What exactly does that mean, and how can Canada play its cards?

So, uh, I'm sure many of your listeners have, uh, listened to the Prime Minister talk about what's happening in the world right now.

We have two superpowers that are, or as he calls them, hegemons, that are battling it out for global supremacy.

Uh, and as they, uh, look at how they compete, they are increasingly using trade, uh, as a, a mode of competition.

So for example, the US, uh, is restricting access to certain technologies to China.

They're, they're not letting China have certain semiconductor chips.

Uh, the US is using access to the US dollar as a, as a weapon.

What can government do now that it could or would not do before that will actually get some of these projects built faster?

Why should Canadians watching tonight trust that what you envision will actually materialize?

Yeah.

Well, look, a, a lot, [laughs] I think as Canadians understand, a lot has changed in the last year.

Uh, the world has become more dangerous and divided.

Uh, we're in the middle of the worst energy crisis, uh, in the history of the modern world as defined by the International Energy Agency.

That was all, uh, really brought on by a war that had not started a, a year ago.

Uh, we are in a very different world today.

Like, what if things change again? Are we actually going to get the value you are promising from this asset?

Why should Canadians watching tonight trust that what you envision will actually materialize?

Yeah, well, look, a lot, I think, as Canadians understand, a lot has changed in the last year.

The world has become more dangerous and divided.

We're in the middle of the worst energy crisis in the history of the modern world, as defined by the International Energy Agency.

That was all uh really brought on by a war that had not started a year ago uh we are in a very different world today we are in a world where the trans mountain expansion uh project was finished just a few years ago uh ramped up to full utilization much faster than than people thought that pipeline is now fully contracted to the maximum extent allowed.

It's 90% of the utilization of that pipeline is fully contracted for 20 years by international buyers.

I can tell you earlier this week we had leaders of energy companies in Vancouver for the LNG2 announcement.

Like what if things change again, are we actually going to get the value you are promising from this asset?

I just want to be clear, how much public money do you foresee going into this, even if it is made all back, as you seem to be suggesting, in

profit? Yeah.

Again, typically these sorts of projects get financed 80% with debt, 20% with equity.

The key though, Catherine, and for your viewers, is this is going to evolve over time.

We know that Pembina, the private sector proponent has already negotiated.

They would like to go up to 20% of this project from 10%.

We know from all of the conversations we've been having with indigenous people, They really want to be an equity owner in this.

How can you argue that building a pipeline will contribute to Canada's climate objectives?

I mean, let's not get too into the weeds, but what, what are the three stages generally speaking?

Yeah, so there's, there's three things that are gonna go on.

Uh, the first is the major projects office will continue the process of consultation with the affected First Nations.

Uh, the great news is this, uh, pipeline is gonna follow a very similar route to the last Trans Mountain expansion project, so we have a pretty good idea about what the issues and, and legitimate concerns of indigenous people are, and we have a pretty good idea how to, uh, mitigate, accommodate, and avoid those types of issues.

So that's sort of the first chunk.

The second chunk is public hearings that'll be conducted by the Canadian Energy Regulator.

Uh, those are public hearings where people, uh, get to focus on the technical, the environmental, the social, the cultural, the health, the safety, the security aspects of the project.

'Cause both levels of government were pretty clear within the, the f- last 12 months that they didn't see any public funds going to this pipeline.

After that, is it still going to be split 50-50 with a 10% stake maybe to Indigenous ownership as well as 10% stake optional for Pembina?

That's going to depend on how things evolve.

The total price of the project is projected to be between roughly $35 and $40 billion.

A portion of that will be funded by debt.

A significant portion of it would be funded by debt.

Of the portion that's funded by equity today, it's 10 percent Pembina, but Pembina has the right to increase its stake by another 10 percent up to 20 percent.

And there is also room reserved in the capital structure for indigenous peoples to take a minimum of 10 percent.

Why should Canadians watching tonight trust that what you envision will actually materialize?

What does that say about the economics of this pipeline?

Um, the economics of the pipeline are very good, uh, David, and we can go into that.

Um, where, where we are today, uh, is capital allocators, uh, look at the history in Canada of getting major oil pipelines built, and they see a history of delay, and they see a history of building that goes over budget.

We're creating a new paradigm today, uh, uh, one where we move, uh, the decision on whether a project is in national interest, uh, in the national interest to the front of the process, not at the tail end of the process, uh, where we, uh, work in partnership with indigenous peoples as the project is developed, as opposed to taking it, uh, to them when it's a fait accompli.

Um, and, uh, what we're seeing is the private sector saying, "We wanna see, uh, we wanna see more proof.

We wanna see you do this." So that's what we're doing.

Uh, we have one private sector proponent, uh, Pembina Pipelines, who will be a ten percent owner.

I get the strategic a-argument in diversifying away from the US market, but, uh, I mean, can you charge the tolls a project like this commands and make it economically viable if it requires a, a, a public backing like this?

