December 18, 2024
The Empire Club of Canada Presents
Canada’s Energy, Resource and Climate, Featuring Premiers Danielle Smith and Andrew Furey
Chairperson: Jenna Donelson, President, Board of Directors, Empire Club of Canada
Moderator
Mike Van Soelen, Partner, Oyster Group; Past President, Empire Club of Canada
Panellists
The Honourable Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta
The Honourable Dr. Andrew Furey, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador
Head Table Guests
Stewart Muir, CEO, Resource Works Society
Colin Gruending, Executive Vice President & President, Liquid Pipelines, Enbridge
Welcome Address by Jenna Donelson, President, Board of Directors, Empire Club of Canada
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Empire Club of Canada. My name is Jenna Donelson. I am the chair of the board of this historic organization, and your host for today’s event.
To formally begin, I want to acknowledge that we are gathering on the Traditional and Treaty Lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, and the homelands of the Anishinaabe, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat Peoples. I encourage you all to learn more about the Traditional Territory on which you work and live.
I’d also like to begin by recognizing our sponsors. The Empire Club is a non-profit organization, and our sponsors generously support the club, and they make events like this possible. And they also make events complimentary, for those of you who are online. So, a huge thank you to our Lead Sponsor, Enbridge. Thank you, Enbridge. And thank you, as well, to our VIP Reception Sponsors, Cenovus Energy, Global Public Affairs, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and Faro, International. Thank you. And thank you to our Supporting Sponsors, Fortis, Labatt, and Tourmaline Oil Corporation. Thank you. We are also deeply appreciative of our ongoing support from our Lead Season Sponsors, Bruce Power and Hydro One, and our VIP Reception Season Sponsor, Waste Connections of Canada. Thank you for your support. And finally, thank you to our Media Partner, the Toronto Star, and to our AV Partner, Bespoke Audio Visual. We appreciate your partnership. Thank you.
And just before we dive into a couple other things, I’d like to also have a special thank you, and recognize Stewart Muir, the CEO of Resource Works Society, who’s been a great partner in bringing this whole event together. Couldn’t have picked better timing, Stuart, so thank you. Really appreciate your partnership.
If you have a question for our speakers, please scan the QR code that you will find on your program. For those of you online, use the Q&A function. If you’re online, and you require technical assistance, use the chat feature, and our staff will be there to help you.
As we gather here, in the final stretch of 2024, we’re reminded that the close of the year is a natural time to reflect on where we’ve been, and more importantly, where we’re headed. The Empire Club has been running a Fall Energy Series, to address key issues and opportunities that will shape our energy future. And we have a timely discussion, to close it out. Today’s conversation comes at a hinge moment for Canada’s energy and resource industries, two sectors that underpin our economy, and frankly, define our place in the world. Together, we face big, daunting questions, like can we balance sustainability, affordability, and reliability? And how should Canada’s critical minerals play into emissions reduction and global supply chains? We are rich in resources; we could enjoy a prosperous energy future. But can we balance regional interests, in the process? And then, there are the debates around carbon pricing and energy policy. The fact remains that we want to move forward in a sustainable way, while also growing our economy, and helping Canadians achieve meaningful success.
So, what might that look like, and how do we find common ground to tackle problems of shared concern? These questions aren’t trivial, they aren’t easily answered. And the policy terrain they cover takes insight, and expertise, and wisdom to navigate. And that is why I am thrilled that we have with us today Premiers Andrew Furey, and Danielle Smith. One is from the Oil Sands of Alberta, the other from the offshore resources of Newfoundland and Labrador. In some ways, they could not appear to be more different. But that is what makes today’s conversation so important. It’s what we do best, here at the Empire Club, bringing together people with different and diverse perspectives, to work through some of our most complex and pressing challenges, taking the opportunity to open a dialogue that we must have in our country, particularly, as we face growing external pressures on our energy sector, including those from a new U.S. administration.
I think this promises to be an enlightening and consequential conversation of national importance today. And I don’t want to hold it up any longer. So, it is my honour to introduce our first keynote speaker, the Honourable Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta. Come on up, Premier Smith. Welcome.
The Honourable Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta
Thank you so much. Well, thank you so much, for the very kind introduction. Thank you for hosting myself, as well as my colleague and friend, Premier Andrew Furey of Newfoundland and Labrador, as we talk about Canadian energy, resources, and climate. I hadn’t seen Andrew for a little while, and then my first sight of him was when the premiers got together for dinner, for the Council of the Federation. I gave him a high five, for the incredible historic arrangement that he’s just made with Québec, correcting—yeah, he’ll talk more about it, but I think that was one of the worst deals signed in Canadian history. And I was just so pleased to see that he and Premier Légault were able to correct that. It’s going to be amazing for his province. But it is an honour to be here, and speak to you, with my friend, at the Empire Club of Canada. Over your 121 years, you’ve welcomed some truly incredible people to the stage, and I’m humbled to be counted among them. And that includes, of course, a number of Alberta premiers, who have used this venue to contribute to the dialogue on important national issues. And when Canadians are facing tremendous change and challenges, as we are right now, that’s what brings us together today for this conversation. There are serious issues before us that need to be addressed. And we need to rise to the occasion, for the sake of Canada. And that is especially true of energy and the environment, which is our focus here today.
But it’s also true of the economy. And I do want to start there. Because without a strong economy, the best intentions of the world don’t count for that much. For Canada, a strong economy depends on good relations with the United States, our most important trading partner. By now, of course, you’ve all heard that President-elect Donald Trump has strong concerns about border security. And he’s using that as a reason to announce an imposition of a significant 25% tariff on all Canadian goods. Such tariffs—I don’t need to tell this room—would not only have a devastating effect on us in Alberta; it would have a devastating effect on the country as a whole. So, Canada and the provinces, we have to do more, to respond. So, together with Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Québec Premier François Legault, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew, and we have told—and we continue to tell—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he needs to step up, when it comes to border security.
But Alberta, for our part, we are not waiting around. Last week, I announced that we’re creating a $29 million fund, to create new border teams. Those teams will be part of our provincial law enforcement agency, which is the Alberta Sheriffs. We have seven teams of sheriffs that are ramping up security, and cracking down on illegal drugs, and firearms, and people who are along our shared border with the United States—Alberta’s portion of that shared border is 298 kilometres—and we do aim to have them operational by early next year. The other part of what we will do is we’ll create a two-kilometre deep border zone, to enable sheriffs to arrest individuals found attempting to cross the border illegally, or attempting to traffic in illegal drugs or firearms.
