Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Wisenthal. Unfortunately my co host, Tracy Elloway is
Speaker 1: out today, so it'll just be me solo. But it's
Speaker 1: going to build on some conversations that Tracy and I
Speaker 1: have been having lately on the show. So as everyone knows,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a theme that we've really been talking
Speaker 1: about for maybe two years now, or at least a
Speaker 1: year and a half, and this idea of like, okay,
Speaker 1: supply side expansion. Everybody likes the idea in theory of like, okay,
Speaker 1: expanding productive capacity in the economy, and it's very hot
Speaker 1: right now. You've all kinds of people talk about it.
Speaker 1: We had as a reclient, for example, on the show,
Speaker 1: talk about it recently. We also see it in d C.
Speaker 1: There's real action, and the Inflation Reduction Act is specifically
Speaker 1: about building out capacity and investing in a new energy
Speaker 1: and so forth. We sell it with the CHIPSACKED that
Speaker 1: was also passed about building up US domestic semiconductor capacity, etcetera. However,
Speaker 1: that Big said, I still believe that there is this
Speaker 1: core tension, particularly among left or liberal parties, and you
Speaker 1: definitely see in Democrats. Clearly, one aspect of building out
Speaker 1: supply side capacity is energy and oil, gas and so forth,
Speaker 1: and obviously there's interest in renewables, but in the meantime
Speaker 1: this is a real constraint inflation, high gas prices, high
Speaker 1: electricity prices, etcetera. And while on one hand you have,
Speaker 1: you know, there's an impulse to expand supply side capacity,
Speaker 1: there are also climate goals. And so I believe that
Speaker 1: there is this real tension among sort of left liberal
Speaker 1: parties in the West, at least specifically between yes, this
Speaker 1: idea of expanding supply side capacity versus meeting climate goals
Speaker 1: and not giving boost per how to put it to
Speaker 1: the fossil fuel industry, And I don't think that parties
Speaker 1: have really resolved this tension. That being said, there is
Speaker 1: a party that has been thinking about this tension and
Speaker 1: finding a way to resolve it, both in terms of
Speaker 1: policy and politics, for a long time, and that is
Speaker 1: the Alberta n DP. Alberta is historically been a very
Speaker 1: sort of energy Energy is a huge part of the economy,
Speaker 1: and it's also seen as a conservative province. And yet
Speaker 1: the Alberta n DP has had a surprising, a shocking
Speaker 1: amount of electoral success in the province having been in
Speaker 1: power from the rough en sort of this meteoric like shocker,
Speaker 1: and it reminds me personally of the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion can win in West Virginia in some respect
Speaker 1: because you know, there's such a in the US, such
Speaker 1: a red area. Maybe it would be characterized. I don't
Speaker 1: know what the color schemes are in Canada, but similar idea.
Speaker 1: And so I want to learn more about the Alberta NDP,
Speaker 1: how they do it politically, and how they think about
Speaker 1: these potentially competing policy goals. So I'm very thrilled to
Speaker 1: welcome to the podcast today. I am going to be
Speaker 1: speaking with Rachel Notley. She is the leader of Alberta's
Speaker 1: official opposition, the leader of the Alberta NDP, and she
Speaker 1: was the provincial chief from the year through nine. An
Speaker 1: election season is gearing up in Alberta once again, could
Speaker 1: be uh the spring, it could be sooner, maybe later
Speaker 1: because of how parliamentary systems work. So we're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about what what's going to come up in this election season. So, Rachel,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for coming on the podcast. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a pleasure to be here, um, Joe, and it
Speaker 1: sounds like you've been having some very interesting conversations as
Speaker 1: we go through a lot of economic growth and evolution.
