Evidence of meeting #38 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pipeline.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Coderre.
Monsieur Pomerleau, you have up to seven minutes.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps my colleague will also ask a question afterwards.
First, I would like to say something which, to me, seems self-evident. The subject of our study is energy security in Canada. After everything I have heard this morning—we have talked about trade, prices, clients, more efficient deliveries—I feel we should call our study "Trade Security in Canada”. That would be more appropriate.
That being said, my question will be for Ms. Kenny.
Ms. Kenny, this project involves the construction of a pipeline to the west coast. We know that, since it was explained to us, there might be problems negotiating an agreement with aboriginal people, on the one hand. There certainly are environmental risks, because we don't know if we could deal within environmental disaster, if such a thing were to happen.
What do you think of this: instead of spending 5 or 6 billion dollars to build this pipeline, someone, somewhere, might say that it would be better to build a processing industry here?
In other words, we would continue to send our fuel via pipeline to the United States, and build the capacity here, spend our money and invest venture capital in the processing of products, and then we could send plastics or other products elsewhere in the world, but in a manner so as not to create environmental problems or problems with aboriginal people, which might happen as a result of the construction of a pipeline.
What do you think of this?
12:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
That question covers several different points. Let me try to respond.
First of all, in terms of focusing on energy security in Canada, my own view is that it's important to keep in mind that economic development can be a tool through which we enlarge other types of energy security. To walk away from the potential for $500-billion worth of government revenue in 20 years really cuts short the opportunity to provide for advances in renewables, technology investments, other sorts of energy system encouragements, moneys to municipalities to afford better built environments, etc.
So we have to think about an energy system, rather than just focusing on whether trading a barrel of crude creates a disadvantage for the future, because we clearly have an ample supply for the foreseeable future and beyond.
You also questioned spill response. I believe the regulatory review will do a good job of airing the facts around that: the risk factors, the response, the requirement, and the additional investments to improve navigation oversight. Certainly on the pipeline portion, I can tell you in detail about some of those sorts of factors that are routine beyond my statements, but I'm confident that can be addressed.
Finally, on the question of processing crude in Canada versus abroad, there are a lot of avenues to encourage market responses that are appropriate to meet Canadian needs and to make sure we optimize value for Canadians. Right now, the market signals are causing us to move those offshore. That's appropriate, and I don't think it has to be an either-or situation. You can establish good trade in one commodity. Keep in mind that a tube of steel can serve a lot of different products, so if in the future there were a choice to upgrade in Canada, we might be exporting gasoline.
The key is whether you have the right infrastructure in place to be a competitive global player. Are you addressing the safety and environmental issues appropriately and are you considering reinvestment for Canada's long-term security?
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Ms. Kenny, don't you have the impression that, if we invest billions of dollars in the construction of a pipeline, we are in fact building something which might deter us from investing many more billions of dollars in processing capacity, which would interfere with the construction of a pipeline? In other words, the choice we are making would mean that there is no going back, given the amount of money which would be invested up front.
December 9th, 2010 / 12:45 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
I think it's important to put the $5.5 billion into context and to consider the scale. I don't want to focus on Gateway, because the same could be said of expansions on the Kinder Morgan line. Either way, infrastructure investment to provide the choice of exports does not take away from the economic options of you might choose with respect to bitumen in Canada, just like building a new highway doesn't predetermine whether you're going to have shipments of oranges or shipments of orange juice.
It is about having appropriate infrastructure to create options in terms of trade. I'm not an expert in terms of netbacks, but I would also say that directionally there is a significant discount on Canadian crude right now because of having only one market. Just the differential, and the government revenues related to that, if you had multiple markets, can in itself create a huge economic opportunity to reinvest as you see fit as government.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Bellavance, go ahead. You have just one minute for the question and the answer.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All I need is a minute.
Mr. Nagy, how many fishers do you represent? I would like you to provide us a bit more detail about the fishing zone which would be affected by the pipeline. As you know, there are surely stream and rivers through which the pipeline will pass.
12:45 p.m.
President, Local 31, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union - Canadian Auto Workers
I represent between 4,000 and 6,000 members depending on the type of fisheries that are going on.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
It won't be long, Mr. Nagy. Our colleagues are having a bit of a translation problem.
You understood the question, which was about the number of fishers you represent. I would also like you to talk about the fishing area in British Columbia which will be affected by the pipeline, because it will surely go through streams and rivers.
To what extent will this pipeline negatively affect your fishing zones? It's not just the pipeline. We know that the pipeline itself has a purpose, namely to reach the oil tankers. Therefore, there will be many oil tankers in the ocean. As a result, some of your members will be affected by the fact that there will be more and more oil tankers in their fishing zones.
I would like to know what you think about this.
12:45 p.m.
President, Local 31, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union - Canadian Auto Workers
I represent between 4,000 and 6,000 people in the commercial fishing industry in British Columbia. In the north, I represent about 3,000 members.
The plan is for the pipeline to go through the Skeena River and the tributaries. A spill up there or an accident on the pipeline would send that water—
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Nagy, could you just wait a minute? We're not getting the translation into French now. We'll see if we can get that arranged.
Try it again, Mr. Nagy.
12:50 p.m.
President, Local 31, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union - Canadian Auto Workers
I represent between 4,000 and 6,000 members close by. In the area in the north that I represent, my members number about 3,000 people. The proposed Enbridge project would run pipelines at the headwaters, crossing some of the tributaries and streams on the Skeena River, and the tanker traffic coming out of Kitimat places our industry at risk from both ends.
An accident on the pipeline area would bleed into the main stem of the Skeena River, killing an industry that has been rebuilt over many generations to a sustainable run and that employs a lot of our people. An accident on the route that the tankers are travelling would be in the same area where the Queen of the North went down off Gil Island. In the past year or so, another tanker coming through Douglas Channel ran up on the beach. The risk to the area and to our fishing industry posed by these two projects is unacceptable.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Nagy. I have to end your answer there. We are running out of time and have two questioners.
Mr. Cullen, go ahead, please, for up to seven minutes.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
I'm going to butcher your name here, but I'll give it a try. Ms. Arsoniadis Stein, are you aware of the liability regimes for tankers in Canada? Are you familiar with that act?