Talking Energy Policy with the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson
This week our guest is the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Natural Resources.
The Government of Canada is working on some key energy policies, such as the clean energy incentives in the 2023 federal budget and a Sustainable Jobs Plan.
Peter and Jackie asked Minister Wilkinson these questions: How has the Sustainable Jobs Plan been received so far? Which provinces are joining the regional roundtables and what do you hope to learn from them? What is the progress on Canada’s Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) policy? Do you expect any CCS projects to be sanctioned? What is the latest news on the Federal Government’s proposed cap on oil and gas emissions? How is Canada competing with the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)? What is the status of the proposed East Coast green hydrogen projects?
Content referenced in this podcast:
- Government of Canada’s Sustainable Jobs Plan
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 192 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, and welcome back.
Jackie, we’ve had a lot of industry leaders, and industry association people on the show for the last year, but it’s been a while since we’ve had someone to talk about policy and someone from the government. When was the last time we did that?
Jackie Forrest:
It was back in April of 2022 when we had Minister Wilkinson, and that was a great podcast.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah, it was a great podcast. And guess what? We have him back today. So who better talk about federal government policy when it comes to environment and energy as the Honorable Minister of Natural Resources Canada, otherwise known as NRCan, Minister Jonathan Wilkinson? Welcome back.
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Thank you very much.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, it’s great to have you and we’re interested, in lots of topics right now around policy in Canada and energy. But maybe before we start that, you were the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and now you’re heading up Natural Resources. How are you feeling about where Canada is when it comes to energy and environmental policy? I mean, your government has brought out a lot of things over the last 18 months, and still, more are coming.
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Well, I feel pretty good about the work that’s been done across the country. I mean, of course, we had to go through the process of really putting together a comprehensive plan for addressing carbon emissions across the country. It is the first plan in Canada’s history that showed a pathway to achieving a target. And then, in the aftermath of that, we raised the target.
So I think from a planning perspective, and I would say that plan is one of the most detailed climate plans that exists anywhere in the world… It’s easy to have an ambitious target, but it’s another thing to actually have a plan as to how you’re going to achieve the target. But the backend of that really is, it’s not just about reducing emissions, obviously; it’s also about ensuring that Canada can create good jobs and economic opportunity as we move through with the rest of the world to transition to a lower carbon future.
And that’s the work that I’ve certainly been focused on since I made the change, or the Prime Minister asked me to make the change to become Minister of Natural Resources, is how do you actually do that and how do you do that in a regionally sensitive way? How do you do that in a way that ensures that there is an opportunity for folks that live in every province and territory in this country?
I’m very optimistic. We’re in the process of obviously implementing a lot of things and there’s definitely a lot of work to do, but I think we’re making good progress.
Peter Tertzakian:
Let’s talk about not only the progress but where we have to go and I’m going to key in on two phrases that you use. One is achieving emissions and jobs. The clean energy momentum is pretty solid even without policy. I mean things like wind and solar, the expectation that things are going to grow. Jobs is a big issue. And I think where are we going to find the labor skilled labor like electricians? Given that electrification is such a big theme. Can you talk about the work that you’re doing in terms of jobs and trying to figure out how we’re going to create the next generation of skilled workers for this?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Yeah, it’s a great question and I actually like the way you framed it. There’s been this long conversation about what happens as the economy transforms. And there have been people who have been concerned about job losses. I actually am more of the mind that I think your question is, which is the amount of work and the number of opportunities that a country like Canada has as we think about transitioning, if we’re smart and we’re thinking and we have a plan, the big problem we’re going to have is actually we’re going to have too many jobs and not enough people to fill them.
If you think about, as you say, electricians, if you think about the building stock in Canada. 70% of the buildings that are standing today will still be standing in 2050. If we want to be in a net-zero economy, we’ve got to actually go through retrofits of pretty much every one of those buildings. That’s tens of thousands of plumbers and electricians and carpenters and dry-wallers and everything else. So we need a plan for that. I think you heard that actually from Alex Pourbaix and Derek Evans, even with respect to the whole amount of work on CCUS and on hydrogen that is available in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan. So we need to be thoughtful about that.