Speaker 1: I really do think this is like a really difficult
Speaker 1: um challenge, you know, in the US for example, for
Speaker 1: the Demo Credit Party, and I suspect for the National
Speaker 1: NDP and Canada as well, though you'll tell me more
Speaker 1: about that, But it seems like you've kind of correct
Speaker 1: the code like to some extent, at least electorally, but
Speaker 1: from a policy standpoint, like just let's start big picture,
Speaker 1: like how do you think about balancing the importance of
Speaker 1: the natural resource sector, the importance of energy both from
Speaker 1: a sort of employment standpoint and abundant energy perspective with
Speaker 1: also thinking about climate goals. Well, um, you know, I
Speaker 1: think probably from the very start one of the things
Speaker 1: we've tried to do is avoid using terms like balance
Speaker 1: because it is it implies the notion that they they
Speaker 1: run against each other. Uh and and the reality is that,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the things we have to remember
Speaker 1: is that you know, um, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: things that impact economic activity, and given time, one of
Speaker 1: the things that's impacting that it now is the collective
Speaker 1: need to grapple with climate change. And and so what
Speaker 1: you therefore need to do to continue to grow the
Speaker 1: economy and provide good paying jobs is to also address
Speaker 1: one of the pressures impacting your economic activity, in this
Speaker 1: case climate change. And so addressing climate change is part
Speaker 1: of good economic policy. It is not a countervailing force
Speaker 1: to good economic policy. And and so if you start there,
Speaker 1: then you you know, you flow from that this notion
Speaker 1: that pinning one against the other means that you will
Speaker 1: fail on both. And and so that's one thing that's
Speaker 1: sort of driven a lot of what we've had to
Speaker 1: say from the very beginning. As as as you describe
Speaker 1: us as sort of a left leaning party, there is
Speaker 1: no question that we start our um journey towards economic
Speaker 1: growth and end development from the perspective of wanting to
Speaker 1: ensure that there are good paying jobs for everyone who wants,
Speaker 1: and that there is a high level of prosperity for
Speaker 1: all citizens, not just a few. And and so obviously,
Speaker 1: uh so so we do that. That aligns very much
Speaker 1: with my history, which is long years old in the
Speaker 1: n DP, because I was born into a very political
Speaker 1: family and have worked in the labor movement before getting
Speaker 1: into politics, and and so I don't see standing up
Speaker 1: for working people as being a in any way, shape
Speaker 1: or form as being in contradiction to my values as
Speaker 1: a new Democrat. And I also believe very strongly that
Speaker 1: respecting and acting on science and reality is also a
Speaker 1: fundamental part of being a new Democrat and someone who's
Speaker 1: left leaning and so and and that's why we must
Speaker 1: also work to address the issues of climate change. Well,
Speaker 1: there are those who argue that no, Canada can't simultaneously
Speaker 1: be a fossil fuel or energy powerhouse and also hit
Speaker 1: emissions goals or do what's necessary in order to defeat
Speaker 1: climate change or to reduce emissions enough to bring that
Speaker 1: into into appropriate range. Why do you why are they wrong? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, because you know, a big part of
Speaker 1: Canada's economy not just altbirdas I mean a bird of
Speaker 1: you know, for your viewers, a bird is essentially you know, uh,
Speaker 1: from an economic point of view, it's it's Canada's Texas,
Speaker 1: and so it gives you a sense of how much
Speaker 1: of our economy is driven by the non renewable sector.
Speaker 1: And and of course we in turn drive considerably more
Speaker 1: of the Canadian economy than our population or geographic size
Speaker 1: would suggest. And and so the reality is is that,
Speaker 1: but we are also a democracy. So you know, should we, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, simply act solely on matters of climate change
Speaker 1: without doing the hard work to maintain strong employment and
Speaker 1: and strong economic capacity while doing that, then quite honestly,
Speaker 1: the whole issue would fail because in the next election,
Speaker 1: those people who were doing that would get thrown out
Speaker 1: and and uh and and then you know, there'd be
Speaker 1: this this swing back to to the other direction. And
Speaker 1: to be clear, in both cases, not only would we
Speaker 1: meet our our our climate change goals, we would also
Speaker 1: mess around with our economy because the uncertainty created by
Speaker 1: that and the and the stop and go created by
Speaker 1: that would of course undermine our economic growth. So that
Speaker 1: being said, there's no question that that there is the
Speaker 1: capacity to create jobs out of the investments that are
Speaker 1: necessary to ensure the oil and gas producers and non
Speaker 1: renewable resource producers significantly reduce their admissions both in the
Speaker 1: process of production as well as in um in the
Speaker 1: in the application of the product once it's produced. So
Speaker 1: there is money to be made in that and and
Speaker 1: that requires creativity in a number of different ways, and
Speaker 1: that's where you get into issues of carbon pricing, but
Speaker 1: doing so in a way that that still keeps the
