Canadian Energy, Politics and Western Alienation
This week our podcast was recorded at the Bennet Jones Lake Louise World Cup Business Forum. Our podcast guest is the Honourable A. Anne McLellan, who was a speaker at the event and is currently Senior Advisor, Public Policy Group at Bennet Jones.
Ms. McLellan joined Bennet Jones after a distinguished career in federal politics. Ms. McLellan served four terms as the Liberal Member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre, holding numerous Minister positions during that time and was Deputy Prime Minister from 2003 to 2006.
Here are some of the questions that Jackie and Peter asked Ms. McLellan: How does the United States Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) impact Canadian clean energy? Do you think Canada should develop plans to increase LNG exports to help Europe with their energy shortage? How do you view the growing divide between Western provinces and Ottawa? Any thoughts on Alberta’s Sovereignty Act?
Please review our disclaimer at: https://www.arcenergyinstitute.com/disclaimer/
Check us out on social media:
X (Twitter): @arcenergyinst
LinkedIn: @ARC Energy Research Institute
Subscribe to ARC Energy Ideas Podcast
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Amazon Music
Spotify
Episode 179 transcript
Disclosure:
The information and opinions presented in this ARC Energy Ideas podcast are provided for informational purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer link in the show notes.
Announcer:
This is the ARC Energy Ideas podcast with Peter Tertzakian and Jackie Forrest, exploring trends that influence the energy business.
Jackie Forrest:
Welcome to the ARC Energy Ideas podcast. I’m Jackie Forrest.
Peter Tertzakian:
And I’m Peter Tertzakian. Welcome back. Well, Jackie, it is a really Christmasy scene out there at Lake Louise. We are having a great day today at the Bennett Jones Lake Louise Business Forum, which is held every year. It’s really an amazing one day conference. This is the 20th year they’ve been doing it.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah. Yeah, it’s a great day. We’ve been learning a lot and we’ve been talking to some really interesting people. So we thought we would talk to one of them on our podcast this week.
Peter Tertzakian:
And she is a wonderful guest who was up on stage earlier this morning.
Jackie Forrest:
Anne McLellan, Senior Advisor, Public Policy at Bennett Jones. Welcome.
Anne McLellan:
Thank you so much. It’s great to be here.
Peter Tertzakian:
Well, it’s great to have you. I mean, former Deputy Prime Minister from 2003 to 2006 serving under Jean Chretien, under Paul Martin.
Anne McLellan:
Yeah.
Peter Tertzakian:
I don’t know how many cabinet ministries you’ve been in. Certainly you’ve been with four?
Anne McLellan:
Four, probably.
Anne McLellan:
Public Safety. I was the first Public Safety minister. That portfolio was created in a way to model Homeland Security in the United States after 9/11. And I have watched with great interest the hearings in Ottawa over this past number of weeks in relation to the invocation of the Emergencies Act because that used to be in my file, in my portfolio.
Peter Tertzakian:
Right. Well, we can talk about certainly, well, we are going to talk about politics because we have the former Deputy Prime Minister, and you’ve had an illustrious career. But before we get there, I think our audience would love to hear how you were thinking when you were a law student back in your Dalhousie days, and then you went on to King’s College in London. Maybe give us a sense of what you were thinking back then as a young lawyer-to-be. Did you ever think you would become the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada?
Anne McLellan:
No, and there are a number of reasons for that. One, I was a female child born in the ’50s, we don’t need to say when, on a dairy farm outside Truro, Nova Scotia. So I don’t think, probably as I was growing up in the ’60s, I thought I was going to be Deputy Prime Minister. But the one thing I will say is that I was brought up in a family. My mother and father always insisted that my brother and sister and I watch the six o’clock news. And that was easy because we only had one channel.
Peter Tertzakian:
I know. We had the CBC.
Anne McLellan:
And then we got two, CBC and CTV. So that was very exciting.
Peter Tertzakian:
The six o’clock news with Tommy Hunter.