And this doesn’t mean that Alberta intends, or even wants to go it alone. Obviously, our teams will work closely with the RCMP, and with the Canada Border Services Agency. But we do recognize the need and the expectation to do more. And we are. Because if Canada succeeds in maintaining proper border security, I expect that we will continue to have a very strong relationship with the United States, as we always have. I should mention—because we’ve had this conversation around the table—I think that the issue with the border is different in different parts of the country. For Andrew, it might not be quite as big an issue, because he’s got Québec standing in the way of anyone coming across his border. And for Québec, clearly, the issue of illegal migrants is the number one concern. For us, it’s a little hard for illegal migrants to come across the border. But our issue is having the precursors to fentanyl coming into our province, and then being pressed into deadly pills that are then being used, not only across the country, but also going back into the United States, and the actions of the Mexican drug cartels in our province, as well.
So, I think that the issues are slightly different. And you can see it in the opioid deaths that we have had in Western Canada. We’re pleased with the approach that we’ve taken, with our recovery-oriented system of care. We’ve managed to have major success in reducing fentanyl deaths—I should mention, my former chief-of-staff, Marshall Smith, is here, as well. He’s the author of our recovery-oriented system of care. I say former, because he’s already done so much in Alberta, he’s now coming out to help Ontario, and the rest of the country, and maybe even the rest of the world, with implement our proposal. But I want to just put it into context, because I know that there has been some media commentary of “We’re not as bad as Mexico.” But we’re plenty bad enough, because we’ve seen the number of deaths in our own province. That’s why we were able to roll out our border security plan, because we started developing it 18 months ago, so that we could deal with this very issue of the deadly crisis of fentanyl, as well as with the concerns we had at the border. So, I just wanted to put that into context for you.
But of course, when we’re looking at our relationship with the United States, a major part of that relationship is going to be based on energy, and especially oil and gas. And I’ve shared the same message many times at the national level, as well as with American governors, as I did last weekend at the Western Governors Association Winter Meeting. Alberta’s oil and gas are a tremendous win for Canadians, and for Americans, for all of North America. We provide affordable energy for American states, we have the ability to be a leader in energy security, and we should not discount the incoming administration’s commitment to energy security. We must recognize that Alberta is uniquely positioned, in all of the world, as the perfect partner for the United States, in achieving that objective. So, it’s therefore, in our view, utter foolishness for the Canadian government to enact an energy production cap, that would result in a massive curtailment of oil to the United States.
Now, Ottawa calls it an emissions cap. They say they are striving to cut emissions. But we all know what they’re doing. By setting a target that is excessively aggressive, it can only be achieved by shutting in production. The only way it can be achieved is by shutting in the production of oil and gas. Because cuts are going to be required, to meet these irresponsible time frames. We’ve heard from business leaders, from industry experts, and many others from across Canada, who’ve raised concerns about the cost of this dangerous policy. Because when it’s in place, this production cap would require a cut of one million barrels per day by 2030, and two million barrels per day by 2035. And that is not just me saying it. It is the Conference Board of Canada, it is Deloitte, and it is S&P Global. Estimates indicate that 150,000 workers across the country will lose their jobs—and again, that’s the Conference Board of Canada forecasting these devastating numbers. And tens of billions of dollars will disappear from Canada’s GDP and government revenues, which will devastate the economy, and also devastate public spending. We’ve calculated, in our province alone, that we would lose about $12 billion in revenue from various sources, which is about half the amount that we spend on our entire public health system, to give you some idea of the context for us.
Now, Canada’s Constitution gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over non-renewable resource development. It’s right there in the Constitution. That’s the language, “Exclusive jurisdiction.” And we mean to see that respected. We have legislation in place, called the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act. And it is designed to protect the province from unConstitutional interference by the federal government. We recently brought forward a motion, in the Alberta legislature. And the motion declares that our government will launch an immediate Constitutional challenge, when and if this federal production cap becomes law. It also outlines aggressive measures that our government will use, to stop the cap from being implemented in Alberta. And to give you an example of the kind of things that we intend to do, we will prohibit any provincial entities from enforcing the cap. We will declare oil and gas production facilities to be critical infrastructure, and prevent people, including federal agents, from entering onto those properties without our permission. Further, we will make it a condition of the licence—remember, Alberta owns the resources, and the energy companies, we contract with them, to produce it on our behalf—we will make it a condition of their licence that they report their emissions to the provincial government. And then, we’ll also collect a portion of our oil and gas royalties in kind, for the purpose of selling oil directly to businesses and foreign governments, to minimize any taxation or other stunts that the federal government might attempt, to interfere with our ability to deliver our resources to the world.
I’d rather not do any of this. I would have rather, for instance, when the German Chancellor came calling and said, “Hey, can we buy some of your natural gas?” I would have preferred for the federal government to say yes, rather than to say there wasn’t a business case for selling it to them—same message that they gave to Japan. And if we want to derisk the production of more, or the creation of more pipelines, we believe that we are going to have to do that by pledging a certain number of barrels, so that the pipeline sector has the confidence to be able to partner with us, in building new egress out of our country. And I would much rather work with Ottawa, to get our oil and gas to market. I’d much rather that Alberta and Canada benefit from the sale of oil and gas, rather than the benefit going to dictatorships around the world, with much worse environmental and humanitarian records.
I see Enbridge hosted us, and has everyone in the room from their company. But seriously, that’s the choice that the Americans would have to make. When you look at how the refineries have been tooled to receive heavy oil, there are not very many places in the world they can get that from. They can get it from us, or they can get it from Venezuela, or from Iran, or from Iraq. And the argument we are going to make is that we are a much better trading partner for them.
But Alberta will do what it needs to do, in order to counter Ottawa’s job-killing emissions and production cap, because the stakes are just too high for anything else. Our allies will need stable supplies of oil and gas for decades. And Canada can take the lead in providing them, while reducing the emissions. This is what we like to say in Alberta: we are not phasing out oil and gas production, we are moving away from emissions. And we have a number of ways that we’re doing it. The entire Canadian oil and gas industry understands how important this is. And we’re succeeding. Alberta’s overall emissions are declining, even as energy demand rises, production increases and our economy grows. And that’s because we drive progress through technology, instead of punishing taxes, and regulations. We use industrial carbon pricing, which we’ve had in place since 2007, to channel revenues into breakthroughs, like carbon capture, and geothermal, and hydrogen energy, and bitumen beyond combustion. We have incentive programs, to speed up the adoption of emissions reduction technology.