Speaker 1: day to day experience of those folks who we owe
Speaker 1: our job to in mind. Front center. Can you talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about your experience with carbon pricing and
Speaker 1: how you think it should be applied because in the US,
Speaker 1: of course, again I mentioned we recently passed the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act, and it feels like the direction here is
Speaker 1: the sort of like all carrots to no sticks approach,
Speaker 1: and there's very little that is would curtail any carbon
Speaker 1: intensive energy. It's mostly about subsidies and accelerating the production
Speaker 1: of renewables. What is your view and experience with how
Speaker 1: carbon pricing can work? Well, I mean, I think, first
Speaker 1: of all, what carbon pricing does is it I mean,
Speaker 1: I suppose to a certain degree, as a stick approach,
Speaker 1: it provides an incentive for producers of emissions to do
Speaker 1: their homework and and and find the easy wins to
Speaker 1: reduce their missions. I mean, it just is what it is,
Speaker 1: and some of that's easier than others. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: methane for instances, that is sort of the you know,
Speaker 1: commonly referred to low hanging fruit and other stuff is
Speaker 1: more complicated. So there is a bit of a of
Speaker 1: a stick there, but it is also a carrot because
Speaker 1: a good portion of the resources that come in from
Speaker 1: collecting that carbon tax or that carbon price are then
Speaker 1: redevoted to assisting and supporting efforts to reduce emissions. And
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily redevoted right in directly to the non
Speaker 1: renewable resource producer, although in some cases it is for
Speaker 1: sure we actually support technology that is directly focused on
Speaker 1: extracting oil and gas. But in other cases it also
Speaker 1: helped us, for instance, to fund what we referred to
Speaker 1: as the REP program, which was the renewable Energy program,
Speaker 1: and what we were able to do there because even
Speaker 1: though Alberta is a probably the sunniest place in Canada,
Speaker 1: and it's got a lot of wind in certain parts
Speaker 1: of the province and blah blah blah, we had a
Speaker 1: very nascent renewable energy industry here and we used some
Speaker 1: of the funds from the Climate Leadership Program, which was
Speaker 1: what we referred to We referred to it as the
Speaker 1: c LB when we were charged, and it of course
Speaker 1: created funds as a result of the attacks, and we
Speaker 1: used some of those funds to create a create a
Speaker 1: a reverse auction where we invited renewable energy proponents from
Speaker 1: across the continent to bid down the cost of renewable
Speaker 1: energy products into Alberta. And as a result of doing that,
Speaker 1: we ultimately we're very excited because we ended up getting
Speaker 1: much less expensive renewable energy production then had previously been
Speaker 1: approved in other parts of the continent. We be started
Speaker 1: to become a real destination for renewable energy investment. We
Speaker 1: encouraged and succeeded in in partnering with indigenous proponents and
Speaker 1: uh in some cases they just were leading the whole thing,
Speaker 1: and we were able to really kick start and industry
Speaker 1: that hadn't existed before. And moreover, some of the biggest proponents,
Speaker 1: some of the biggest people who bought into that were
Speaker 1: of course non renewable energy producers themselves setting up their
Speaker 1: own renewable energy production in order to help reduce the
Speaker 1: energy required for their extraction efforts. You know, you mentioned
Speaker 1: sort of working with the indigenous people's interests. Can you
Speaker 1: talk a little bit more about how you think about that,
Speaker 1: because of course, again this is another area in which,
Speaker 1: at least in the US, among liberals and the left.
Speaker 1: There's an increasing weight on this and we do know
Speaker 1: that around the world, and we you know, even if
Speaker 1: you look at say the recent attempt at a referendum
Speaker 1: in Chile, for example, this tension of extractive industries with
Speaker 1: the consideration of indigenous populations, how you think about how
Speaker 1: that works? No, Burn, Well, you know, I think the
Speaker 1: first thing to to to do is to understand that,
Speaker 1: you know, the interests and the desired paths of First
Speaker 1: Nations communities across the country are not homogeneous. There is
Speaker 1: a difference between many of them, so that's first thing.
Speaker 1: But with respect to but where there is an interest
Speaker 1: in participating in economic development in partnership with programs that
Speaker 1: are are being considered by provincial and federal governments as
Speaker 1: well as municipal then I think it's really important for
Speaker 1: provincial governments in our case, we're provincial government, to do
Speaker 1: everything we can to offer up opportunities to to partner
Speaker 1: with indigenous groups. Honestly, this is one of the few
Speaker 1: things that that we've agreed with our political opponents over
Speaker 1: when they created the Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, because they put
Speaker 1: aside funding to help provide financing that some Indigenous groups
Speaker 1: wouldn't otherwise get access to to help them partner in
Speaker 1: some of these projects. Now that being said, when even
Speaker 1: notwithstanding that, we were successful in working with groups too.