Can we expect legislation on that this fall?

Hmm.

So, uh, you know since the day we've come into office, we have been focused, uh, on raising the competency of the government, and I, I, I really wanna emphasize this point.

Um, Canada was taking too long to approve projects in the past.

Uh, we, we layered, uh, we layered regulation on top of regulation on top of regulation.

Uh, we had overlapping regulations with provinces and the federal government.

What we're doing is saying we need to raise the competency of government.

What do you say to Mr. Lewis, and, and what would stopping any future oil and gas development do for our economy, especially in the current context when we're dealing with the trade war?

Do you believe those tariffs will come into effect on Wednesday?

Look, I believe that, uh, Prime Minister Carney and, uh, Minister LeBlanc will do the very best job for Canadians.

Um, we, however, do not control what, uh, the United States does.

We contr- we can control our own destiny, however, and that's why the prime minister was here in, in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Uh, in partnership-

partnership-With the premier of Quebec and in partnership with the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to announce the largest private sector investment in the history of this country, $70 billion.

The largest clean energy project in the history of North America.

Um, do you believe that today's deal is better than the 2024 MOU that was originally reached?

What's actually changed in your mind to move this quickly?

So we've been, we've been very clear.

The, the world is, uh, a more volatile and, uh, more dangerous place.

Uh, we need to respond to that by taking control of our own destiny.

We can control what we can control.

The Prime Minister's been clear, uh, in the face of the, these challenging times, and in particular, in the face of, uh, a trade war we didn't ask for, but, uh, uh, we have to win.

Uh, we need to take control of, uh, things, and so we need to build, uh, and we need to control what we can control.

I- Is the federal government's desire to have significantly more LNG projects, maybe eight or 10 eventually, a, a s- a lot more than what we were able to get past the finish line initially, but is this goal to, to, to, to expand LNG in a significant way here in BC?

I- it- has Ottawa fundamentally changed its philosophy on pipelines?

Um, you know, I, uh...

Let me, let me answer that a little bit in a different way.

You know, people said to me, "You said when the MoU came out, uh, that, you know, there wouldn't be any public sector involvement." And I've said to them, "Oh, well, let's, let's look at what's happened since November when we signed the MoU." The United States, uh, engineered regime change in another country, is, uh, looking to develop their oil to replace oil coming from Alberta.

Uh, we've had the worst energy crisis in the history of the world.

Uh, as, as said by the president of the IEA, our allies are struggling, uh, to find energy, and they're asking us for it.

And on July 1st, the United States said, "We're done with CUSMA." Fundamentally change [laughs] in a, in a way saying what we've been experiencing, economic war on sectors of our economy, on our steel sector, on our aluminum sector, on our copper sector, on our forest product sector, uh, on our auto sector.

So what's the biggest obstacle today?

... uh, the next 90 days are very important.

Yeah.

So, so the agreement says that we will, uh, the federal government will, uh, will fulfill its duty to consult under, under the Building Canada Act, where, uh, we will consult with the affected, uh, First Nations around the potential listing of the, uh, the pipeline.

So there's a, a process that goes on.

As you, you may have seen, uh, about 10 days ago, we listed three other, uh, projects.

We listed, uh, the Grays Bay Road and Port.

We listed the Mackenzie Valley, uh, pipe- pipe- pipeline.

Mm-hmm.

Minister, the MOU with Alberta clearly refers to any pipeline as, quote, "private sector constructed and financed." So if Trans Mountain, which is a Crown corporation, is leading the charge on this, can it really be considered privately financed?

So, uh, I think what we need to focus on here is, uh, why this project needs to go forward.

We have a national security imperative.

We couldn't have seen that more clearly from the US announcements on July 1st that they don't wanna move forward with Kusuma.

We need, uh, to build a new economy, an economy that is not dependent on one, uh, ally.

Secondly, uh, we need this to move forward for economic prosperity.

This project will generate sixteen billion dollars a year for the country.

So how, how do you do that then, if that can be done?

How can you make such specific promises about what this will do for Canada without any of those, you know, numbers to point out to Canadians today?

Well, Vashi, the, uh, the decision on exactly what is built, uh, which technologies are built, when they're built, is a decision that the provincial governments make.

As you, uh, as your, uh, listeners may know, uh, the decision and, uh, paying for nuclear power is a responsibility of the provinces.

What we've said is we wanna help, uh, the provinces get to the right answers, uh, by facilitating, uh, the building of nuclear.

It's an important part of getting to net zero.

Uh, we have a number of tools, and we've used those tools already.

A great example would be, uh, with respect to Darlington, where, uh, we've used, uh, investment tax credits which make, uh, the nuclear power more affordable.

Alberta has sort of tacitly said, "We're looking at it." But do you have evidence of anywhere outside of Ontario that is firmly planning to go ahead with something like this, or is this a very Ontario-focused announcement?