So, there are no good reasons, or Constitutional grounds, to oppose the development of Canada’s energy industry. Which is why we will keep on fighting to ensure that Canadian prosperity carries the day. And I know that many of you are with us. Thank you for that. I’m very grateful for it. But truly, the facts are on our side. We will need reasonable people, to spread this perspective far and wide. Because we can’t let this country down, we can’t let its people down. And I think there’s lots more to discuss, on this topic, and I look forward to hearing from Premier Furey. And then we’ll get on to our discussion. Premier.
Jenna Donelson
Thank you, Premier Smith. I am also delighted to welcome back our next keynote speaker. He’s no stranger to our stage. Please join me in welcoming to our stage the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Honourable Andrew Furey.
The Honourable Dr. Andrew Furey, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador
Well, thanks so much. I never thought I’d be piped in to Coldplay—I guess I can check that off the list. It is truly an honour, again, to be a guest at the Empire Club of Canada, here in Toronto. I’d like to thank, and to acknowledge, several of my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador ,who made the extra trip from The Rock to be with us today. I’m also extremely excited to share the stage with Premier Smith. She’s been a good friend. And we were joking outside, we were taking a picture—someone said, how could they be so different? I argued that it was like a Fort Mac wedding. It was an East Coast boy, and an Alberta girl. But both our provinces are truly energy powerhouses, and I’m looking forward to our chat.
I’m just going to pause here. I’m going to go off script—and my staff are getting chest pain, as I speak. But what the Premier suggested about the emissions caps is incredibly important, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The federal government made an agreement with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, called the Atlantic Accord. And the Atlantic Accord ensures, not only in spirit, but in writing, that joint management prevails, consequently means, that the Minister of Energy, the premier of the province, have a definitive say in things like emissions caps. And that was not respected in this process. So, subsequently, we will continue to fight for the hardworking women and men in the oil and gas industry, in Newfoundland and Labrador. But that aside, it’s you may have heard—I was talking about it yesterday—but it’s been a momentous couple of weeks, on the East Coast. But I feel it—yeah, it’s been very good. It certainly ties well, in today’s theme. A new energy has, indeed, been building throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. That not only refers to all the possibilities we are exploring with our natural resources, but also the invigoration it has given us, as a place once defined by one industry, now instead being redefined by the opportunities of many.
Last week was a historic one, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we’re still riding the high of having corrected a historic wrong. The Churchill Falls Agreement was a deal signed with Québec, in 1969. That meant our province would see next to nothing, when it came from profits being produced from our energy. We were stuck at a fixed price for 55 years. Now, you may say, what’s that fixed price? A fixed price could be good, if it was high. We were selling electrons to Québec at a fixed price of not 2 cents per kilowatt hour, but .02 cents a kilowatt hour. We paid the price of short-sightedness, at that time. And it’s been a thorn in every Newfoundlander and Labradorian’s side, ever since. But no more free power. This is our moment to correct the wrongs. And last week, we signed a memorandum of understanding with the province of Québec that tears up that old agreement, not in 2041, when it was set to expire, but today, 17 years early, and steps boldly into a new history, for Newfoundland and Labrador.
But beyond the deal itself, my friends, it’s a positive example of how interprovincial cooperation can work, that not only balances our regional interests, but corrects the past lopsidedness of that unfair deal. The deal will also see extra units added, and a refurbished station at Churchill Falls, and the construction of new mega projects, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Gull Island is one of the last recognized as one of the most lucrative untapped hydroelectric locations on the continent. Finally, that potential will be realized. Together, Newfoundland and Labrador, a sum total of all of these projects combined, will see more than $225 billion of new revenue, over the life of that new agreement. That money is transformative for the people of my province—and perhaps equally transformative, we will have access to four times the electricity capacity, in Labrador. So, four new mega projects, 1,500 new megawatts, tens of thousands of jobs, $33 billion in capital investment, and almost a quarter-of-a-trillion dollars in direct new revenue. So, transformative doesn’t capture it. It changes everything, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Cooperation with Québec involved years of tough negotiations, but it came down to one simple truth: we both realized, and embraced, how a new deal would have tremendous value to both of us.
Now, during that journey, I’ve learned several lessons. One, the past is a map. It speaks to you. Listen to its advice, and follow its direction. And that’s how we fixed the mistake of 1969, and wrote a new chapter for Newfoundland and Labrador. Two, you never stand still in a fight. You always keep moving. We weaved and bobbed around every attempt to reinforce the old definitive status quo. We were unshakable, when it came to developing a new deal, repeating over and over the mantra that this is our resource, it’s our energy, it’s our time to get it right. Now, let’s be clear. It’s not that we didn’t want to give Québec a choice; we wanted them to join us, and be part of the right choice. And at the end of the day, it was a victory for both of us. And three, the beauty of Canada is more than the vistas, it’s more than the resources, even, from the timber of BC, the power of the Oil Sands, the lobster off the coast of Nova Scotia, or cod off our shores. It’s the energy of collaboration across jurisdictions within this special federation that we call Canada. It is the people.
These developments, of course, the ones I just introduced, don’t overshadow the other important moves we have recently made in our energy sector. This agreement is one extraordinary part of Newfoundland and Labrador’s new diversified natural resource plant. Greater renewable power will mean further mining projects, and other developments in Labrador, and will create a safe, reliable, and responsible source for the critical minerals the world needs today. We will continue to focus on our amazing oil and gas sector, and ensure we maximize its potential. We will offer low carbon, high-quality oil and gas products, that does not require the use of pipelines. We are not bound by geography. Finally, being on an island in the middle of the North Atlantic has a definitive geographic advantage. We are also doing incredible, exciting things in the new energy space. We are on the forefront of the move to hydrogen power, with several mega projects in development, and agreements signed with Germany, the Netherlands, and more to come. This is backed up by our immense wind potential, and the vast freshwater supply, as well as access, direct access, to European and Northeastern seaboard markets. My friends, we are well-positioned, and well-poised. We want to be example for the world, with how we are balancing a thriving oil and gas sector, with an eye to the future with renewable energy sources, and new energy developments.
So, the question on everyone’s mind is, how does Canada provide energy security and independence, in this time of geopolitical uncertainty? Well, the answer is straightforward: we create it. We create it from a sovereign and proud position of strength. While we are all concerned, at this moment in time, this moment in history with tariffs, we cannot lose sight of who we are. And I would argue, we should not dismiss as jokes rhetoric surrounding our own independence. Strong, united, and sovereign. Not yes-people, no threat to our united nation. We must start any negotiations from a position of strength, and unity, with a diplomatic lens towards resolution. The energy of that fight will help unite us, will help secure our oil and gas, it will help secure our energy independence and security.