Speaker 1: You know, in in Fort Mackay we got a community
Speaker 1: off of diesel. We've been working anyway, We've we've been
Speaker 1: able to do a number of different projects. But really
Speaker 1: in the spirit of reconciliation, it's all about offering up
Speaker 1: opportunities where they are desired, but certainly working with them
Speaker 1: where they are not. And we know there's not consistency
Speaker 1: across the board, and and there's a lot of work
Speaker 1: to be done. It's very complex, you know, relationship between
Speaker 1: Indigenous people, different communities within those indigenous communities, as well
Speaker 1: as the courts and the evolving constitutional law on it.
Speaker 1: So it's very complicated. But for sure, where possible, we
Speaker 1: absolutely want to work with First Nations communities to give
Speaker 1: them the kind of economic agency and independence and opportunity
Speaker 1: that that they're seeking. Let's talk more about just sort
Speaker 1: of the Alberta energy industry would you like to see
Speaker 1: or the Canadian and energy industry depending on the framing,
Speaker 1: would you like to see Canada become a natural gas
Speaker 1: export powerhouse, because obviously that's a major focus here in
Speaker 1: the US, and the entire world is sort of clearly
Speaker 1: thirsty for any molecule of natural gas that can be produced,
Speaker 1: you know, in the US and Canada. And my understanding
Speaker 1: is that the ellergy export capacity in Canada is not
Speaker 1: as big and not growing as fast as it is
Speaker 1: in the US. Would you like to see that grow? Well?
Speaker 1: I think absolutely. Ellen Gy provides a lot of potential opportunities,
Speaker 1: not only for US as out Burtons in terms of
Speaker 1: exporting a product we have a heck of a lot up,
Speaker 1: but also uh in a larger picture because you know,
Speaker 1: obviously there are energy security issues, which you know just
Speaker 1: and and we know that energy security continues to be
Speaker 1: a front of a front and center issue, and so
Speaker 1: lergy is is an answer to that, and and we
Speaker 1: have a lot of good products. But there is no
Speaker 1: question that our regulatory schemes here in Canada have presented
Speaker 1: a bit of a challenge as well as some of
Speaker 1: the you know, court determined processes that we're compelled to
Speaker 1: go through. But I think in the long term it
Speaker 1: does provide an opportunity. It is you know, obviously much
Speaker 1: lower emissions, it's cleaner, it's non renewable, it's cleaner. It
Speaker 1: may not be you know, our long term, permanent, permanent solution,
Speaker 1: but it is absolutely an improvement over a lot of
Speaker 1: different other forms of non renewable energy. It also forms
Speaker 1: the basis for hydrogen, which has incredible opportunities and and
Speaker 1: we're our party is doing doing work with a lot
Speaker 1: of stakeholders about our opportunities and hydrogen here in a
Speaker 1: Berta again, trying to create and keep jobs here for
Speaker 1: skilled trades people in that industry or in the one
Speaker 1: gas industry as a whole. So so yeah, it definitely
Speaker 1: provides opportunities. It's not the bet, it's not everything, but
Speaker 1: it is absolutely something that we need to be uh,
Speaker 1: taking advantage of for sure. So you mentioned and let's
Speaker 1: talk politics for a second, because you characterized Alberta as
Speaker 1: Canada's Texas, and that seems apt to me. I've never
Speaker 1: been to Alberta, but you know, I've seen pictures of
Speaker 1: the Calgary Stampede and I'm like, yeah, that sounds right.
Speaker 1: I used to I used to live in Texas myself,
Speaker 1: so you know when I've seen those photos, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that sounds like an apt analogy. And yet you know
Speaker 1: here you are you you won and you you you
Speaker 1: are the premier of the province. From now you're in
Speaker 1: the opposition. You may regain power in the forthcoming elections.
Speaker 1: Like what is it? Is it just in your view?
Speaker 1: Is it just the sort of the energy standpoint? Like
Speaker 1: how do you break through in a region? I mean,
Speaker 1: like the Democrats can't figure out figure it out here
Speaker 1: outside of West Virginia, Like what do you think it is?
