Thank you, and good evening. For me it's actually the evening, but good afternoon to you in Ottawa.
Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate this opportunity to try to repay some of my debt to Canadian society. The education given to me by the University of Alberta has proven really useful in my work here in Norway and, as already referred to, in creating Norwegian wealth, our pension fund abroad, as we call it these days. As a matter of fact, the Alberta heritage fund from the 1970s is the model.
I have read all the reports and some of the recommendations provided to the Alberta provincial government and the federal government in Ottawa, and to the committee. In my opinion, the information you have provided only strengthens the argument I made to the journalist who came from Time magazine and interviewed me in August, 2012.
Canada has the resources, as already mentioned by all the other witnesses. You have the natural wealth. You have the competent people. You should be a winner in the energy business in the coming years. The question in my mind remains with you and the provincial governments, that is, with your political leadership.
I think we have already heard that maybe the Canadian electorate could support politicians who would make the nation and the provinces work toward a common goal of improving the life of many Canadians, to provide jobs, as Mr. McGowan talked about, and to provide income, taxes, and recreate the Alberta dream that I lived in the seventies when I was a student from 1973 to 1975 in Edmonton.
I understand that you have the same problem in Canada as we in part have in Norway. There are Norwegians who look at the energy industry as the enemy, as the polluter. However, in Norway the majority know that it also provides the jobs and the income and the ability for a nation that used to be among the poorest in Europe to be among the richest in the world today. The problem I have is to see whether you can sell to the nation and the provinces and people the concept of again investing in your own country and own industries, or whether you will continue to let foreigners, including the Norwegian Statoil—the company that I as an individual in Norway participate in—invest in business in Canada and, as already mentioned by witnesses, take away fairly good profits, at least after an initial risk phase.
I hope you appreciate that I speak tonight as an individual, reflecting my love for Canada and Canadians. I even have family still in Canada. I sincerely believe, as already mentioned by other witnesses, that you should be able to get a better deal from your business partners, both nations—not least the United States of America south of the border—and the companies operating in Canada. However, that will require government employees and politicians who are willing to look into the business and understand it better, as you are trying to do tonight. You are regulating and you are taxing, but most oil-successful nations in the world in the energy business have done like Norway did: they're also investing. You had Petro-Canada but then you dismantled it.
Canada is an exporting nation. It's an OPEC type of nation. Why not apply that type of logic and thinking to your country as the rest of these countries have done? Mr. Mintz mentioned the need to diversify and get to the Asian market to improve your bargaining position. I totally support that. However, it requires you to go through British Columbia, which is not easy, from what I'm reading in the newspapers.
You also need to improve your relations and your negotiating position with the U.S.
Venezuela, with their Orinoco emulsion—their version of the tar sands bitumen—went ahead and invested in the refineries in the U.S. You could do the same.
There are more ways of diversifying other than building your own upgraders, although I agree with Mr. McGowan that you probably need to upgrade more. The question always is, how much diversification? This becomes a judgment of the market.
I believe today that people going to Alberta and investing in the tar sands, like Statoil did, are taking a political risk, which includes your system, the federal government and the provinces. It's also a risk on price.
The tar sands need about $95 to $100 a barrel to be profitable in most of its operations—at least the new ones, with having to pay back the capital. It's already been alluded to by the witnesses that the oil market could drop. The United States of America is definitely not interested in paying more than they have to, so you need to find a way out of that predicament.
Thank you.