But beyond any geopolitical spats, we must continue to draw upon our oil and gas, in the most sustainable way possible. We continue taking bold steps, when it comes to hydroelectric and new energy. We mine, process, and export the critical minerals needed, in the very engines of the green transition. Yes, the world definitely needs more energy right now. But it needs Canadian energy, more than ever before. The energy of pride that comes from investing in and growing our traditional non-renewable resources, the energy of optimism that comes by enhancing the output of our renewable energy sector, the energy of ingenuity, as we explore bold ways to develop and harness all of our natural resources. And the energy of hope, that all hands are behind the push for a better, stronger, brighter future, for an independent and strong Canada. Thank you very much.
Jenna Donelson
Thank you, Premier Furey, for those remarks. Thank you, both premiers, for setting the stage. I’m delighted to welcome our moderator, Mike Van Soelen, up. Mike is a partner at the Oyster Group, and a past president of the Empire Club. No stranger to our stage. Please join me in welcoming Mike Van Soelen.
Mike Van Soelen, Partner, Oyster Group; Past President, Empire Club of Canada
Well, thank you. This is a real thrill to be here. And as Jenna said, on behalf of the Empire Club, we’re really thrilled to have you here. Now, you agreed, some time ago, to come here. And I imagine at the time you thought….
The Hon. Andrew Furey
Questions can’t change, regardless of what happened.
Mike Van Soelen
The questions have to change, obviously. But you probably thought you could slide into Toronto on a quiet December day, get in and out, and then there wouldn’t be much going on. But we find ourselves here. Certainly, what we saw yesterday, you know—what I’ll offer is this: you came together with your premiers, to have a conversation about the threats from Donald Trump. Yet you getting together for that historical conversation wasn’t the biggest news of the day; what took place in Ottawa was the biggest news of the day. How do you think, now, about a unified approach to these negotiations? Is the, what’s taking place with the federal government making that more challenging?
The Hon. Danielle Smith
I would hope that with a new finance minister—it did take a little while, to determine who that was—but as Dominic LeBlanc, I would hope that what we would see is a more unified approach. One of the things that I found frustrating—I’ll let Premier Furey speak for himself—but I found it frustrating that we’d get together as a COF table, the prime minister came in twice, we’d all talk about the priorities that we would want to put on the table. And then, when we left, there were leaks coming out of different parts of the government, which was now, in hindsight, very clearly a dispute between the major people at the table. And so, what I would hope, now, is that we’ve got the approach that I think the premiers have been advocating for, is that our number one objective is to avoid tariffs from being imposed at all on January 20th, and to take seriously what the President-elect has said about securing the borders, making sure that we meet our 2% NATO commitment in a timely way, and not using our country as a backdoor for Chinese goods to enter into the US market.
And so, if we can stay centred around that, I would hope that we wouldn’t have to get into a tit-for-tat retaliation conversation, that we can address the real issues that are on the table, and then we can deal with some of the economic challenges that we have, in the current trade relationship. But I don’t think that we’ll be able to have that constructive conversation, unless we deal with the issues that have been put on the table by the President-elect.
The Hon. Andrew Furey
Well, I would, to answer your question directly, I think it’s more important than ever before—given what we all agree seems a bit chaotic in Ottawa, yesterday—that the premiers speak with a united voice. Premier Smith, rightfully, in her speech, suggested that our resources are ours. It’s very different than the United States. It’s a story that you have to continually tell in the United States, because it is different than the United States Constitution. But I think the meetings that we had yesterday were certainly very productive. It allowed for us to come together with a more strategic approach, a unified voice, that respects the sensitivities of different, not only different industries, but different jurisdictions. And you can only do that, we can only play this game of chess, if you will—even though he’s an erratic and irrational counter player—if you’re strategic. And I think that that was a unifying point across the table yesterday. I think it will allow for us to have a more unified, and strategic, and tactful communications across border, but even within our own country. I do think the borders are incredibly important. But I have argued from day one, and will continue to, we should not be saying that we’re doing this just because the President of the United States said that we should do it; we should do it because it’s good for Canadians. And it prevents drugs from coming to Canada, it prevents arms from coming to Canada, it prevents immigrants from coming to Canada. We should be doing the border security because it is in the best interest of Canadians, not exclusively because the President of the United States asked us to do so.
Mike Van Soelen
It’s a great point, and I heard you make it yesterday after the meeting. So, we now find ourselves as a country, I guess, more engaged on the issues of the border, more engaged on the issues of drugs coming over the border. Did Donald Trump do us a favour? Are we paying attention to something that we should have taken more seriously earlier?
The Hon. Danielle Smith
I hope that it does act as a catalyst, to do some of the investments that we, we know we need to do. As I mentioned, in our province, we’ve had one of the worst overdose death crises of any province in the country. And the approach that we’ve taken on our recovery-oriented system of care, to have already started seeing those go down by a dramatic amount, 53% year-over-year, I think that that is a measure that you have to tackle it from both ends. You have to tackle it from the demand end, so that fewer people are getting addicted, and staying addicted. But you also have to deal with it on the supply end. Because we certainly don’t want for Alberta, or British Columbia, to be seen as a source of drugs that are causing problems in other communities. And unfortunately, there is way too much activity. And so, you can look at what’s happening in our province—and this is why it’s not exclusively a border issue; it’s also a policing issue. We have our sheriffs, who work with our municipal forces, and work with the RCMP. We’ve shut down two fentanyl super labs, we’ve shut down six other facilities. Every week, we’re shutting down a drug house. And so, that is part and parcel of making sure that we’re protecting our communities. I mean, the precursor products and the drugs are getting into our province somehow. They’re not teleporting in. They’re coming through borders. And so, it does make sense that this is the last piece of what we need to do, to make sure we keep our people safe. And it has that mutual benefit of keeping Canadians safe, as well as keeping Americans safe.
So, I’m glad that it has accelerated that conversation—as I mentioned, we were already going down that path before. I hope it accelerates the conversation about NATO. It was actually Manitoba Premier, Wab Kinew, at our last meeting, who put that on the table, knowing that if we don’t talk about our responsibility in our collective security internationally, we’re not going to get what we want on the trade front. And so, when we look at our northern friends, and the need for Arctic security, whether it’s Nunavut, or Northwest Territories, or Yukon, this could also be another opportunity for us to be talking about border security, in conjunction with our NATO commitments. So, I would hope to see the next plan will also accelerate that, as well.