Anne McLellan:
Yeah, exactly. Friday nights, Tommy Hunter. So they insisted. We always listened to the news. We were quizzed on public affairs. My mother and father were both involved with both the provincial and federal Liberal parties in Nova Scotia. So we were brought up in a family where politics was regularly discussed. So I think I always had that interest, but I can’t say that I drew a direct line between growing up in that kind of family and then ultimately being elected as a Liberal MP from Edmonton, Alberta.
Peter Tertzakian:
Oh yeah.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah, I think that’s important. I mean, there’s not very many Liberals in western Canada that have been elected over so many years, so you have a unique perspective.
Anne McLellan:
There were few more. In ’93, we elected four Liberal Members of Parliament from Edmonton, and that was exciting. But by the time I came to the end of my political career in ’06, I was the one person left standing, so to speak. But anyway, all that to say that I have always had an interest in public life. We were brought up, you don’t survive, certainly in the ’50s, and I think at least early ’60s in rural Canada without a strong sense of community, helping each other, working together. If someone’s barn burns down or their animals die, whatever, you come together to fix the problem. And so that was how I was brought up.
Peter Tertzakian:
Well, I want to talk about coming together and fixing the problem in Canada and our domestic geopolitics. But you were on the stage this morning talking geopolitics from an international perspective. We had George Friedman, who gave us a couple of hours of his wisdom this morning. What did you hear this morning? And by the way, to our audience, we can hear the din of the hotel here in the background. What did you hear this morning that intrigued you, concerned you?
Anne McLellan:
One of the things that I completely agree with, which he said, and whether implicitly or explicitly, over and over again, geography matters. It does. Russia invading Ukraine is about geography. The United States and Canada supporting Ukraine as fiercely as we do is also about geography because we’re part of NATO in western Europe, and western Europe is our friend, right? And geography has, for a very long time, mattered to Canada because of our big neighbor to the south of us. And as I said this morning, that can be both good and bad, but mostly good. I think most Canadians would say if we were going to choose a neighbor long term, the United States of America is probably the neighbor we would choose. And yes, the Trump years were disruptive, but we lived through those because I think modern nation states need to be resilient as much as anything. So that I look at this, and I took from his comments that geography matters.
I took from his comments that actually … now, he thinks we should look at the world in 30 year chunks. And that gives you enough time to see what’s happening and whether there are big major, I don’t like the word cataclysmic, but whatever, things happening, and whether at the end of that 30 year chunk, you see a major disruption of some sort. And what interests me about that is that the 30 year chunk that we will come to is really quite truthfully, Net-Zero 2052, ’52, whatever. What will the world look like if we are committed to Net-Zero 2050? That’s a 30 year chunk.
Will we have replaced oil? Will we have replaced gas? Is it hydrogen? Is it nuclear? Is it something else that George was speculating about from space, which kind of scared me a lot, actually. The weaponization of space, I don’t think is what we need to think about. But having said that, you have to be open. So I thought, okay, 30 years, George, that’s going to take us to the end of Net-Zero 2050.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, okay. With those topics in mind, we’re talking about the U.S., we’re talking about the clean energy and what’s needed to get to Net-Zero. Let’s talk a little bit about the American Inflation Reduction Act, oddly named as it is.
Anne McLellan:
Which is completely misnamed.
Jackie Forrest:
Yes. Yeah, it’s a clean energy package. I know there’s some other things in there too.
Anne McLellan:
But I think they had to do that for Joe Manchin.
Jackie Forrest:
Right. And for the politics of it all, as you know. Sometimes names matter. So what does that mean for Canada? I mean, the Americans now have a real supportive policy, and I think you’re going to see a lot of investment in clean energy there.
Anne McLellan:
Absolutely. And the bill actually should have been called the Clean Energy Act, but I think the White House knew, and Chuck Schumer, Democratic leader in the Senate knew if he called it a clean energy bill, Joe and others still in some coal country would have a bit of a problem. So they decided to call it the Inflation Reduction Act, which kind of everybody could get behind. But really it’s $367 billion of money, of incentives, a lot of carrots, some sticks, but to propel the innovation, discovery and maturation of clean energy in the United States.