And we are going to be competing for talent with other countries, other countries that have more challenging demographics than Canada. But I think it starts with ensuring that we were breaking down barriers for women to be in the labor force. And so that’s what the childcare program was fundamentally about. It was as much at least an economic policy as it was a social policy. It’s about engaging indigenous communities and especially indigenous youth and ensuring we’re equipping them with the skills to be able to participate fully in this society. And then it’s gearing some of our immigration measures to the jobs of the future that are in those building trades. They are in the areas like hydrogen and CCUS engineers and other kinds of things. In the mining space, I mean, there’s going to be an enormous demand for mining-related technology folks as we think about critical minerals.
We are really trying to work through that and that’s part of what that whole Sustainable Jobs Action Plan was about, was about what’s the economy of the future going to look like and how are we going to ensure that we can seize those opportunities.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, we will put a link to the plan. We actually talked about it briefly on the podcast a few weeks ago. Clean Energy Canada within your plan had an estimate that there would be a 3.4% annual growth in jobs in the clean energy sector over the next decade, nearly four times faster than the Canadian average. Your plan put forward 10 concrete actions that are kind of gearing us up to be able to do that, including getting the data and thinking about whether are we getting the schools and people in place to get the skilled workers we’re going to need.
I guess the plan’s been out for a number of weeks now. What are some of the reactions, and is it what you expected?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Well, I’ve actually been pretty pleased with the reactions. I mean, first and foremost, as you will know, we went fully away from the whole conversation around the just transition. I understand having grown up in Saskatchewan, and having worked for the province of Saskatchewan, that that connotes something on the prairies that is not always entirely helpful to the conversation and language matters. And so we talk a lot more about sustainable jobs, which is about, it’s forward-looking and it’s positive. It’s about actually creating economies that are actually going to provide wealth and prosperity. They’re going to provide good jobs for our kids. And I think that’s the way it landed. People looked at that and they said, “This is about actually building on a province by province, territory by territory basis, regional economies that are going to be strong, understanding what it is that the skills are going to be, and then planning to ensure that we’re ready.”
The labor movement certainly came out very strongly. I think many folks in the environmental community did, but so did most of the industry. I heard very positive things from the national business organizations. I heard positive things from the Pathways folks and a range of others. And to be honest, my counterparts in provinces and territories, including in Alberta, were generally pretty positive about the direction. And you will have seen Premier Smith; her language is the language of sustainable jobs too.
Peter Tertzakian:
Right. Right. Well, you’ve been holding round tables across the country to understand this issue, so that’s sort of the more formal way of listening and getting feedback on things like the Sustainable Jobs Fund. So how’re those round tables been going? What have you been learning? What are you planning for round tables going forward? Who’s participating? Maybe just speak about all that.
Jonathan Wilkinson:
So we started this process we call them the Regional Energy and Resource Tables, but they’re actually bilateral province by province. We now have nine of those tables going, and I hope that we will have the remaining four going in the next few months. Essentially it’s about talking to the province about what are your priorities from an economic perspective. Where do you see the great opportunities as we move forward, as our economy begins to change a little bit? And so the opportunities in Nova Scotia are going to be very different from the opportunities in British Columbia or in Alberta.
And so we started these in entrenches because having bilateral tables with every province and territory is a pretty heavy lift even for the federal government. The province that is probably most advanced at this stage in British Columbia. I hope within the next month or so to be announcing essentially a draft action plan that actually outlines not only where we’re going, but some concrete deliverables, including looking at some of the issues around aligning regulatory and permitting processes between the federal government and the province that will help us to move projects forward more quickly.
So we are making progress. Different provinces and territories are at different stages. But I think when British Columbia actually announces that action plan, you will see kind of where we’re heading with all of this, which I think is important. It’s about painting that picture of what the economic future looks like. We’ve been having discussions with industry and with labor and with indigenous peoples. They are a little bit different in different provinces and territories, the structure of that. And there will be lots more engagement going forward to ensure that the plan is a fulsome plan. It’s not just a government plan.