The Hon. Andrew Furey
Any time there’s an opportunity for interactions that would remove drugs or illegal activity from society, at large, I think it’s important that we invest in that. I do think that he conflated two issues, intentional or not. They’re completely not related. The fact that fentanyl may be going bi-directional, by the way, from Seattle to Vancouver and back, is not in any way going—fixing that is not in any way going to change his position, necessarily, on tariffs. It may reposition that we can show him a win—we know he’s somebody who wants to have wins—but the two are definitely not related, in any economic formula that you can conceive of. So, he’s intentionally conflated, as he has in the past, and he’s had great success—so, this is a compliment to him—he’s had great success at creating chaos, and being successful through it, whether that’s in business, or in political life. And we should be aware of that. But we, again, have to think of the long-term impacts of any erosion of democratic institutions, or our sovereignty, as it pertains to these negotiations moving forward. Because that fundamentally changes who we are. I can understand the anxiety behind the economic impacts, and we all share those, and we will work through those. But the longer-lasting historic impact will be beyond these four years, if he’s able to continue to try to, directly or indirectly, erode the democracy that is Canada.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
If I may, I think the reason he’s conflating his two—and I was sharing this book, actually, Goldy Hyder is here, I believe, as well, with the Business Council of Canada. He hosted Robert Lighthizer in Alberta, a short time ago, and his book was made available. And the reason why he’s conflating the two is, you’re probably scratching your heads thinking, but we have this deal, we just signed, with the USMCA, or the CUSMO—whichever acronym you want to use—how can you impose tariffs? Well, he can invoke a section of legislation that would allow for him to impose tariffs, if there’s a national security threat. He did that to us once before, on steel and aluminum. So, it’s in his interest to put forward that there is a legitimate national security threat of people and drugs coming across the border, in order to create the pretext of being able to bring through the tariffs. So, that’s why I think he’s doing it. But the other part of it is, we got on their radar screen, and we shouldn’t have. We were a 1% problem for them, now we’re a 9% problem for them. So, when they see that there are more people coming across the border, and that the drug crisis is continuing to grow, and there are seizures happening at our border—even though it is a fraction of what we’re seeing in Mexico, it’s larger than it was when he was in office last time. That’s why it’s caught their attention, and that’s why I think we have to take it seriously, in addressing both of those things.
Mike Van Soelen
Premier Furey, you used the word sovereignty. You have, your province has passed an act, to ensure your sovereignty. And you’ve both touched on the federal government’s overreach, on some of these issues. How does this play out? You’ve said you’re willing to use any tool necessary, to protect the Alberta industry. How far are you willing to go?
The Hon. Danielle Smith
Part of the structure of the Sovereignty Act is really trying to create some parity in what we have, in our Constitutions. Our Constitution has a clause in there for disallowance. So, if the provincial government tries to pass policy in a defined area of federal jurisdiction, they have the power to strike it down. And they’ve done 112 times, in our history, including to Alberta, when Alberta tried to create its own banking system and currency. That is not allowed. We’re not allowed to have our own currency. So, I won’t go that far. So, at least know that that one’s off board. But the problem is that…
The Hon. Andrew Furey
I was already picturing you on the dollar bill.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
…but the problem is, our Constitution really should be written the way the Atlantic Accord is written with Newfoundland and Labrador. That if you have an area of joint jurisdiction, you both have to agree, when that policy comes into place. And so, that’s the architecture of our Constitution that we’re challenging, here, is that we’re saying, “We thought it was pretty clear in the Constitution, you do your thing, we do ours.” But the federal government keeps on testing it. They keep on interfering in our jurisdiction.
And we’ve won in the past. I mean, one of the first books that I read when I got elected was a chapter of Alberta History Series, of the battles between Lougheed and another Trudeau. And we’re dusting off some of those old measures that Lougheed used, back in the day, to ultimately win greater authority over our resources, but ultimately, win the case against the National Energy Program. So, I would say that we’re, we’re prepared to go as far as we need to, in order to exert our right over our resources. We’re simply not going to allow the federal government to shut in our resources. We’re simply not going to allow for them to impose a net zero power grid—I may as well mention that one, too. Because we know what will happen in our jurisdiction, which is 90% reliant on natural gas, if we end up with underinvestment and instability in our grid, and the grid goes down in minus 30, in winter, people die. In Texas, that happened. And the public numbers, 356 people died, when that occurred—I’ve been told it’s actually closer to 1,000.
So, this isn’t a matter of ideology or just a difference of opinion to us. It’s existential for us. And that’s part of the reason why we are going to assert, as the Constitution says, we’ve got the right to determine our own electricity system, and we’ve got the right to determine how we develop our resources. And I guess we’ll see whether or not we can come to an agreement with the federal government. We keep on trying. We haven’t made it there yet. But there may be a change in government, at some point, too.
Mike Van Soelen
Premier Furey, we have to talk about the Churchill Falls Agreement, a historic change. I’m a communications person, I watched your press conference. Was it your idea to rip up the agreement right on the stage, with the Québec Premier beside you?
The Hon. Andrew Furey
It was. When the Premier and I first met, it was very strategic—it seemed like a sudden execution, to the people of Canada, and even, perhaps, to the people of the province. But we had been very strategic, in meeting with Francois. It was the first trip I took, as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, despite the challenges of COVID, to do a very public display of meeting together, but also, to build a private relationship, to see if he understood the cultural significance of the agreement, to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. And I said to him, at the time, “Do you understand the economics? Do you understand the cultural thing?” And I said, “If we can ever get there, the only way that I’m going to be able to do this is if we tear up the old agreement and start a fresh, a brand new partnership, that is equitable and just for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.” I don’t know if he thought I was being figurative, but I did give him fair warning four years ago, that that’s what I was gonna do.
Mike Van Soelen
Well, congratulations. Now, we find ourselves here, and you’ve arm-wrestled with the federal government, in the past. There was some attention that you received, as a Liberal Premier, where you’ve asked the federal government to change course on the, on the Carbon Tax. You know, now we see we’re dealing with a lot more issues, and a lot more challenges with the federal government, and its relationship with the provinces. What confidence do you have, that there’ll be an ability to kind of bring a unified approach to these things, and between the provinces and the federal government, you’ll be able to come to a little bit more agreement on a, on a way forward?