Speaker 1: And other lessons for the broader NDP that you think
Speaker 1: they could take from looking at the success of the
Speaker 1: Alberta and paid well, I think I will say, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's interesting. I was listening to a different podcast a
Speaker 1: few days ago that was noting that, you know, Alberta
Speaker 1: is a lot more complicated and a lot more multicultural,
Speaker 1: a lot more diverse than than some of it's the
Speaker 1: more traditional characterizations of it. Um so I think that
Speaker 1: that is so is Texas. So is Texas to be fair,
Speaker 1: and you know that's probably so again, Yeah, sorry, we
Speaker 1: go on, But it is true also that people have
Speaker 1: some conception of Texas. But then you know, go to
Speaker 1: the Houston suburbs or something like that. And it's probably
Speaker 1: not what many people have in mind, but sorry, keep going. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: and that that's absolutely so, because I was going to say,
Speaker 1: I mean, we are in part because of the number
Speaker 1: of people who have flocked to the prosperity historically provided
Speaker 1: by oil and gas. In in Alberta, we we have
Speaker 1: the benefit of having now the youngest, best educated, and
Speaker 1: I think second most diverse population in the country. So
Speaker 1: so that that is a little bit about who we are,
Speaker 1: but we're also I mean, you know, even in the industry,
Speaker 1: it's there. There are groups, like in the oil and
Speaker 1: gas that are focused on you know, they understand what
Speaker 1: the international markets are looking to and they are focused
Speaker 1: on getting to significantly reducing their emissions. You know, the
Speaker 1: oil Sands Pathway groups is zero emissions target, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean there are groups that are very genuinely working
Speaker 1: on it. And I think as well in Alberta. One
Speaker 1: of the things about our provinces, you know, there's a
Speaker 1: bumper sticker here that's very common among and it's been
Speaker 1: around for generations. I'm you know, um fifty eight, and
Speaker 1: I think this this bumper sticker has been around since
Speaker 1: I was in high school. In one way, or another,
Speaker 1: and it's like, please God give me another boom, and
Speaker 1: I promised not to piscital way they had that. They
Speaker 1: had that in Silicon Valley after the tech bubble, they
Speaker 1: had their own creatures like please, Please, God give us
Speaker 1: one more bubble or something like that exactly. So, so
Speaker 1: we're on a we're on boom number nine or something
Speaker 1: right now here. Maybe not quite that much, but we
Speaker 1: we've had some pretty profound bus which created a lot
Speaker 1: of of of real suffering for a bird of families.
Speaker 1: You know, since since we sort of first took off
Speaker 1: in the in the I would argue probably the late
Speaker 1: sixties is where it really sort of took over our
Speaker 1: economy in a huge way. And over that time, more
Speaker 1: and more people are taking very seriously the need to
Speaker 1: diversify our economy, both within the wil and gas sector
Speaker 1: for sure, but within the energy sector as a whole.
Speaker 1: And that's why I was talking so much about renewable
Speaker 1: and different forms of renewable and low emissions energy as
Speaker 1: well as outside of energy altogether. And so al Burton's
Speaker 1: are interested in the government that is prepared to talk
Speaker 1: about diversification, that understands that Albird as a whole. Even
Speaker 1: though we have a lot of capital in this province,
Speaker 1: we are relatively small player in an international market. And
Speaker 1: if we are going to establish a foothold in a
Speaker 1: strong foothold hold in other industries, we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: work together strategically. And that's the kind of thing and
Speaker 1: the kind of thinking you get from you know, governments
Speaker 1: that that believe in the value of government while at
Speaker 1: the same time believing in the value of job creation,
Speaker 1: inflation protection, strong public services like health care, which is
Speaker 1: very important to people in this province, very very important,
Speaker 1: like public education, like access to a good, strong post
Speaker 1: secondary system. These are all values that we also have
Speaker 1: come to care about and and to expect delivery on
Speaker 1: from government in this province. And so it's those kinds
Speaker 1: of things that we've been six we've been able to
Speaker 1: connect with folks about when when we're talking to them
Speaker 1: about what they want to see from the provincial government.
Speaker 1: What should be done on inflation? And I've seen you
Speaker 1: tweet about this and you know, talking about food inflation
Speaker 1: in Alberta and so forth, what should be done, but
Speaker 1: what should be done about that? Well, you know, listen,
Speaker 1: I mean, I appreciate you you're speaking to a broader group,
Speaker 1: and we do all understand that that that that inflation is.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a it's a very uh complicated problem
Speaker 1: to solve. But here's the thing within the world of
Speaker 1: things that Alberta's can the Alberta government can do without
Speaker 1: you know, contributing to the problem. And I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot is you need to have a government that
Speaker 1: is going to start by not making the problem worse.
Speaker 1: So in in this province, since the last election, we
Speaker 1: have seen a cap on utilities removed, We've seen a
Speaker 1: cap on car insurance removed, We've seen a cap on
Speaker 1: tuition removed. We've seen school fees go up. We've seen
Speaker 1: personal income taxes go up, we've seen property taxes go up.