Jackie Forrest:
So, Minister, the plan was fairly high level. So is the idea you’ll have provincial plans that will have a lot more details, so you’re going to develop these regional plans?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Exactly, exactly. I think the British Columbia plan when it’s announced, will give you a better sense of where this is going. But it’s fundamentally about governments being responsible in terms of actually engaging with each other to develop these plans. Rather than the federal government doing something and the province doing something that may not be fully aligned, we should be thinking about what are the most important areas? How do we leverage the resources that we’re bringing to the table? How do we think about tax-related measures that we can do, and how do we align regulatory and permitting processes? I keep saying mining of critical minerals is one of these areas in almost every province and territory. It cannot take us 12 to 15 years to develop new minds in this country if we want to actually achieve the energy transition.
So there are lots of things that we should be working on together because it’s in all of our interests to be as efficient as possible and move as quickly as possible.
Peter Tertzakian:
You mentioned there were nine round tables, but there are more than nine provinces and territories. So is there anyone missing from the conversation here?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Yeah. We’re working through a few issues with some. Nunavut, we haven’t stood up a table because there’s some complexity around evolution that we’ve got to kind of work our way through indigenous participation and governance and all those things. Two of the others are Saskatchewan and Alberta. I’ve been having pretty constructive conversations with both provinces to try to get to a framework that’s going to work for them. Ultimately, this is not the federal government telling the provinces what to do. This is about finding ways where we’re going to be both comfortable about the way in which we’re going to move forward. And so I’ve been dealing with Minister Guthrie, but also with Minister Savage in Alberta, and those have been very, very productive conversations.
Jackie Forrest:
All right. Well, let’s talk then about carbon capture and storage. I’m sure you’ve had discussions with Alberta around that because Alberta has a lot of emissions and there’s been a lot of programs that have been rolled out, including the tax credit for carbon capture storage projects. In the fall economic statement, it talked about the fact there’s a $15 billion growth fund that could be used to help create some firmness in the carbon price, because even last year when you joined us, that was one of the problems in that there was uncertainty and volatility in the price, which made it more difficult to make these billion dollar multi-decade investments.
So can you give us an update on what’s going on with that and the feedback you’re having in terms of the do-ability of seeing some final investment decisions in this area within the next year or so?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Yeah, we’ve certainly been having lots of conversations not only with the Pathways folks, who obviously are very interested in this but many other industries that actually have a real interest in carbon capture and sequestration as one way to help them to reduce their emissions; fertilizer, for example, hydrogen production concrete, even in some cases steel manufacturing. And so the tax credit is really the foundation, although Canada does have some other tools.
The Strategic Innovation Fund is certainly available for investments in certain carbon capture and sequestration projects, and you may be hearing more about that as we move forward. The Canada Growth Fund is actually being stood up as we speak. And as you say, we’ve housed there the idea of contracts for differences to give people certainty around the carbon price. I hope that that will be moving within the next few months, which will help to solidify a number of the economic tools to deploy to get deployment going.
We’ve been talking to Alberta. I think Alberta is looking at how they can participate financially to ensure that the overall economics work, because of course carbon capture and sequestration is not a big revenue generator for the companies that are employing it. So they’re looking for some level of government participation alongside their own capital deployment.
So I think we’re getting pretty close. And we now have actually at the federal level, a dedicated process with the Pathways folks in particular, to try to figure out how we accelerate that.
Peter Tertzakian:
So the Pathways folks are those who are working with you specifically on oil sand emissions?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Yeah.
Peter Tertzakian:
Low carbon capture is essential really for reducing the emissions of many other heavy-emitting industries, industrial companies, and so on. So carbon capture was sort of the competitive battleground between the United States and Canada up until the Inflation Reduction Act, which sort of broadened out the competitive nature of how to reduce emissions. The inflation Reduction Act, of course, is very generous in a lot of the subsidies for encouraging the clean green energy transition. The Europeans, as we record this, have just announced today that they are going to get into this Green Subsidy Arms Race, as it’s being called.