The Hon. Andrew Furey
Well, certainly, we’ve had our disputes with the federal government in the past. We’ve also had good working relationship, on certain files. And you can imagine the friction that that created, at times. But I’ve been very definitive and clear to my federal colleagues, and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, my principle, my only job, is to stand up for what’s right for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. And whether it’s the Carbon Tax, the decision on Northern Cod, the emission standards, or equalization, I will never be afraid to fight for what’s right for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, first and foremost.
So, that aside, the second portion of your question was, I believe that the united front of the COF put forward, the vacuum that is being filled by the premiers as a united voice, is an important one. It’s an important one, by the way, because even though the President may be not checking—you know, I’m sure he’s on my social media feed all the time—but he may not be hearing what the premiers in Canada are saying; someone is checking for him. And if they feel like the premiers are not united, and that there is a chaos in Ottawa, that’s where the President thrives. That’s where he’s succeeded his whole life, in that kind of environment. So, having a united, non-fractured voice of COF, is incredibly important. That respects the regional sensitivities and differences. And I think we’ve achieved that because of friendships, because of common goals, at that table. And it was very evident—I think you’d agree, Danielle—yesterday. I do think that Minister Leblanc is a, is a good communicator. I think he’s a dear friend. But he’s also a good communicator, and an effective relationship builder. I’m not sure that there’s many across the country who fully understand personal and political capital, as much as Dominic Leblanc. And he—if there’s somebody that we can trust and rally behind, to negotiate with the United States, I have the utmost confidence in him.
Mike Van Soelen
Great. Premier, you mentioned the idea of—it was not an emissions cap, but it’s a production cap. I think language matters. One, we can have public policy debates. But when we have these conversations with the public, and you know, we’re trying to win the hearts and minds for our position, language matters. So, why do you talk about it as a production cap? Maybe—you made some reference to this, as well. Like, what is really taking place, and how do we ensure the industry is able to continue to thrive?
The Hon. Andrew Furey
You go, you go first.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
Well, let me put it into perspective of what we’re about to face, in the auto industry—cause there may be folks in Ontario, who know that industry a little bit more closely. So, what do we think will happen, when we have the net zero requirements, the 20% of vehicles, as of January 1st, 2026, have to be zero emissions vehicles? Twenty percent. So, I’ll tell you what it means for my province. We buy, I think it’s a two—I have to get the numbers right—I think we buy 200,000 cars a year. And so, if 20% of those cars have to be zero emissions, that means that we have to buy 40,000 zero emissions cars, by January 1st, 2026. I think in the entire history of electric vehicles, we’re somewhere around 5,000 now.
So, what happens to the energy sector, to be able to meet those targets? It means they have to reduce the amount of combustion engine vehicles they sell, in order to be able to get to that 20% of the total sales in my province being electric vehicles. That’s a production cap. There’s no other way around it. And that is exactly what they’re doing on energy. If you have a timeline for an emissions reduction that is too fast, and the technology isn’t available, the only way to achieve it, then, is to curtail production. They’re doing the same thing on food production. If you have a curtailment of the amount of fertilizer emissions you’re allowed to have, and you don’t have the ability to meet the target, you will reduce your production of food. Everything is a scarcity mentality. We’re trying to flip that, and we’re trying to say, if you give us a long enough time horizon, we know the technology will develop to a point where, as equipment is having its natural turnover, it’ll be more efficient. As carbon capture utilization and storage technology builds out, we’ll be able to use that. As we have more mature relationships internationally, we’ll be able to replace coal plants with natural gas plants, which will reduce global emissions, and we’ll get credit for it. We’ll be able to do direct air capture.
But you can’t snap your fingers and say, that has to be in place by 2030—the business people in this room know that. That innovation happens. It sure does. Because just look at all the things that didn’t exist 25 years ago, right? I mean, we didn’t have iPhones and iPads. Can you imagine what the world would be like, without that? But look how, once they got created, how dramatically it changed all of our lives. So, as long as you have a long enough time horizon, I have utter confidence in our entrepreneurs, to be able to solve this. But if you put it on an abridged timeline, and you’re firm about it, and you’re threatening CEOs that they’re going to go to jail, if they don’t meet it, well then no one’s gonna do the investment, and you’re actually going to be worse off. You probably not only will not meet your target, you will have a production shut in, but you’ll also be cutting off the innovation that would ultimately allow you to achieve it. That is the fundamental difference of opinion that we have with the federal government.
The Hon. Andrew Furey
So, I don’t disagree. I think there’s an imbalance of incentives, or the carrot-to-stick argument, all the time, and there’s too much stick, and no carrot. And the incentives are what drives and supports the ecosystem for innovation. And you can see, conceptually, on a whiteboard, how all of this works. Of course, we need to move to lower carbon, we need carbon extraction and storage, we need to continue on with oil and gas production, we need to lower emissions at the facilities, and lower emissions at the end stage. And on a whiteboard, it all looks very pleasant and nice. But there’s no contemplation for the timelines, necessarily, in that, to Premier Smith’s point. I think perhaps ideology got ahead of pragmatism, in the pursuit. It’s a noble pursuit—it’s one that we all share, by the way. I was talking to John, from Cenovus, good friend, good business in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a space, in which this works; it’s just not the space that’s being created with regulatory punishment mechanisms. There is a space in which it works, in which we can achieve our goal, we can develop an economy for the future.
And by the way, the spinoff benefits of all of these things will support not only the people who will continue to work in oil and gas, but adjacent industries. Newfoundland and Labrador, you have the ability to store a gigaton of CO2 off our shores. That’s every bit of carbon produced in every province and territory, and—for a full decade, can be stored off our shores. So, the adjacent industries will develop. But they can’t develop over a truncated electoral timeline. It just doesn’t work. So, in addition to having an imbalance, or perhaps misplaced incentives, and punishments, we need to really contemplate a smoother chronology, that embraces the pragmatism of the moment that is afforded to us.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
Now, I’m gonna sound like I’m trying to one-up my friend, Premier Furey, but we have so much poor space in Alberta. Second only…
The Hon. Andrew Furey
Gigaton, gigaton, gigaton, gigaton…
The Hon. Danielle Smith
…second only…
The Hon. Andrew Furey
…gigaton, gigaton, gigaton.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
…second only to Russia. In fact, we would be able to sequester all of the emissions so far produced by man, from all time. That’s how much emissions, the capacity that we have in Alberta. So—and it’s part of the reason why we’ve mapped it out. We’ve got 25 different…
The Hon. Andrew Furey
There we go, with the one-ups.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
…we’ve got 25 different….