Speaker 1: We've seen a tremendous reach into the pockets of regular families.
Speaker 1: And so those kinds of things are all things that
Speaker 1: can be reversed. We can we can keep money in
Speaker 1: folks pockets and we can do that without contributing to
Speaker 1: the overall inflationary challenges that we are experiencing. So, you know,
Speaker 1: there's just been a lot of extra costs piled onto
Speaker 1: our Burton's even before we entered into the last you know,
Speaker 1: a few months and years so of massive inflationary pressures.
Speaker 1: You know, I just speaking of Twitter looking through your
Speaker 1: feet right now. Right before you came on the show,
Speaker 1: you pointed out record electricity rates on the way and
Speaker 1: you say, the u CP government has done nothing. What
Speaker 1: would you do had you been empowered to address the
Speaker 1: surge and electricity prices? Well, to be clear, when we
Speaker 1: were in power, we did actually redesign the electricity process,
Speaker 1: and we were in the process of doing it. We
Speaker 1: Alberta shares the Texas energy only market model, which means
Speaker 1: that we are highly subject to variations in the price,
Speaker 1: and so we had moved off of that to a
Speaker 1: different model where we were in the process of doing it.
Speaker 1: And when doing that, we also had put in place
Speaker 1: a cap on electricity prices to shelter consumers during that transition.
Speaker 1: That has been reversed and the cap was removed. If
Speaker 1: the cap were still in place, we'd be at about
Speaker 1: a third of the expected electricity prices that we expect
Speaker 1: families to be hit with in the month of October.
Speaker 1: So just last week we called on the government to
Speaker 1: put on a temporary electricity cap because they've put forward
Speaker 1: a minuscule little rebate. But when your electricity goes from
Speaker 1: five hundred to a thousand and a month, fifty dollars
Speaker 1: is not going to cut it. And it's that unpredictability
Speaker 1: which is which is creating a huge amount of anxiety
Speaker 1: for our bird of families. And so we're saying that
Speaker 1: until we can get the price of electricity under control,
Speaker 1: the cap should come in place, and until we can
Speaker 1: get to other measures of inflation back under control. But
Speaker 1: as they say, as they say in the in Game
Speaker 1: of Thrones, you know, winter is coming and these folks
Speaker 1: need to pay attention to the experience of uppertive families.
Speaker 1: You know. I want to go back to something you said,
Speaker 1: actually again the bumper sticker, and you mentioned that you know,
Speaker 1: Berta has probably had at least nine distinct booms and
Speaker 1: bus which is of course to be expected. Sure, I
Speaker 1: think I think the exaggerate. I think I find a bota. Well,
Speaker 1: whatever the number is, though, like that is part and
Speaker 1: parcel of having a resource dependent economy. That's every every right,
Speaker 1: every country or every state that is heavily exposed to
Speaker 1: natural resources has these boom bust cycles. And so one
Speaker 1: answer is sure, diversification, but it's a difficult process, it's
Speaker 1: a long term process, etcetera. How do you think about
Speaker 1: provisioning and funding public goods in a sustainable way such
Speaker 1: that they can survive and last through both parts of
Speaker 1: the cycle. Well, I mean I think that, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think, uh, it really does go to diversification, because
Speaker 1: what we need is a stable source of revenue that
Speaker 1: comes from taxation that's built off of a more diverse economy.
Speaker 1: And so yes, right now the government is flesh with
Speaker 1: royalties and that is great, but that you know that
Speaker 1: really to a large degree, cannot be built into our
Speaker 1: operating expenditures. It needs we need instead to be you know,
Speaker 1: moving that money into the kind of investments that creates
Speaker 1: long term diversification, to smooth out those peaks and valleys,
Speaker 1: and and to create a more consistent and stable revenue source.
Speaker 1: And so so yeah, I mean, and and to be fair,
Speaker 1: I mean, Alberta's economy is making progress in that diversification effort,
Speaker 1: even as oil prices are are you know, uh, it's
Speaker 1: going way up right now, and our royalties are huge.
Speaker 1: You know, Interestingly, folks are not getting hired back into
Speaker 1: the industry at the same rate that they once were
Speaker 1: and and so there is some some diversification going on,
Speaker 1: and now when you have the resources to do it
Speaker 1: is the time to strategically invest to encourage it. One
Speaker 1: example is um you know, the very investment that goes
Speaker 1: along with getting to net zero by two thousand fifty
Speaker 1: is estimated to be capable of creating a hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy five thou new jobs and from that one finds
Speaker 1: a more stable income source. Can you tell a little
Speaker 1: bit more about pipeline politics? And I know there was
Speaker 1: a dispute and challenges with the Trans Mountain pipeline. I
Speaker 1: think going back several years, what is the status of
Speaker 1: that and how do you negotiate with leaders in other
Speaker 1: provinces who have different attitudes? And my understanding is that
Speaker 1: there was some tension with the British Columbia. They were leaders,
Speaker 1: they weren't as into it. What's happening with that now?
