone who was actually going to do dramatic things, break things up and were people upset with you.
Speaker 1:Well, I don't remember. The reporting on it was very positive in my direction. Yeah, people were. You know, there was a real mix at the table at the time, like there were some really sensible people around the table. Dalton McGinty was sensible, jean Charest, I think, was there, I can't remember who was there, mr Sensible.
Speaker 1:And there were a few others, but there were some that were just not sensible. But the thing about the five conditions that drove everybody crazy was that how can you, as a province, put five conditions on the expansion of resource development? This was the Alberta argument, and my argument back was listen, people, you're going to have to meet these conditions anyway, like you can't build a pipeline without Indigenous engagement in it. That was one of them. You can't build a pipeline without safety. You can't build a pipeline without still, you know good, coast Guard, spill management, you know, and the other ones that we had, and they were all things they had to do anyway. So why don't we make it public? Why don't we talk to the public about it and make sure that everybody knows you guys are going to try and do this right, like it just made eminent sense. But well, everybody went nuts on me. The environmental people went nuts on me, and then the business people went nuts on me.
Speaker 2:I was just trying to, yeah, there was a lot of how dare you in that. It's almost like I got to pause and say what were the five conditions. But let's do that in a second because I think, listening to you, I think people are piecing together, even if they've never heard of the five conditions, that it had to do with the Trans Mountain Pipeline and British Columbia as a province, saying, well, you want to build that thing, we've got these five conditions that you are going to have to follow. Now the you was the federal government or the proponent company.
Speaker 1:It was the proponent companies, yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, well, I'll tell you to this day. You mentioned the five conditions in Alberta in certain circles and they'll tear your head off. I know they say you're from BC and you think those were a good idea.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Because they saw it as a direct affront on the rights of Alberta which are enshrined in the constitution. You know, in the 1930s and every Albertan must be taught this as a school child, although no one else in any other province knows it the federal government devolved the control of natural resources to the provinces, but it's like the catechism in Alberta and it was a direct affront to that belief that you know in Alberta and it was a direct affront to that belief that you know. And plus, you're not the federal regulator, you're British Columbia. How dare you put conditions on? It's not your job, it's a federal 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 over budget, but that's a whole bunch of other reasons around that. Anyways, the five conditions there should be. I would hope at some point someone does a dissertation on it. So it's all out there for the record.
Speaker 1:We should have called them the five enabling conditions.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there we are.
Speaker 1:Because really theyâ.
Speaker 2:They'll pay more religious ring to it. The five holy conditions?
Speaker 1: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 to be accepted by the public in British Columbia, who were wholly against it. I mean not entirely.
Speaker 2:The other wholly, yes Eventually won very strong support at the critical moment. That was before the five conditions. So I think you could look back and say, look, the reason it got that support when it needed it, you know, in the final stages of the regulatory process, was because of this rather bold, outrageous five conditions that you brought forward.
Speaker 1:I mean. But the thing is about them is it was all stuff they were going to have to do anyway it was they were going to. It was so the five conditions, let's see if I can remember them all now. Indigenous, terrestrial yeah With terrestrial spill. Safety there. Safety yeah, so with that. And the province looked after that with the companies. We wanted the Coast Guard boosted by the feds.
Speaker 2:So the maritime was spilled. Coast Guard was ridiculous, totally legit issue.
Speaker 1:It's got to be managed out here.
Speaker 2:It's got to be safe.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. Then we had the one they really didn't like. There had to be some benefit for 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:I don't know if those checks are flowing now. Is that a check with the accountants?
Speaker 1: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 going to have to do anyway.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and it was underway, but there was still some and then the fifth was it had to pass its review, which it was going to have to pass anyway. So we were trying to set out for the public in British Columbia kind of a set of goalposts that were all going to have to be met, basically, anyway, but help the public understand that they were going to get a chance to check them all off and make sure it was all done right, that it was all done in the light of day, that it was all done right and it was. I mean, we always thought of it as enabling. But you know, I understand that Albertans felt a different way about it. But you know, good luck trying to do it without Indigenous reconciliation. Well, which I think they all figured out by now.
Speaker 2:Right, it's different. It's a totally different thing now, and you can't say that, say, in the oil sands, they weren't already doing that? They had great relationships with the First Nations in that area. They were doing this. No, that's not true, though, stuart. It wasn't true for.
Speaker 1:Gateway.
Speaker 2:For the corridor. They had.
Speaker 1:Yeah, because part of this was Gateway. Right, it wasn't just TMX Gateway was part of that conversation.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm thinking of the production areas in northern Alberta where they've had these longstanding relationships, and the reference to that second pipeline, the Northern Gateway Pipeline, where it became subject to this outcry and a lot of it was at least seemingly driven by First Nations that had issues, yeah, yeah, so these things were running. It wasn't just one pipeline project.
Speaker 1:Yet to go back there, Plus it was coastal gas link right.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and then Site C although that was this, it was a disruptive, large scale project that suddenly you know you had four or more major capital projects happening all at the same time in BC. I think it created something that in itself we should look at. That would be a whole conversation, because how often do you see in Canadian history one province, one small place subject to a huge amount of things going on and for 10 years we've actually had paychecks flowing?