The Hon. Andrew Furey
Let me tell you about our carbon output per barrel…
The Hon. Danielle Smith
But it is….
The Hon. Andrew Furey
…you’re at 80, we’re at 8.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
You also….
The Hon. Andrew Furey
That’s the way it comes out. Eight. You don’t have to do anything to it. It comes out at eight.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
I know. And you also have all that great hydropower. But this is part of the reason why—and I don’t wanna make it sound like we have no relationship with the federal government, because we have partnered with them on Dow Chemical’s petrochemical net-zero plant, the first ethylene cracker in the world, to be able to produce net-zero plastics. We’ve got net-zero hydrogen, with air products, again, another partnership with the federal government, and Linde, which is also going to be the hydrogen producer there, too. We’re talking to Heidelberg about a net-zero cement plant, also, because they can capture the CO2, and bury it. We’re talking about having ammonia export, which will do dual-fuel combustion in Japan and South Korea, so that they can use their coal plants, but reduce the emissions profile, by adding ammonia to the stream, but we will capture the CO2, and put it under the ground, as well. So, carbon capture is a real technology. We’ve already rolled it out at scale. And it’s part of the way that we can use technology, to get to the finish line, continue increasing production, but also be able to offset it with emissions reduction.
The Hon. Andrew Furey
I would just add that it’s incumbent on any government, and any policy maker, to build in a feedback loop, an evaluation of the policy mechanism. So, oftentimes, people think that the courage is to make the policy, in the first place; the courage is to adapt and change the policy, let the policy evolve, or stop it, frankly, if it’s not working. You can’t be so ideologically married to the announcement of the policy that you have the inability to adapt and change, according to different pressures. And I think that was, that is—and we have a great working relationship with the federal government, too, on different files. But on the environmental file, in particular, the pursuit of the timeline overrode the ability to act. And everybody in this space wants to participate. They see economic benefits, they see financial benefits, they see environmental benefits. But in this policy space, you have to reevaluate every little bit, to see if your environmental objective is being met in the first place.
Mike Van Soelen
Thank you, you’ve been very generous with your time. I want to ask one more question. Excuse me. With, you know, I think we’re all trying to figure out how serious Donald Trump is. Are we really facing a 25% tariff? Is it sabre-rattling, or is it all gonna get solved at the negotiating table? But we don’t know, we don’t have a crystal ball. But maybe for this room, if you could just sort of describe sort of your level of anxiety or optimism for this moment. It is certainly historical. As a leader of your respective provinces, you know, where’s your head space, and how are you thinking about where we are, and where we need to go?
The Hon. Andrew Furey
Sure, I mean, I take it as serious as an appendicitis. It’s very serious. But there are solutions to it. We can navigate this space strategically, we can navigate it with a united and unified voice, that hopefully—and I have the opinion that could—avoid tariffs altogether. It does involve giving him small wins. He’s a man that likes wins, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Whether that’s on border, or enhanced immigration control, we can give him small wins. We need to balance that with our independence, of course, and we’re not responding exclusively, for the reasons that he’s articulating. But I do believe that there is a series of balanced measures that can be employed, strategically and tactfully, that will allow us to navigate this time.
I think it’s important, in the conversations that we’re having—and we talked about this yesterday, so be repetitive—but to ensure that when we’re discussing with governors, and speaking to people across the border, that we make it very local. So, there are economic tariffs, and there are political tariffs. And you can achieve the same, almost equally. So, if you’re talking about yogurt, for example, we can exert—or oranges, there is different political pressures that come with tariffs on oranges, that don’t necessarily exist on lobster, for example. And so, that’s where the strategic thinking really needs to come together. It can’t be just, it can’t be just trying everything, all at once. And I think that that’s what came together yesterday. That was some of the advice that we received yesterday, for some others. But there is an ability to navigate through this.
I am concerned about what comes next over the next—make no mistake, like, this doesn’t end on January 22nd. He will say this today, and we may say, “Okay, we’ll give him quick wins,” and we should, but we should do it for our purposes, as well. But make no mistake, there will be another January 22nd, and another, and another, and another. So, that’s why the united, strong Canada is so incredibly important. Or else he will see, and truly extract, different leverage points from a fractured front. And yesterday, there was nothing but unity coming from all the premiers, and I’m happy that we could continue to play that role. So, I do believe that there is a path forward. I take it very seriously. Perhaps more than others at the table, I’m concerned about how he—I would never want to dismiss a joke tweet, as just rhetoric. And if you look at his history, his jokes often turn into reality. I’m not saying that we’re gonna be the 51st state. But we shouldn’t dismiss it as just some guy on a Twitter box, in the middle of the night, exercising his power. We need to take that seriously, and come together as Canadians, from a unified perspective. And I think with the premiers, and across the provinces, we share that.
Mike Van Soelen
Well, Premier Smith, speaking of taking him seriously—he has said his favourite word in the dictionary is tariff.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
Yes.
Mike Van Soelen
So, maybe talk us how you’re thinking, about this moment.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
I guess we’ll find out what the real issue is, very soon. Because I think that there is an idea, and a consensus growing. We had a really great conversation and some advice from David MacNaughton, and Frank McKenna, and Gary Doer, who were all ambassadors to the US, at one point. And they said that the border is a pretext for him to be able to justify the national security issue, so that he can bring in tariffs overriding the CUSMO agreement. So, we know that. So, if we address that issue, then what does it shift to? Well, in the past, he was worried about dairy. But I think what we heard was that they were able to effectively make the case that Canada buys more food from America, than America buys from Canada. So, that, when he’s looking at fair trade, or balanced trade, that is going to be a very important argument, if we can get down to it. He has also raised the frustrations he’s had with the cultural carve-outs. And I think that there’s some recognition that the cultural carve-out for French is legitimate. But using the cultural carve-out as a pretext to not allow American programming to come up here, that looks like an excuse. So, that’s going to be another area, potentially, that we have to negotiate.
So, if that’s what it comes down to, I think we can win that argument. We can talk about how our commodities, we’re not being subsidized by him. Canada is actually subsidizing the US, ’cause they’re able to buy commodities at a much cheaper price, especially because of the dollar discount, which goes into the cost of everything, whether it’s energy, or electricity, or lumber, or softwood, or any of our other products, critical minerals that we send down there. And then we also have this very balanced trade when it comes to our manufactured goods. And I think if you do the math, and I think we’re going to have to, I do believe taking commodities out of the picture, we actually do buy more from America, in their manufactured goods, which he cares about, than the reverse. And so, that’s, those are the governors and the industries that we’re going to have to talk to, down in the US.