Speaker 1: There there was tension, There's no question about it. It
Speaker 1: was you know, I'd like to think about it in
Speaker 1: hindsight as a sort of expression of some some respective
Speaker 1: democratic wills. But I mean, ultimately what we did was
Speaker 1: we made we campaigned essentially as the government of Alberta
Speaker 1: instead of fighting with everybody and demonizing everybody and demonizing
Speaker 1: the federal government and demonizing environmentalists and all that kind
Speaker 1: of thing, which is and this is, you know, which
Speaker 1: which is certainly something that we see happening with our
Speaker 1: provincial government. Now, we went across the country, include into
Speaker 1: British Columbia, where a lot of the opposition was based,
Speaker 1: and we talked to them about first of all, what
Speaker 1: we were doing to actually protect the environment and to
Speaker 1: reduce emissions and to be part of a long term
Speaker 1: path to two reasonable and attainable emissions targets, while at
Speaker 1: the same time also talking to them about the real
Speaker 1: life economic value that their communities experienced as a result
Speaker 1: of the oil and gas and on renewable industry in Alberta.
Speaker 1: And we went into rooms that weren't necessarily friendly to us,
Speaker 1: and we did that all across the country in order
Speaker 1: to build support and to build the kind of political
Speaker 1: support that would also help the federal government take the
Speaker 1: steps and make the decisions that they made in order
Speaker 1: to support the pipeline. And then, of course, you know,
Speaker 1: even with that, there were still about I don't know,
Speaker 1: and now I'm not exaggerating. At least nine different legal
Speaker 1: forums within which the debate was was held, and and
Speaker 1: and it wasn't until after we lost government that the
Speaker 1: that the courts finally came down once and for all
Speaker 1: on the fact that all the issues had been addressed
Speaker 1: and that it was appropriate for the pipeline to go ahead.
Speaker 1: So is it completed yet, No, It's scheduled to be
Speaker 1: completed next fall. There is a tremendous amount of construction
Speaker 1: going on now, so we are optimistic when it's completed.
Speaker 1: What will that enable? What will what will change when
Speaker 1: that's open? Well, what it does is it enhances our
Speaker 1: market flexibility. But because it goes to Tidewater, it allows
Speaker 1: for our product to be not just beholden to going
Speaker 1: to the US, but also potentially to look at eastern
Speaker 1: market destinations. So that's one thing. So it increases our
Speaker 1: market flexibility. It also just increases our pipeline capacity. Periodically.
Speaker 1: What will happen is if we run out of pipeline
Speaker 1: capacity because we're so far from many of our markets,
Speaker 1: ends up going on rail or in some really horrible cases,
Speaker 1: and two trucks that both of those, of course, are
Speaker 1: much more emissions creating methods of transportation. But also what
Speaker 1: it means is that the price that al Burton's get
Speaker 1: for the product that we all own is severely discounted.
Speaker 1: And then if we lose out on that, then frankly,
Speaker 1: taxpayers all across the country lose out on that. And
Speaker 1: and so as shipping our products in a cost effective way,
Speaker 1: we maximize the return for all Burtons and for all Canadians.
Speaker 1: And so that's that's the impact of it there. But
Speaker 1: you know it also I like to sort of look
Speaker 1: at that whole campaign as a good example of you know,
Speaker 1: grown up government working with multiple stakeholders, multiple levels of
Speaker 1: government in partnership, hearing their concerns, honoring to as much
Speaker 1: as possible those concerns, and and negotiating. You know, we
Speaker 1: we currently have a government that has done nothing but
Speaker 1: pick fights with everybody for their own polity called gamesmanship,
Speaker 1: with really no interest in a positive outcome. And quite frankly,
Speaker 1: the most likely next premier is going to take that
Speaker 1: and dial it up another pent which will ultimately undermine
Speaker 1: the kind of investment stability that we need not only
Speaker 1: for strong economic performance in oil and gas, but even
Speaker 1: more importantly for making real progress on emissions reductions and
Speaker 1: meeting our climate goals. Because let me just go back
Speaker 1: to this. As a new Democrat, I do believe we
Speaker 1: must do everything we can to meet our climate goals.