Speaker 2:We've had things being built, it's created a huge economic lift. Suddenly that construction part of it is almost 100% over for that wave.
Speaker 1:I know it's a real crash for the national economy.
Speaker 2:I mean there was an uptick in our national GDP as a result of the LNG project, the Shell project alone, right, yeah, just from it being built and now when it goes from construction phase to transporting LNG as a commodity, that goes against the GDP, that'll be much easier to measure. It's going to be suddenly there'll be half a percentage point or a percentage point lift in Canadian GDP, just like that. Only a few weeks away after the end of the federal election, it'll be happening historic.
Speaker 1:And it could still double in size in terms of its exports, maybe even more than double. But Shell did a study and they quantified all this to 100,000 jobs were created as a result of that project being constructed. 100,000 jobs across Canada, most of them in BC, most of the plurality of them in the region in the Northwest and a huge number of them Indigenous jobs. That's from one project. And I remember saying we're going to create 100,000 jobs from LNG. I was thinking from five plants and every other, like you know, again, lead balloon. Everybody thought it was a joke. Well, it turns out we create 100,000 jobs with just one project.
Speaker 2:Yeah Well, all those American LNG plants down at the Gulf of Mexico or Gulf of America or whatever it's called today, those 15 that maybe they had been built here. There are economists who attribute the current wealth and standing of the United States in no insignificant way to those very projects, because they have become, in only a few years, the world's biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas. And they're a wealthy country now.
Speaker 1:And we started our LNG journey in 2011. That's when we started. And how many LNG plants the Americans have then? None, none. And we are opening our first one in 2025, so 14 years later. And they have how many? In that period of time, they have become the biggest gas exporter in the world when they didn't have anything when we first started in British Columbia.
Speaker 1:What is the difference between the two jurisdictions? Regulatory uncertainty and endless, endless process that gets in the way of the. You know, one of the things I'm hopeful about in the election is that either one of these, both of the major parties are saying they're going to try and you know address the regulatory burden in the country in the federal civil service. I mean, I think it's 50% bigger or close to 50% bigger now than it was 10 years ago. It is going to be very, very hard work to go in there and try and get the public service focused again on the really big, important things at the same time that you're downsizing it.
Speaker 1:I don't know how they're going to get control of the regulatory environment when there isn't a civil service that's really focused on it. We had great control over it when I became the premier because I inherited a civil service, from my credit, from Gordon Campbell, and he'd left a really really solid you know focused group of people to work with, so it was pretty easy to kind of get that going. But whichever, whether it's Prime Minister Carney or Prime Minister Polyev, they have got one hell of a task ahead of them in trying to change the regulatory environment so that we can attract investment and juice up the economy with a civil service that is really messy, really big, really unfocused.
Speaker 1:What a big challenge it's a huge challenge, huge, and I don't underestimate the size of that. But I'm very hopeful that either one of them is really going to bring a lot of um, a lot of desire to get this done, like I think that both of them really want. They understand that it's a problem and they really want to try and change it. So I you know their determination is going to really count for something.
Speaker 2:Christy, one single piece of advice for the next prime minister to succeed to lead from his principles.
Speaker 1:We have to be done with the days of prime ministers and leaders in this country who only care about the polls and only care about hanging on to government. We can't afford that. Right now. We've got this tariff war with the United States. We've got an incredibly unstable world. We've got democracy under attack in every single corner of the world. Pretty much Climate change is looking us in the eye.
Speaker 1:I mean, we are really at a pivotal moment that people are going to look back to in history and like a Churchillian moment, and our next prime minister is, I hope, will fill those shoes and decide to say I'm going to be big and I'm going to be brave and I'm going to look this problem in the face and I'm going to try and do what's right for the country, not what's right for me and not what's right for my party.
Speaker 1:I'm going to do what's right for the future of our kids. And it's going to be a hell of a task. It's going to be a Herculean effort and I don't, in lots of ways, I don't really wish it on anybody, but at the same time, what an incredible opportunity for one of those men to make a difference that no prime minister has made in this country, probably since the Second World War. And you know, where there's challenge, there's opportunity. Where there's worry, there's also hope. And I hope that our next prime minister just decides to be big, to just take up that space and to really truly be brave and lead in Canada, because that is the only way we're going to make a difference, the only way that Canada is going to be. Canada is going to be a country that grows and thrives and prevails and has a chance to share all these great values that we have as a country with the world.
Speaker 2:Thanks for tuning into this special campaign edition episode of Power Struggle. I'm Stuart Muir and I hope you found today's conversation with Christy Clark as insightful as I did. We've got a lot to unpack when it comes to Canada's future, especially around energy, so we'll be back soon with more big questions and blunt answers. Until then, keep challenging what you hear, keep looking at the bigger picture and remember that the future of our country isn't just happening. It's being shaped every day by the choices we make. Thanks for listening and we'll see you next time on Power Struggle.
