Environment committee  We have guidelines, recommended practices for many of the activities we undertake. We're always open, obviously, to improvements on that, but your question is somewhat contradictory in that you referred to guidelines and then said “you must follow”. In the context of best practices and improvements in the way we do things, absolutely, we are open to that, whether they come from government regulators or from our own industry.

Environment committee  The short answer is absolutely. We have a long history of building pipelines in a diversity of environments, including many stream crossings. Yes, the technology exists. We know how to do this, and one of the really unfortunate outcomes of the Mackenzie process—over and above the fact that it took so long and may well have an impact on whether that project ever proceeds or not—is the fact that we went over and over the same issues in a multitude of forums with a multitude of people.

Environment committee  I can start with a response to that. Absolutely, we agree that the focus should be on those projects that are higher risk, and a risk-based approach should absolutely be used to allocate resources, which are scarce everywhere. Our view is that we need to continue to focus on federal triggers.

Environment committee  First, thank you for the question. I would start by saying the premise is absolutely correct. Given the magnitude of the investments that our industry makes and the significant capital exposure that's involved in those investments, predictability around scope and timing of the regulatory process is extremely important.

Environment committee  Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dave Collyer. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, or CAPP, as we refer to ourselves. I welcome the opportunity to provide CAPP's perspective on CEAA, which is important legislation in its own right.

Finance committee  The short answer to that question is that I think there are many other countries that have the same economic model we do, and that's frankly a reliance on the market forces to make the best decision about the optimization and allocation of resources. We export where it makes economic sense to do so.

Finance committee  The very short answer is that it is important for our industry. Access to markets is fundamental to growing oil and gas production, and access to the U.S. market is a key part of that. It's not the only option, but it is the preferred option. Obviously the market has spoken. We believe that if you look at the merits of the case, there is a very, very strong case for approval of that project, and we are optimistic that it will go forward.

Finance committee  Yes, absolutely, in both Canada and the U.S., and I would emphasize that job creation is not just about jobs in Alberta, it's about jobs throughout Canada.

Finance committee  Absolutely.

Finance committee  From a technical standpoint, there really is no fundamental difference.

Finance committee  There's a lot of similarity between the shale gas opportunity in the U.S. and in Canada. The issue we've got is competitiveness in Canada. I highlighted the fact that there are some differences in tax treatment. That's an issue from our perspective, and we're asking that the committee address it.

Finance committee  It's a challenge, depending on what part of the industry you're looking at. There are certain sectors where it is more difficult to find trades. We've talked with the government about a variety of initiatives that we think are required to address that issue. They would include a different approach to immigration, training and development, and better use of under-represented groups in the workforce.

Finance committee  I could have a very long response, but I'll be brief. We fundamentally disagree with the characterization that the oil and gas industry is subsidized. I reference the paper by Mr. Mintz, from the University of Calgary. He's done a comprehensive study and looked at the issue. The industry is not subsidized.

Finance committee  Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to the members of the committee. I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to appear before you. My name is Dave Collyer. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. We have a single recommendation for consideration in the next federal budget that I'd like to briefly review with you today.

Natural Resources committee  I have two comments. Referring to your earlier question, there is what I think is a very good study done by Cambridge Energy just recently that we'd be happy to provide to the committee. It was done independently by a very well-respected independent consulting firm. I think it gets at your questions around greenhouse gas emissions.