Peter Tertzakian:
I agree. And that’s a lot of money. The other observation about it though is that I think it was actually mentioned this morning that the IRA is a package on steroids, the largest stimulus bill in history.
Anne McLellan:
Yeah.
Peter Tertzakian:
Minister Freeland, Minister of Finance Freeland, a couple of weeks ago, tabled the fall economic statement, said we’re going to commit to this. In your experience in Canadian halls of government or the tables of what’s going on in Ottawa, I mean, we don’t have anything right now that concretely and clearly is competitive to that policy. So what we’re seeing, Jackie and I, from our perch is, I mean companies, solar companies, others are basically saying, well, we’re going to pack up and move to the United States. So whereas from a climate perspective, the American package is certainly impressive and aggressive. But here we are in Canada. How long is it going to take for your knowledge of how politics and government works in Canada to sort keep up with this?
Anne McLellan:
Well, first of all, I don’t think we can think that Canada will match dollar for dollar. We simply can’t do that.
Peter Tertzakian:
No.
Anne McLellan:
They’re an economy, a country 10 times our size.
Peter Tertzakian:
But we’re not allocating $36 billion, a 10th, right?
Anne McLellan:
That’s right. But that’s why everybody in Ottawa is seized with this issue. And Chrystia Freeland sent the signal in the fall economic statement that we will be back, we will be back in the budget in March or April, probably March, because people are telling her she can’t wait till April.
Peter Tertzakian:
Right.
Anne McLellan:
And that they are very aware of the fact that they need to figure out what a package would look like. They will increase, I think, I think. I mean, you’re always wrong when you predict.
Peter Tertzakian:
But I think for our audience, because we’re so fortunate to have you as someone who has been at the highest level of governments for so long. So, my experience with how government works is that the package is introduced by the political side of government. It’s tossed over to the bureaucrats and said, okay, here, go implement this. And that takes I don’t know how long. So meanwhile, 18 months, two years goes by, and we have a whole exodus of capital from Canada down south.
Anne McLellan:
You’re right. And the one thing I will say is that everybody has been into Ottawa to make that point. And I think that the Minister, her Deputy, Michael Sabia, and others, the PMO are seized with that concern. Jonathan Wilkinson, Francois-Philippe Champagne, and Steven Guilbeault. I think they’re all seized with the urgency of this. That is why, for example, in the fall economic statement, Minister Freeland announced the clean hydrogen credit, which actually, as I understand it, although you have to work out all the bells and whistles, and I’m not a tax person or an accountant, that our clean hydrogen tax credit is 40%. America’s is 30. But what I don’t know, and I haven’t done the work, is does the U.S. have a few more bells and whistles than we do or whatever? But she announced that in the fall economic statement, and now they are, it is true, going out to consult. We know the 40%, but they’re going out to consult on what is included, which is key to so many people in the hydrogen space.
But to your point, they know they can’t wait. They’re hearing that from everybody. And look, they are consulting right now on what that enhanced tax credit will look like when she announces it. But having said that, you’re right. Government processes take time. Budgets take time, and you have to get agreement at least from some of your colleagues around the cabinet table. You never have to get them all, but you have to get the ones that matter. In this case, it would be Wilkinson, Champagne. Well, obviously Freeland herself, Guilbeault and PMO, right?
Jackie Forrest:
All right. Well, let’s hope that that happens faster than it typically does. They have to see it’s important.
Anne McLellan:
No, I agree. I agree. It’s important.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, let’s talk about LNG. We’re talking about clean energy. LNG, some people would call that clean energy.
Anne McLellan:
And some don’t.
Jackie Forrest:
Other people debate that it doesn’t. But would the Liberals support LNG and a growth in LNG, do you think, because Europe needs more energy? If we don’t build these LNG terminals, other people will. They’re making deals with the Middle East and probably we will see more LNG going out of the United States to fill the void. What can Canada do, or should we be doing more?