So where are we at even more broadly than carbon capture in terms of how we’re viewing the competition for, I’ll call it, energy transitional industries, going forward?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Well, the Inflation Reduction Act was a pretty important piece of legislation. There were other pieces of legislation that the Americans brought forward that are not dissimilar, like the CHIPS Act and those kinds of things. But it was positive in the sense that it was the Americans finally making a real commitment to fighting climate change in a substantive way. So we and the Europeans and the Japanese all salute that work.
But I do think that the way in which they’ve gone about it, which is enormous spending. People say the price tag for the Inflation Reduction Act is 379 billion. I would say it’s not even close to that. It’s much higher. Some estimates are above a trillion dollars. It depends obviously on what timeframe and how you actually see the success of that in terms of various kinds of industrial enterprises. But it is putting pressure on Canada. It’s putting pressure on Europe. I had a meeting with the United Kingdom Minister at the Mining Conference in Toronto this week, and they have the same thing. The Japanese are exactly the same.
And part of it is the tools that the Americans are using are quite different. They are using a production tax credit, which essentially we have often paid part of the capital cost to get plants going. This is actually effectively paying for the ongoing operating costs, and it applies over a 15, 20, and 25-year period. So the numbers get very large, very quickly.
Canada, unfortunately, is not in the same position as the United States. The United States is the world’s reserve currency. They can sort of do whatever they want in terms of how big their deficit goes without paying a huge price or not a price that we would pay if we did the same thing and we had to deal with the bond rating agencies. So Canada’s going to have to be strategic. We can’t compete with the Americans and the level of funding that they can put into these things in every sector. We’re going to have to be very, very focused on the sectors where we think we actually have a comparative advantage and areas where we think we are right now fundamentally at a disadvantage.
We started to respond in the fall economic statement with the hydrogen tax credit and the clean tech deployment tax credit, but I would say there are other areas, including things like battery manufacturing and mineral processing, where right now you’re hearing a big, big sucking sound from the United States. And it’s not just from Canada, it’s from Europe too.
Jackie Forrest:
I want to ask a follow-up on that because I think in many cases, the investment tax credit can work, but there are a few specific areas where a production tax credit would be much better, and I don’t think we’re going to be able to compete with the US without it. One would be hydrogen. The other would be the manufacturing of clean energy. The investment in the upfront equipment, getting a 30% tax credit on that, is pretty small compared to getting a price for every widget you produce over the next 10 years.
So do you think we’re going to be able to compete for those manufacturing jobs and those hydrogen jobs if we don’t get the production tax credit?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Well, again, I think we’re going to have to be strategic about those areas that we think are fundamentally important for the future of Canada’s economy. And I would say that certainly we need to see some level of battery manufacturing and electric vehicle manufacturing, minerals processing in this country. I think hydrogen production is an enormous opportunity for many different provinces in this country. In Alberta it’s gas-based, but with carbon capture on the East coast, it’s actually wind and offshore wind to hydrogen.
So I do think we are going to have to be thoughtful and strategic and pick those places where we’re willing to make a bet. And that’s certainly a conversation I am having actively with the Minister of Finance. Ultimately, she is the one who makes the decisions about going to the budget, but it definitely is something that we are very live to.
Peter Tertzakian:
So you’re live to it and you’re thinking about it, but the domains, I’ll call them, within the energy landscape that Canada wants to be strategic in under the federal leadership of the policy, is not yet decided. Is that what I’m hearing?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
We’re trying to make sure that we are thoughtful about fully understanding the implications of the IRA, because Jackie’s right, it depends a little bit on the CapEx and OpEx as to how an investment tax credit works versus a production tax credit. And then we’re trying to sit down and make choices about which areas Canada really needs to be competitive.
