Evidence of meeting #41 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 projects.
A video is available from Parliament.
Chief Economist, Canada Energy Regulator
Yes. We will pass the decision on to you.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I am not talking about the decision.
Can you send the committee the 2016 study?
Chief Economist, Canada Energy Regulator
The economic feasibility study is part of the decision. So, we're going to send you the decision.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you very much.
Now we'll go to Mr. Angus for the final two and a half minutes of questions.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Charlebois, when my colleague asked about the life expectancy of the pipeline and its usability, you mentioned a 20-year to 30-year frame. Is that correct?
Chief Economist, Canada Energy Regulator
In fact, long-term contracts are between 15 and 20 years.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Between 15 and 20 years.... The TD and BMO banks have done a cash flow analysis that says the pipeline would become commercially viable over a 100-year time frame. That sort of struck me as kind of ridiculous. I didn't know pipelines ran a hundred years. There might not be a planet in a hundred years. Are you saying that this will be financially viable in 15 to 20 years or 20 to 30 years, or are we looking at that it will take a hundred years for taxpayers to get their money back?
Chief Economist, Canada Energy Regulator
What I'm saying is that it's reasonable to expect that, over the 15 to 20 years of the long-term contracts, the facilities will be used up to the percentage of committed capacity. Now the uncommitted capacity, the remaining 20%, will depend on market dynamics—basically, the price differential between oil in Alberta and global oil markets.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Okay.
Just finally.... I was in Germany for the last week, meeting with officials, and their move on clean energy is extraordinary, so much so that the International Energy Agency says that the world will hit peak oil in 2025 not 2030. However, whenever I look at the Canada Energy Regulator's scenarios, again, I see a million barrels a day, an increase in 2050; we're still, basically, where we're at now.
Given what's happening around the world, are you not leaving Canadians at risk of having a whole bunch of stranded assets if we continue with these scenarios of growth and increased production when the rest of the world is moving in the opposite direction?
Chief Economist, Canada Energy Regulator
The risk of stranded assets is on companies that invest in oil and gas facilities. It's not on the Canada Energy Regulator.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I know, but if you're predicting increases in production and a flatline by 2050 when the International Energy Agency is saying that there has to be a massive decrease—and it's saying that we'll hit peak oil in 2025—is the International Energy Agency wrong, or is the CER wrong?
Chief Economist, Canada Energy Regulator
The International Energy Agency projections are on a global basis. The manner in which Canada will fray into that global market might be slightly different, and this is what we see with our projections that take in 2032.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Great. That takes us to the end of the time we have available for questions today.
I would like to thank all of the officials who have joined us today from the various regional economic development agencies, as well as the Canada Energy Regulator. We appreciate your time.
If you want to log off, please do. I'm going to ask the members to stay for a minute.
There's been discussion on this. I have four quick administrative items we need to deal with that I'm hoping to do. I know people need to be gone as close to one o'clock as possible, so I'm going to be bold and put forward a package motion. I'll ask somebody to put it forward and then we can vote on it.
We've had discussion and there's agreement to bundle them. Is that right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
The first part of the motion we need to adopt is the study budget of $10,475, which was circulated last week. That's the first part.
The second is to adopt the subcommittee report from November 1 related to this study. That, in brief, reads:
That, for the study of federal assistance for various natural resources industries, witnesses be invited to appear as per the amended work plan distributed to the committee, and that members be kept informed of any required substitutions to the proposed panels based on the availability of the witnesses.
The third piece is that we grant Mr. James Maloney access to the digital binder, since he will be replacing Ms. Jones while she's away for her medical treatments.
The fourth piece of it is that the deadline for receiving written briefs for this study be set for next Friday, November 25. I will say that it's subject to us having the two meetings next week. If there are any disruptions to those meetings, we will carry the written submissions through to December 2.
Go ahead, Mario.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I would like to speak to the last motion. I've talked to Ms. Dabrusin a little bit about it, and personally I wouldn't schedule it for November 25, but rather for the last Friday after our last meeting with the witnesses. If the House sits until late in the evening, committee meetings may be cancelled, which would be problematic. I would simply remove Friday, November 25.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay. We'll revise that so we'll take written submissions until the end of the day Friday, following the last meeting on this study.
Is there clarity on that?
(Motion agreed to)
We are good.
With that folks, we don't need to take up the extra hour that I'd booked in case it took us a while.
Thank you for your time today. The meeting is adjourned.