Anne McLellan:
I don’t think we should focus on LNG off the east coast. Now, again, not in the short term, right? I just don’t see it, unless you’re bringing U.S. gas up to liquefy in Saint John, that would probably be Repsol and the Irvings, right? Well, it would have to be. So, I think we focus on the west coast, where we have Japan and Korea, and we know that they are interested in LNG just as they are in hydrogen, quite truthfully. And we are close to getting facilities in Kitimat. Now 2025, that’s a number that’s out there. I’m not predicting that because things do seem to take a little longer, whether it’s construction issues, community issues of whatever kind. But I actually think our best bet for the next decade is probably to focus on getting LNG to two very logical markets who want LNG. Right now, they also are committed to 2050, but they want LNG as part of their mix. They’ve got nuclear, and I would like to see them build out more. They want LNG. They’ve got some, they want more. And they’re also putting a big bet on hydrogen.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, okay. I mean, we can debate about the east coast. People have different views on if that’s economical or not.
Anne McLellan:
Yes. No, no, that’s true.
Jackie Forrest:
But let’s talk about the west coast. We have the one phase of the first project. We really don’t have a lot of LNG coming. Do you foresee a future where there’d be more LNG leaving our west coast?
Anne McLellan:
Well, I think since we’ve spent all the time, effort, and money to get LNG Canada up, and of course there are a couple of other smaller, Woodfibre and Cedar, and they’re interesting, as is LNG Canada, because they have large west coast indigenous participation. I would say open a bracket and say message to people who want to develop resource projects in this country. The Haisla are very supportive of these projects, and they actually, I think, are the majority owners of Cedar. So I would say that we need to think about what we can build out there because we’ve invested a lot of time and effort and money. So can we get that second phase of LNG Canada up and running, which would double the capacity, two more trains, I think.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yes, that’s right.
Anne McLellan:
So it would double the capacity to be able to ship LNG to Asia. And people quite rightly say we’re looking for a signal from the government of Canada that they see this as a good thing, that in fact, we can, even though we haven’t got the first phase up and running yet, but that we can start, because you need to start planning. And I know some of this work is going on, but I think the government of Canada needs to send a signal, my own view, that LNG, yes, it’s a fossil fuel, but it is one that has less carbon intensity than coal and oil. And it can help nations who are our friends, which is not unimportant here, right?
Peter Tertzakian:
No. It’s hugely important. I mean, we tend to characterize Canada, let’s take our oil production for some 4.3, 4.4 million barrels a day on a hundred million. But actually, if you look at our oil and gas production in the context of NATO and our western alliance friends, I mean we’re like 25 plus percent.
Anne McLellan:
Yes, we’re big.
Peter Tertzakian:
I mean, this is not just an emissions issue. It’s a security issue.
Anne McLellan:
Yes.
Peter Tertzakian:
There was a lot of talk about that this morning, but that’s a whole subject on its own.
Anne McLellan:
No, but can I just say that’s really important, and I think that what you hear, say, from the Prime Minister, not as much as I would like, but framing some of these issues as national security issues. And I think that’s what we need to start thinking about because these are national security issues for us and our allies, whether it’s China, who may be the authoritarian power creating trouble, whether it’s Russia, authoritarianism seems to be on the move, and therefore we need to think of this as how we help secure the national security of our friends and allies.
Peter Tertzakian:
Right. Okay. I want to come back to that.
Anne McLellan:
Okay.
Peter Tertzakian:
But I want to get back to LNG. There’s NG, which is natural gas.
Anne McLellan:
Right.
Peter Tertzakian:
You need NG before you can get the L.
Anne McLellan:
To LNG, yes. Yes.
Peter Tertzakian:
Okay. So there’s all this talk about LNG terminals, but actually the production of the natural gas, the producers are getting a lot of mixed signals right now, because if they can’t grow their production to fill the pipe to the LNG terminal, it’s all kind of moot. So we know that the upstream emissions are about what, 27% Jackie?
Jackie Forrest:
27% of Canadians’ total emissions, right.
Peter Tertzakian:
So we’ve got the Pathways Alliance dealing with the oil sands, but the natural gas producers and the conventional oil producers are scratching their head and going, well, wait a minute. These super aggressive emissions targets are inconsistent with the production growth that is required to feed the LNG terminals.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah, and there’s a cap coming along.
