Thank you.
I'd like to thank our colleague for bringing the motion forward.
We seem to have just concluded this study, and throughout this study we spent a lot of time trying to get an understanding of different perspectives: From the challenges that we had in being able to get this project done—and I'm glad the project is done—to the length of time it took, the changing costs and COVID, we heard a lot. We also heard different perspectives, and I believe it is only fair that all those testimonies and perspectives are put into a draft report that we could look at.
I'm a “the glass is half full” guy, and when I sit back and look at it from that lens, I say, “Yes, there were challenges and circumstances that we could not foresee, such as COVID, and, probably, we could have done a better job,” but I leave that to the conclusion that—hopefully—we'll draw, and recommendations in the report that will be drafted, hopefully very soon. We could have foreseen some of these had we done a bit more due diligence, but the bottom line is there are elements that we really need to consider. I'm also looking forward to the lessons learned in that report.
When it came to economic benefits, we heard a lot. We heard a lot about the economic benefit that it has for Alberta and for the GDP, and also the point of view from PBO. The fact is that we are now pivoting on a PBO report, which suggests that we're going to lose money if we sell now. It used a set of parameters such as the tolls, utilization and the rate that was used, and those were assumptions. The scope of the report did not include any cost analysis; it just looked at a present value of the sale or of the project, given certain criteria. At no point, I believe, did the PBO come back and say that, “Do you know what? The Government of Canada and Canadians are not going to benefit from this, even when we divest ourselves of it.”
We looked at it. We looked at the sensitivity analysis that the PBO did, and it was at around 2.5%, both for the total rate that they used as well as the utilization. We clearly saw that on the upside of contracts, this could easily add another $4 billion or $5 billion, which puts this project in a very positive position, even though there were challenges and some costs that were incurred .
I think that to jump to a conclusion and say, “Well, the PBO came here and said that we're not going to make any money; let's go report it to the House” also undermines the great work that this committee did, the preparation that so many of our team members did, the work that the analysts are going to do regardless—coming in, looking at and presenting the facts, citing the support for it, coming up with recommendations—and then our getting together, reviewing the recommendations and coming up with lessons learned.
Also, there's an opportunity to really look at all aspects of this. I think that jumping the gun, going to the House and saying, “Well, do you know what? Let's acknowledge it” is also unfair to the committee and to the analysts. They've been so diligently listening, collecting and translating this information.
I'd like to present all those facts. There's a spectrum of points of view. We heard from a group of stakeholders: Some were supportive and some had concerns.
Those need to be properly collected and properly presented. I believe the analysts will do an amazing job. I've been around for nine years now. I've worked with some of the analysts who are sitting around the table. I haven't seen anything but great work from them. I'm looking forward to the report.
Jumping to conclusions and ignoring all those facts makes me very uncomfortable. We could say that what we've heard is good enough: Let's jump to the conclusion. Let's forgo the process that we have developed, that we have agreed on and that has worked in the past. For my part, I don't think that's the right path to go on.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.