Evidence of meeting #40 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was finance.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Very well.
That implies there will always be support; direct, indirect and through tax shelters. Have I understood correctly?
5:40 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Marketing, Communications and Corporate Strategy Officer, Export Development Canada
That's correct. We will continue to provide assistance to the oil and gas sector on commercial terms.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you.
I have a question for the representatives of the Department of Finance and the Department of Natural Resources.
You know that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. DeMarco, said your department had no clear definition as to what constitutes an inefficient fossil fuels subsidy.
However, I heard Minister Guilbeault say that, starting in mid-2023, there would no longer be any inefficient fossil fuels subsidies. That is in about eight months, which is very soon.
If you do not have the time to answer now, I invite you to provide an answer in writing to the following question: do you currently have a definition as to what constitutes an inefficient subsidy?
5:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
We're working on an official definition within the framework of our review of Argentina. Our goal is to finalize it all in 2023, and we're working very hard on it.
At the same time, this does not prevent the government from making decisions, such as eliminating flow-through shares, which are considered an inefficient subsidy. Since 2017, we have worked to eliminate nine of them from the tax system.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
If my time is not yet up, Mr. Chair, would be possible to hear the answer from the Department of Finance?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
If possible, you could get a brief response, or get it submitted in writing.
5:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
As I just said, we are working on an official definition within the framework of our review of Argentina.
Nothing has been made public yet because the work is being done internally. Our goal is to finalize the project in 2023.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
We'll go now to Mr. Angus for his two and a half minutes.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Wademan, I was very interested in your presentation on TMX, but I didn't hear much on it. I thought that was unfortunate. I read the PBO report on the projected cash flow for the Trans Mountain pipeline. They had contacted the CDIC, asking for more information. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was refused the information, with them saying that it was classified and commercially confidential.
Nonetheless, the PBO says that this project now has a net negative value of $600 million and that one of the issues that has emerged is that the cost overruns are so high that an agreement was made that the oil companies will not have to pay the commercial tolls: They will be subsidized. Would you confirm whether that's true or not?
5:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canada Development Investment Corporation
Thank you, honourable member, for your question.
Trans Mountain is a megaproject. This is actually the largest infrastructure project—
5:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canada Development Investment Corporation
—in Canada right now, and it's highly complex. I'm not intimately familiar with the report to which you referred—
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm sorry. I have to stop you there.
You didn't bother to read the Parliamentary Budget Officer report...? It really worries me if you are taking $21 billion of taxpayers' money and you don't read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. I find that so—
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'll get to my question again. I want to know an answer.
Given that the cost overruns were so high, there wasn't an oil company on the planet that would use it unless it was heavily subsidized to the tune of 78% of the tolls, which would be paid by the taxpayer. Is that true, yes or no?
5:45 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canada Development Investment Corporation
The project is a very complex project—
5:45 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canada Development Investment Corporation
—and there are increases in costs and—
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
That $21 billion, it's about the tolls, because that's where you make your money back. That's how we taxpayers get our money back. If no oil company could use it without its being subsidized.... That is what we've been told. Are taxpayers subsidizing the use of this pipeline for oil companies to the tune of 78% of the cost of what the toll would be?
5:45 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canada Development Investment Corporation
Taxpayers are not subsidizing this project. This project is commercially viable and, as you're likely aware, the Government of Canada intends to sell this project.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Are the tolls at commercial rates or are they capped at 22%?
5:45 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canada Development Investment Corporation
The tolls are negotiated with the shippers at what are very reasonable rates. I'm happy to get back to you with more detail.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Can you get us the detail of what the actual percentage cost of shipping will be? What we've been told is that they have had it capped at 22% of the real cost, given the massive overruns. Can you provide us with documentation to confirm or deny that?