But, you know, what will ensure that other big projects that are even bigger in scale will go ahead when all this stuff kind of existed before and couldn't incentivize it?

So I'm not sure that's accurate.

Ontario has just finished refurbishing eight reactors, both at Darlington and at Bruce.

Those reactors were done on schedule and under budget.

Ontario, with our help and some of the things, has decided to move forward with the small modular reactors.

Now we're getting ready to do the first major new builds in 30 years.

And it's really a function of the change in the world.

Has anyone outside of Ontario, I know Saskatchewan has expressed some interest, Alberta has sort of tacitly said we're looking at it, but do you have evidence of anywhere outside of Ontario that is firmly planning to go ahead with something like this? Or is this a very Ontario-focused announcement?

Suddenly, Canada is paying much closer attention to the Arctic.

This mine will generate $2 billion of export revenues for Canada that makes us stronger, which makes us more sovereign, which makes us better able to resist the coercion that's going on in the world right now.

Middle powers like Canada are caught in the middle of that.

We've seen that with threats to our sovereignty.

We've seen that with threats to Greenland sovereignty.

Canada has to make sure that what happens is good for Nunavut and good for Canada.

So as we think about the opportunities in front of the North, but also Canada and putting in additional infrastructure to build out the economy of the North, a lot of these mining infrastructure investments will really sort of fit in nicely with new investments that the government's making.

The Prime Minister has announced over $12 billion worth of projects in the north from Iqaluit over to Inuvik.

Hmm.

We've now got agreement on how we get to net zero with Alberta using a market price of a hundred and thirty dollars a tonne.

That's a six hundred and fifty percent increase in that price.

That allows private capital to flow into projects that will drive down emissions, and that's a huge win.

The first of those would be the Pathways Project, which would take the equivalent of almost five million cars a year off the road in carbon reductions.

But it also, uh, uh-Fixes and, and, and creates clarity for an additional 70 projects that are underway based on a, uh, predictable carbon price going forward, and that's another $60 billion worth of investment in, uh, reduction in emiss- in emissions.

What Premier Eby and, and I talked about yesterday was British Columbia wants to make sure, um, uh, the projects that are important to British Columbia are getting the same focus as, as Alberta is getting.

The market wasn't responding, and by lowering these number and perhaps dragging it out further to 2040, this is a much more realistic number that can, can drive some of that private sector investment you want to see.

Hmm.

We've now got agreement on how we get to net zero with Alberta using a market price of a hundred and thirty dollars a ton.

That's a six hundred and fifty percent increase in that price.

That allows private capital to flow into projects that will drive down emissions, and that's a huge win.

The first of those would be the Pathways Project, which would take the equivalent of almost five million cars a year off the road in carbon reductions.

But it also, uh, fixes and, and, and creates clarity for an additional seventy projects that are underway based on a, uh, predictable carbon price going forward, and that's another sixty billion dollars worth of investment in, uh, reduction in emiss- in emissions.

What Premier Eby and, and I talked about yesterday was British Columbia wants to make sure, um, uh, the projects that are important to British Columbia are getting the same focus as, as Alberta is getting.

The market wasn't responding, and by lowering these number and perhaps dragging it out further to twenty forty, this is a much more realistic number that can, can drive some of that private sector investment you wanna see.

Is that something that you would use?

So, um, you know, what I'd, I'd say is we have been building pipes, and we just approved the Taylor to Gordondale pipeline, uh, from northeastern BC, uh, into Alberta.

That will, uh, deliver more diluent to Canada.

Right now we rely on other countries for our diluent to, uh, make sure we can move our oil.

Um, that pipeline is gonna, uh, significantly reduce our use of foreign, uh, diluent.

So, uh, we are building again.

Um, and we will use the Build Canada Act when we need to use the act.

How should people measure that success?

Do you view it that way?

Uh, so we have a, uh, we have a, uh, a trading partner who has, uh, decided to reorder how, uh, the economic world works.

Uh, they are, uh, essentially saying we have to pay them to send goods to their markets.

Uh, there is no more stark example of this hinge moment and the economic rupture than what is happening to British Columbia's forest product sector.

We, we need to be able to respond.

Uh, we all watched, uh, how President Zelensky was lectured about how he had no cards, and he had to submit to the will of another country.

Well, we need to put cards in our hands.

Uh, is the government prepared to move ahead if they still say no?

Do you view it that way?

Uh, so we have a, uh, we have a, uh, a trading partner who has, uh, decided to reorder how, uh, the economic world works.

Uh, they are, uh, essentially saying we have to pay them to send goods to their markets.

Uh, there is no more stark example of this hinge moment and the economic rupture than what is happening to British Columbia's forest product sector.

We, we need to be able to respond.

Uh, uh, we all watched, uh, how President Zelensky was lectured about how he had no cards and he had to submit to the will of another country.

Well, we need to put cards in our hands.

Uh, is the government prepared to move ahead if they still say no?