Peter Tertzakian:
Who’s putting all this in context to have some sort of a holistic energy policy that meshes well together? It just seems like there’s a whole bunch of siloed thinking going on.
Anne McLellan:
No, and I think we need focus. We need to frame the issues correctly. I would also say to the private sector, you better be investing in CO2 capture, methane. You had better be putting the money into the clean tech investment. And if you do that, oh my gosh, look at Pathways. Because I’m very interested in how, quite honestly, almost every door you would want to walk through in Ottawa is open to them. And it is because they made the commitment, one first, to work together. Let’s all work together, right? So the oil sands decided they would work together.
And then they decided we want to be in business in 2050, and we’re not sure what that business exactly looks like, right? There could be some big transformative change, but we’ll be using our oil for something else that we haven’t even thought of. But we want to be there because we know we’ve got a lot of the stuff in the ground. So we’re going to make the commitment to 2050. They made the commitment to 2030, and they’ve gone on record honestly saying, this will be ambitious and hard, but government, if you help us, we will work with you. And that is why, and I’m not suggesting that everything is sweetness and light, because of course there will be tough negotiations, but people need to take on board the fact that companies must invest in clean tech. And government will be there to help with the costs if you make those commitments.
Peter Tertzakian:
I’m just going to footnote this because it could take us down a whole other rabbit hole.
Anne McLellan:
Yeah, right.
Peter Tertzakian:
I’m going to footnote too that the conventional oil and natural gas business is not geographically concentrated like the oil sands.
Anne McLellan:
No, you are right.
Peter Tertzakian:
It stretches from northeast B.C. to southeast Saskatchewan into Manitoba, and the complexities of reducing upstream emissions is much harder, and we don’t have to have the answers here on this podcast.
Anne McLellan:
No, but it’s a good point. It’s a very good point.
Peter Tertzakian:
This is where the policy has to mesh, because as I said, you can’t have the L without the NG.
Anne McLellan:
No, no.
Jackie Forrest:
And we don’t set the price of these commodities, so we have to out-compete. So if the Americans aren’t requiring these things, it’s harder for us to compete.
Anne McLellan:
But the Americans will require them. The Americans, the government will actually pay, incentivize in a more generous way than we have. That’s the difference. So that you’ll see clean tech used in natural gas production and in oil production in the U.S. probably somewhat, maybe faster, but we’ll see. We’ve already talked about incentives and this government will do more. Where they actually come down in what areas, I think remains to be seen. And I think the natural gas producers, this government, I wouldn’t say has embraced natural gas.
Peter Tertzakian:
No, no, no.
Anne McLellan:
The way they have some other groups.
Peter Tertzakian:
So you want to talk provincial politics?
Anne McLellan:
Not really, but yes, I will. I will. It’s a kind of mixed up subject these days.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, the topic of western alienation has been an issue here for a long time.
Anne McLellan:
It has.
Jackie Forrest:
And there’s a lot of root causes to it. I think one issue is the whole climate change legislation and the fact that there’s a lot of emissions in western Canada. We’ve got our agricultural sector, that’s about 10% of all Canadian emissions, the power sector, most of the emissions from electricity are coming from western Canada today, it’s about 10% of Canada’s emissions. Of course, our oil and gas sector, which is almost 30%. So the burden of all of this climate policy seems to be falling on the western economies. Do you think that enough is going in to understand what is the cost of these economies, of these policies, and is that really sustainable? Because we’re seeing a rise of politicians like Danielle Smith who are using fighting Ottawa, fighting back about these policies, hurting our economy.
Anne McLellan:
Unfortunately, I think that’s very short term thinking, and I understand why politicians think short term. I used to be one. You think in four year chunks, or in her case, you think in a six month chunk. I actually think, as I said, there are realities in the world that Alberta and Canada cannot stand in the face of. One is the clean energy transition. One is Net-Zero 2050. One is the United States of America and how they are approaching this. And we can have a long conversation about carrots and sticks and all of that with America. But I think as political leaders, elected officials, and I know it’s hard, we actually have to stop the politics of grievance, whatever party it is, whoever it is, and think about looking forward, what is going to be demanded of all of us to make these huge, great big transitions?
