Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank you, Mr. Binnion. I am from Drummondville and I know that you, or someone from your company, came to meet with a number of mayors. Thank you for doing that. Like everyone in Quebec, the people in Drummondville are quite suspicious of this situation.
I will continue along the same lines as Mr. Anderson's argument. Quebec is not Saskatchewan. Quebec will decide what it wants to do. We have multiple sources of energy and it is up to us to decide whether we want to use electricity instead of natural gas, regular gas or wind energy. That will be decided in Quebec. It is up to us to decide whether our cars will run on natural gas or on electricity in 40 years. We have all the types of energy we need to do that. So, the problems in Quebec are very different.
You must know what the situation is like in Quebec, since you participate in the BAPE hearings. Before I ask one or two quick and rather technical questions, I would just like to point out—since it will be read by other people eventually—what draws companies to Quebec. There are major reserves, as shown by the Utica example, and future markets in Quebec or in Ontario. There is no shale gas in Ontario. There are also the emerging markets, including China and India, which will be consuming a lot of energy in 15 or 20 years. We have a great capacity to connect our discoveries to the Metro gas pipeline, which covers precisely the area where Utica is. There is also a lot of water for drilling needs. We have very clean gas. That's what we are told at least. As a result, the refining costs are probably much lower.
The subsurface does not belong to people. It is really surprising. I have just found that out. Whatever is under my land is not mine. If the subsurface does not belong to the people, that benefits the companies that only have one client, meaning the Quebec government. The industry has great connections or contacts with the government. At the moment, a number of people are leaving the government to work for the industry. It is rather extraordinary.
That's what draws businesses to Quebec. That's quite fine. On the one hand, these are very objective things. On the other hand, there is something subjective that is significantly harmful to what is to come. That's what the public is getting from all that. We know that the Quebec government is currently losing steam in terms of credibility. Every day, something new undermines its credibility. People are wondering if this government is still very solid. I always say that it is as solid as the Berlin Wall, five minutes before it fell. We've reached that point.
As soon as the government takes the industry's side, it ends up harming it because of its lack of credibility. That's what we are dealing with at the moment. I feel that Quebeckers will choose to wait a year or two, in order to first get the results of the studies to be done in the United States, which will be completely neutral in terms of what is happening here. If Quebeckers decide to get on board, they will be at the back of the bus.
In this context, I would like us to clarify a situation that the government made very confusing. Is it true that, in the United States, the subsurface belongs to the landowners, unlike here? Is it true that a prospector in the United States can pay up to $28,000 per hectare to drill a well? If the well produces, is it true that the people can claim 12% to 20% in royalties for what comes out of that well?