Speaker 1: So actually that seems like a good I'm glad you
Speaker 1: went there, because that's exactly what I wanted to sort
Speaker 1: of wrap up on. But like, what does that look
Speaker 1: like to you when you say, okay, meet climate goals
Speaker 1: while also building pipelines, what what is your vision for
Speaker 1: getting there? Well, as I said, I mean like even
Speaker 1: the oil sounds themselves. The Pathways Group has set as
Speaker 1: as a net zero goal. Whether that's ambitious or not,
Speaker 1: I mean, we'll keep an eye on it, but for sure,
Speaker 1: we need to be reducing emissions. We have a policy
Speaker 1: target of reducing emissions in our electricity sector to zero
Speaker 1: by and we know that there's a number of different
Speaker 1: things that can be done in the oil and gas
Speaker 1: sector to reduce emissions and so and we know that
Speaker 1: we can actually create jobs in the course of doing it.
Speaker 1: So that's what it looks like, you know, I think
Speaker 1: that we it looks like government pushing for sure, it's
Speaker 1: not just setting out carrots and then and then hoping
Speaker 1: that the market follows. It's a combination. A government does
Speaker 1: have to push, but we will always do so with
Speaker 1: those working folks, you know, front and center and in
Speaker 1: in terms of the interests that we're pursuing and ensuring
Speaker 1: that we maintain a viable oil and gas sector because
Speaker 1: the world is still going to need our oil and
Speaker 1: gas for some time to come. And and if we
Speaker 1: listen to what international markets are telling us in terms
Speaker 1: of the responsibility with which need to produce it, then
Speaker 1: I think that we have a strong future ahead of us.
Speaker 1: But that requires strong leadership and a commitment to climate goals,
Speaker 1: and that's where we want to level. Rachel Notley, a
Speaker 1: head of the Alberta m DP, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for coming on the podcast. I've wanted to speak for
Speaker 1: a long time and really appreciate you taking the time.
Speaker 1: All right, well, thank you, pleasure chappsing Well, I really
Speaker 1: enjoyed getting the chance to speak to Rachel. You know,
Speaker 1: I do think this is like one of the big tensions,
Speaker 1: and I don't know the way it's going to resolve,
Speaker 1: but clearly, look, there's a lot of political and economic
Speaker 1: interest in finding sort of ways to deal with inflation.
Speaker 1: Ways to deal with high costs on the supply side.
Speaker 1: And I really think, look, energy is in literally everything,
Speaker 1: and our governments do that. How the private sector does
Speaker 1: that is absolutely core. And so everyone likes the idea
Speaker 1: of supply side expansion except an energy and then you
Speaker 1: get this like real tension, right or many people perceive
Speaker 1: there to be attention between economic goals or sort of
Speaker 1: like supply side and climate, although as our guest Rachel
Speaker 1: Notley said, she doesn't view them intention So I was
Speaker 1: very excited about having that conversation. And uh, I think
Speaker 1: also it's very interesting politically because look, there are some
Speaker 1: parties in the West that find success in deeply conservative
Speaker 1: areas with this type of message where it's sort of
Speaker 1: like a more optimistic stance towards the resource sector with
Speaker 1: a more liberal left agenda elsewhere and finding a success.
Speaker 1: So I think this is a very interesting political story
Speaker 1: to be tracking, and uh will be very interesting to
Speaker 1: see the results of the next election. So I'll leave
Speaker 1: it there. This has been another episode of the Odd
Speaker 1: Lots podcast. I'm Joe Wisn'thal. You can follow me on
Speaker 1: Twitter at the Stalwart. Follow my co host Tracy Alloway
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Tracy Alloway, follow our guests on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Rachel not Ley, and of course follow our producer
Speaker 1: Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armand. And before we go, you know,
Speaker 1: we were talking about this net zero endeavors that every
Speaker 1: all these governments and companies and industries are going forward.
Speaker 1: I'd like to for you to check out a new
Speaker 1: podcast recently launched by Bloomberg. It's actually called Zero and
Speaker 1: it's about this efforts. It's hosted by our colleague Shot Rody,
Speaker 1: and it's about the tactics and technologies that could get
Speaker 1: us to a world of net zero emissions. They have
Speaker 1: a new episode with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, so
Speaker 1: check it out on all the major podcast listening platforms,
Speaker 1: and of course you can follow all of our podcasts
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg onto the handle at podcasts. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: year to