And it’s not only the energy transition. Look at the social transition that’s happening in our country in relation to, for example, the inclusion of indigenous peoples in a meaningful, sustainable way in projects of all kinds in this country. Indigenous Canadians, I was chatting with someone in Ottawa the other evening who heads up an indigenous clean tech group. They are driving as communities clean tech. They are developing venture capital funds to invest in clean tech and in clean ag tech. And that’s a social revolution. So we have to be on board, and we will be washed away if we try to stand in the face of all those transitions.
Peter Tertzakian:
Okay, so let me pick up on that here. You listed a whole series of issues and things that Jackie and I like. We’re not going to debate you on climate change or any those things.
Anne McLellan:
No, of course not.
Peter Tertzakian:
But one of the things in your list under this issue of social is affordability of energy, energy security, the inability of a large proportion of lower income strata in this country not able to put food on the table. Those are the realities post February, 2022, and the Ukraine war, and inflation and other overall nastiness that we heard about this morning from the speakers. So how do we balance the issue of things like addressing climate change with the very short termism of potential social unrest?
Anne McLellan:
That’s what good leaders have to do. They have to balance and understand the short term pressures while understanding where we need to go to get to 2030 and 2050.
Peter Tertzakian:
Is our federal government doing that, do you think?
Anne McLellan:
They struggle with that, just like every level of government. The city of Calgary struggles with that. The city of Edmonton, the city of Toronto struggles with that. Vancouver struggles with that every day. So in fact, it requires people, and I actually think we’re capable of that. Did you hear what George Friedman said? I thought one of the most interesting things he said was that Canadians aren’t weak. We hit the beaches at Juno, right? We are not weak. We have the ability to do this. We have the ability to help people short term, and that’s what the government of Canada’s done, and that’s what Premier Smith did this week. I mean, there are people we have to take on board. There are people suffering, right? But you target it. For God’s sake, the three of us don’t need any help. So target the measures to the people who need it to get through.
But difference between energy transition and Net-Zero 2050, those are long term transitions. Inflation should be back to between two to 3% by the end of ’23, early ’24, right? So that in fact, that’s a hard time. But we are resilient enough as a people, thinking short term and helping those most in need, to get through that. Inflation is not going to be with us, we hope, for more, at least beyond 2% to 3% more than 18 months, max two years.
Recession. A recession is a short term thing. We may not even have one, or maybe we will, and the world may. But in fact, that’s short term, whereas the big transitions that politicians and the private sector need to work together on and figure out are the ones that are going to take that chunk that Friedman was talking about, the 30 years.
Jackie Forrest:
So you’re talking about the fact, yeah, we need to put the bandaid on, as we are in short term…
Anne McLellan:
Of course, of course.
Jackie Forrest:
…and the other thing is the long term. So I think one of the other issues that’s created a lot of alienation with the west is how hard it is to build projects and how political the Assessment Act is, and the fact you can go through five years. At the end of the day, the Minister of Environment can just cancel your project and you can put hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. And that’s going to affect our ability to do clean energy in this country as well.
Anne McLellan:
Oh yes.
Jackie Forrest:
Those same problems. So are we looking at that? That’s a huge problem for our country to transition our energy system.
Anne McLellan:
Oh, absolutely. Permitting the regulatory regime, and then permitting within that regime, which is the end goal, to get that permit of the regime, obviously that is an issue. And that’s why I was heartened to see that in the fall economic statement, Minister Freeland put $1.6 billion to improve the environmental assessment process. Now, I have been encouraging everyone I talk to in the private sector, industrial sectors, other governments, to make sure you’re making the point to Ottawa that that money needs to go to upscale your workforce and make sure they have the expertise they need to understand the complexity of the projects and the files, and that you are doing what is necessary to shorten those timelines. That is what is that $1.6 billion should go for. And if it doesn’t, it’s wasted money.
But people in Ottawa, because look, I mean the pressures, the stakeholders. You two know this, who are in Ottawa every day saying, you can’t do this or you must do this, right? That you need to keep the focus on. This is an energy security issue. This is a national security issue. We want to help our allies around the world. That means we have to do some things better. And one of the things we have to do better is regulatory regime structure and permitting.