That being said, what if it’s not those things at all? What if it’s that he actually wants tariffs to generate the revenue, so that he can reduce taxes for his people? What if that’s actually what he wants? Because if that is actually what he wants, then Canada, and Mexico, and China, are the biggest sources of those revenues, which means that we’re in bigger trouble. Maybe, because of the things I just mentioned, we’ll be able to argue for a lower tax rate. But it may be that he’s just entering into an era where he’s tariffing everybody. And we have to make the case about why it is we need carve-outs, or why it is we need a lower rate. Maybe that is where we’re going to end up going. I don’t think we’ll know, until we start ticking off the issues that he keeps raising, so that we can finally get to the real issue. I’m not sure that we’ve gotten to the real issue yet. But I can tell you, I think we’ve got the best case to make. I think that we are a strong country, we have products that they obviously want, we are a big purchaser of their products, because we’re also a rich country. And so, if we’re going to be able to make those cases, I think that’s what each of us needs to do with our various contacts in the US.
The other thing I would say, is his aspiration to put in tariffs to raise revenue, to reduce the tax burden on Americans, is at odds with his aspiration to keep prices low and inflation down. So, when he starts seeing that a 25% tariff on oil and gas adds a dollar a gallon to the price of gasoline, or increases power prices by 25%, or increases the cost of a car, by 25% or more, because of the cross border, that’s going to start seeing his own people put pressure on him, saying what the heck is going on here? When he starts seeing that the honeymoon of the stock market boom starts going the other way, and starts asking the question why, well maybe it’s because of these factors, maybe that’ll have an impact on him. So, I think that’s part of the issue, is he’s got various objectives that he ran on, that are kind of mutually exclusive. And that may be our opportunity, as Canadians. I just don’t think we know, at this precise moment, what the real end game is yet. And so, that’s why I think having a united approach, trying to avoid tariffs altogether January 20th, addressing the issues as they come up, and then seeing if we can actually get to what the real meat of the issue is, it’s gonna take a little bit of time to do that.
Mike Van Soelen
Thank you. As one Canadian nervous about these issues, I appreciate your transparency, the clarity of the thinking, the seriousness with which you’re approaching these issues. I feel a little better today. And on behalf of the Empire Club, I wanna thank you for taking time to speak with us all today. It’s been deeply appreciated.
The Hon. Danielle Smith
Thank you.
The Hon. Andrew Furey
Thanks very much.
Jenna Donelson
All right, everyone, we have a couple minutes left. Thank you, for that wonderful and insightful conversation, Premiers. Thank you, Mike, for moderating that. Today’s dialogue underscores that we have some important challenges that need to be addressed together. And so, I’d like to say thank you. And now—excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, the program’s not finished, thank you very much for your time and attention. I am delighted to welcome Colin Gruending to the stage. He is the Executive Vice President and President for Liquid Pipelines at Enbridge, to say a few words of appreciation, on behalf of our Lead Sponsor today. Thank you, and welcome Colin.
Note of Appreciation by Colin Gruending, Executive Vice President & President, Liquid Pipelines, Enbridge
Hey, good afternoon. I promise to be brief here, I know you wanna get on your way. Premiers, today you captured the true essence of what makes Canada a leader on the global stage. Together, you painted a vivid picture of how Canadian natural resources from the prairies, to Ontario, to the Atlantic, are not just commodities, but the cornerstones. Cornerstones of our domestic economy, and those of our trading partners. At Enbridge, we’re honoured to be a part of this natural resource and energy conversation, for the past 175 years. Our assets energize Canadians from BC to Atlantic Canada, and we have thousands of employees, serving Canadians in these communities. And of course, we’re proud of the role we play here in Ontario. Think back not too far from where we are today, back when Torontonians rode horses, not the subway. Our gas lamps first illuminated streets of this city. Today, we serve the entire province, and Michelle and her team try as hard as they can to keep that safe, reliable, affordable, and sustainable. We also indirectly serve Ontarians, by providing refineries in Sarnia with much of the crude oil, so they can in turn produce cost-effective gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, chemicals necessary for the nylon in your clothes, the rubber on your tires, the adhesive on the tape, to wrap your hockey sticks and presents with.
Listen, I live in Calgary, born in Saskatchewan—so Premier Furey, if you don’t mind, I’ll start acknowledgements in the West. Premier Smith, you reminded us of the pivotal role Alberta plays, as an energy powerhouse, driving innovation and prosperity. Your commitment to an all-of-the-above energy strategy, one that leverages Alberta’s traditional strengths, while also embracing technologies like carbon capture—that’s a great line, on all emissions for mankind, forever, love that one—but also, as a global producer of secure, reliable, and sustainable energy.
Premier Furey, your insights into Newfoundland and Labrador’s contributions were equally inspiring. Your province’s energy-rich exports, including offshore oil and gas, hydroelectricity generation, and hydrogen, underscores how Canada’s resource sector continues to evolve, to meet both domestic and international need. Thank you for sharing what you have.
At Enbridge, we too see a bright future for all forms of energy, and stand ready to support all governments’ visions for the sector, including enhancing security with our neighbour to the south, as we talked about today, and all our allies across the world. On behalf of Enbridge, and everyone in this room, let’s thank you for your dedication, and your sharp pragmatism to this vital discussion. Thank you very much.
Concluding Remarks by Jenna Donelson
Thank you, Colin, for those remarks, and thank you for Enbridge’s ongoing support. Thank you all, for being a part of this important conversation. Before we leave, I want to recognize one more important group of people we have in this room. We have our students and young leaders here. We have students from Humber Polytechnic, U of T, and Queen’s University. Thank you for being a part of this conversation.
This is our last event before the holidays, but I hope you will stay connected, by subscribing to our newsletter. Just scan the QR code on your table, and I hope you’ll join us, at some upcoming events in the new year.
Looking ahead, please join us on January 22nd, for our first Empire Nights event of the new year. The journalists forecast big stories of 2025, that will shape Canada—no doubt, it will be an interesting one. And also, we have coming up in the new year, our Nation Builder of the Year Award. On January 28th, we are honouring Prem Watsa, founder, chairman, and CEO of Fairfax Financial Holdings, who will be receiving this award. I hope you will join us. You won’t want to miss these events.
Finally, as a club of record, all Empire Club events are recorded, including today’s, and they are posted on our website. The recording of this event will be available shortly. Thank you all for being here. I wish you a wonderful holiday season. This meeting is now adjourned.