As you know, Peter, there is no point in Canada making massive investments in becoming a wind turbine manufacturer. That game was won a long time ago. And the same thing is true with large-scale volume manufacturing of solar panels, by and large, except in some very specific instances. But there are areas like critical minerals where Canada doesn’t want to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water forevermore. If we are extracting critical minerals in this country, we want to process some of them here too. We want to make some of the batteries too. So we want those manufacturing jobs. We recognize the Americans will want to have some of that, and the Japanese will as well. Canada’s not going to get everything, but we certainly need to have an industrial base in this country.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, everyone’s going to be watching very carefully the budget this year and the energy space, I’m sure. We all watch it every year, but especially this year.
Let’s talk a bit about the cap on oil and gas emissions. There was a discussion document released last summer. There were a lot of concerns and controversy around that, those goals, and there were no actual goals for reductions, but the perception was that if we were to try to make the government’s goals of a 40 to 45% reduction by 2030, it would mean we would have to shut in production because we couldn’t make the reductions in time. What’s the update on that policy?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
So there was, as you say, a consultation about two different ways in which to actually implement a cap. And I think Environment Canada, which is the lead department in this area, is digesting a lot of the feedback and trying to figure out program design. But what I would say is we are working actively with the sector and discussing this, obviously, with the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan. And I would say that the discussions are probably most advanced with the oil sands folks, with the Pathways folks, but we’re also talking to Cap and others.
Everybody agrees that we need to reduce emissions. Most of the large-scale companies in Alberta have committed to net zero by 2050. So the issue is how fast can you go? How big are the increments? And what are the creative ways that you can try to solve for maybe a gap between what we have put in the Emissions Reduction Plan and what the sector thinks is doable within the timeframe? And I would say the Pathways folks, by and large, are of the view that what we’re asking them to do is quite doable, but it’s a little bit longer than the timeframe that we’ve got.
And so what we’re doing is having a conversation about them, is how can we create or solve that problem? Instead of just going into our corners and saying, you have to do this and you have to do that, it’s about trying to creatively come up with solutions that will work for the climate, but will also work for the industry. You are absolutely right that the idea is that we shouldn’t be shutting down production at a time when global demand has not begun to decline. And I think most folks who are watching this market, Peter’s the expert on all of this, but wouldn’t expect to see significant declines in the demand for oil globally until at least mid-2035 or around there.
So shutting in production doesn’t make sense either. So we’re trying to solve that problem as we work through it and we’ll see how far we get.
Peter Tertzakian:
And the oil sands are only one segment of the overall large oil and gas industry. The conventional side is big that spans four provinces, British Columbia dominantly, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and of course, there’s Newfoundland and Labrador on the other side.
Jackie Forrest:
Don’t forget Manitoba.
Peter Tertzakian:
Well, Manitoba has a little bit as well. But let’s move to the other side of the country, to Newfoundland and Labrador. There has been a lot of talk about the Hydrogen Project that is underway there with the offshore wind into renewable green hydrogen. Can you talk a bit about where that’s at and how the latest policy thinking is on that?
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Well, there’s a lot of interest on the East Coast, both in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia on using wind as a way in which to generate electricity and using then electrolysis to actually produce hydrogen that would be shipped to Germany. As you know, the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor were here not that long ago, and we signed an agreement with them to work together to accelerate that work, and ideally to have shipments going to Europe as early as 2025, which is pretty soon.
There are, as I say, a number of different projects being developed. The one that has made the most progress, I would say, is the EverWind Project, where they have now gotten environmental approval from the Government of Nova Scotia. They have just announced a memorandum of understanding to develop an offtake agreement with Uniper, which is a big German energy company. And the beginning phases of most of those projects start with onshore wind, where they already have sites that they can actually develop.
The second part of it is offshore wind, where Canada hasn’t done a lot historically, but many countries have. And there, there are some regulatory changes that the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia need to make together. And we’re in the process of actually doing that, and I hope to be able to introduce legislation into Parliament before the summer.
Peter Tertzakian:
Well, thank you very much, Minister. We know your time is limited, and thanks for joining us again on our podcast. We look forward to hearing more about hydrogen, jobs in the sustainable economy, and everything else that is affected by energy and environment policy. So Minister Jonathan Wilkinson of Natural Resources Canada, thanks very much.
Jonathan Wilkinson:
Thank you very much. Always happy to chat.