Jackie Forrest:
And Anne, I will say there’s some glimmer of hope, not only in the fall economic update, but Chrystia Freeland, when she was at the Brookings Institution, mentioned the fact that we need some reform there.
Anne McLellan:
But you can’t take the pressure off.
Jackie Forrest:
I know that Mr. Wilkinson has talked about round tables to solve it. So I’m happy to hear there’s some things happening, but we just need to be urgent.
Anne McLellan:
But we have to do this. It seems to me that the pressure is now much more acute in terms of understanding these processes. And I think the war helped us understand that. And I’m not speaking about it in the past tense, unfortunately, still ongoing. But I think the war has helped us understand that. And I think just that China has helped us understand that in terms of how they’ve been trying to tie up critical minerals in Africa and Latin America. So all that to say that I think everybody agrees that we have to fix the regulatory regimes that we have in this country, collaboration between two, if not three levels of government.
The other thing I would say is that smart private sector people know the communities in which they will build projects, or close to the communities, and they will be, in some cases indigenous, in some cases they’ll be non-indigenous. And smart business people will be spending the time and effort, and money quite truthfully, to build the relationships, to deal with the questions that are legitimate, and do a much, much better job. And that’s part of that social transition that I’m talking about. You can’t stomp all over community’s interests anymore. You have to take them on board in a meaningful way. And I applaud the companies who are doing that, and it makes me as angry as them when they have done all that good work, and somehow they still get caught up in a community fight.
Peter Tertzakian:
Well, speaking of fight, first of all, you’ve been very gracious with your time. But we would be remiss if we did not take a moment to get your opinion as a political and legal expert on Premier Smith’s Bill One, the Sovereignty Act, and what it means.
Anne McLellan:
Look, this answer will not surprise you. I would not go there as a piece of legislation. I think, I’m not sure it inflames the situation in terms of Ottawa, because Ottawa’s taken this on board. It is one other issue that they have to deal with among a lot of issues, including geopolitical issues. And I would say that it is distracting for all of us in Alberta, and it’s distracting for potential investors in Alberta potentially. And we don’t need that. We need to encourage investment from Japan, from Korea, whether it’s hydrogen or other things. These are very structured societies, Japan, Korea, for example. They are rules based and they don’t like it if you can’t tell them which rules will define the game.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah. So you live in Edmonton?
Anne McLellan:
Yeah.
Peter Tertzakian:
What are you, I mean, do people in Edmonton care about the Sovereignty Act?
Anne McLellan:
They care in the sense that they think it’s distracting, and potentially because we are going to be the hydrogen hub, the first hydrogen hub in the industrial heartland. It’s distracting of potential investment. But in terms of, I walk out on the street and people would just shrug their shoulders and say, we have people here lined up at food banks. Why don’t we focus, and maybe to Danielle Smith’s credit, that’s what she did earlier this week in terms of intervening and providing some targeted relief to the poorest, the financial help. That’s what people care about. The Sovereignty Act, I would say, doesn’t matter very much except to maybe some part of her base.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah, I would agree with you, Anne, too that investors are now, all this carbon policy that they were going to invest in, that’s all on hold because they’re uncertain about it.
Anne McLellan:
I know. It’s very bad.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, you’ve been very gracious with your time. Thank you so much for joining our podcast. Thank you so much for joining.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah, thanks.
Anne McLellan:
Thank you. It was my pleasure.
Peter Tertzakian:
No, it’s been delightful having you, and a shoutout to Bennett Jones and the Bennett Jones Business Forum.
Anne McLellan:
Thank you.
Peter Tertzakian:
The firm is a hundred years old, and boy, what a great turnout.
Anne McLellan:
Yeah. And this is a special event for the firm, and I thank you both for being here.
Peter Tertzakian:
Okay.
Jackie Forrest:
And thank you to our listeners. If you enjoyed this podcast, please rate us on the app that you listen to and tell someone else about it.
Announcer:
For more ideas and insights, visit arcenergyinstitute.com.