Jackie Forrest:
Thank you, Minister.
Well, that was a great discussion with the Minister, Peter. Let’s talk about some of the things that we heard.
Peter Tertzakian:
Well, it’s interesting the whole jobs plan that’s been put forward because this whole thing started out with the just transition and the effect that energy transition and energy transition policy was going to have on oil and gas workers and their communities. But the Sustainable Jobs Plan goes far beyond that and really addresses the vital issue of where are we going to find the labor.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah, I mean, I think that started out being controversial, but I think everyone can agree, and he said there have been a lot of agreements even from provinces like Alberta, that we do need a lot more skills training to get the clean energy workers that we’re going to need to get even close to some of these goals that we have.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah, because the shortage of materials is one thing, things like all the vital minerals and metals that need to go into this sustainable economy of the future, but getting the people is even more vital.
Jackie Forrest:
Now, another topic was the upcoming spring budget. We’re all calling it the Canadian version of the IRA. He told us, don’t expect it to be exactly like the IRA because we can’t afford to compete completely. He definitely made me think that production tax credits may not be there, or if they’re going to be there, it’ll be for some very select areas. I get what he’s saying; we can’t do it all. But I do think that will be disappointing for some folks because, without the production tax credits, it will be difficult in some areas for us to compete.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah, well, we certainly can’t do it all. The Americans have taken a very much shotgun approach of sprinkling subsidies all over the energy landscape. And what I heard was that ours is going to be much more of a rifle approach, pick our spots. We don’t know what those spots are, so we will await the budget to hear what they may be as we go forward.
Jackie Forrest:
All right. Well, the cap on oil and gas emissions has definitely been a topic we’ve covered on this podcast, and we have some real concerns with it. So, what did you think about what you heard from Minister Wilkinson?
Peter Tertzakian:
Well, there were a lot of references to Pathways, which is the oil sands consortia of six companies. But the oil sands are only one part, one sector of the broader oil and gas industry, as I mentioned earlier in the conversation with the Minister. The conventional business is not like oil sands, which is heavily concentrated in and around the Fort McMurray area, and the challenges of emissions reduction in the conventional area all the way from the natural gas-rich province of British Columbia, all the way down into Southeast Saskatchewan, which is much more oily, the challenges are much bigger.
The recognition that those challenges are there has set in, and the discussions are much less advanced than the Pathways side and the oil sand side of the emissions reductions, but they’re underway. And so it will be interesting to see how the policy shakes out on emissions caps as it relates to the conventional side.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah. I mean, I heard some really positive things there. One is that they don’t plan to shut down production. And so they’re working with industry, with the provinces to figure out, okay, what’re the appropriate goals so that we don’t end up shutting in production? So that was a relief to hear.
He also talked about carbon capture storage and some of the policies that have been put in place. I tried to put him on the spot to say, “Are there going to sanction this year?” He didn’t answer that. But the fact that they’re setting up this office for the growth fund, the $15 billion for now, and he’s talking about the fact it’s still a couple of months away, that is slower than when it was initially announced. But he talked about the fact, the contract for differences, and trying to create certainty in the carbon price, which is definitely the big barrier here for sanctions in my view. So it was good to hear that that’s coming.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah, yeah. Well, one more thing on the production side. The Minister talked about how global demand is not receding, and that’s true, but the bigger issue for me is not global demand, but it’s really the need for oil and gas within the Western Alliance. We are, as we’ve said many times, and we talk many times about the geopolitical situation at war, a proxy war with the Russians, and our energy supply to the Western Alliance is about 20% of the needs. It’s a significant fraction, and-
Jackie Forrest:
20% of NATO’s consumption is what our product is.
Peter Tertzakian:
That’s right. And so Canada is an essential part, and to encumber that right now, it spills over into strategic military issues.
Jackie Forrest:
All right with that, I think we’re going to wrap it up. Thank you to our listeners for following the podcast. If you like this podcast, please write us on the app that you listen to and tell someone else about us.
Announcer:
For more ideas and insights, visit arcenergyinstitute.com.
