Natural Resources Committee on March 4th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone.

We're here today to continue our study of the benefits of developing the oil and gas industry of the energy sectors. We have four witnesses with us today. I'll introduce them in a minute. Two of them we're still trying to get online.

Before I do that, you probably have noticed that a budget has been put in front of you. We should approve this. It's the budget for this study that we've undertaken. We should have a look at that budget and hopefully approve it just at the end of the meeting. It should only take a couple of minutes.

With that, I will introduce the witnesses. We're very much looking forward to this meeting today.

We have with us, from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, Brenda Kenny, president and chief executive officer.

Welcome to you. You probably think you're a part of our committee. You've been here quite often.

We also welcome, from The Conference Board of Canada, Michael Burt, director of industrial economic trends.

By video conference from Saint John, New Brunswick, we have Colleen Mitchell, president of the Atlantica Centre for Energy; and by video conference from Edmonton, Alberta, Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

We will go through the presentations in the order in which the witnesses are listed on the agenda today. I want to ask the witnesses to make sure they keep to the time, to the seven minutes we've allocated.

To members, I'm going to cut you off right at the time allocated, or very close to it, because we've found that things have been going overtime considerably. I'd really like to keep this on schedule so that we can get the maximum benefit from the meetings.

Brenda Kenny, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, please go ahead.

[Dr. Brenda Kenny, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for having me today. I'm looking forward to all the presentations. It's a very important topic that you're considering.

I'll be sharing the views of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, and some of the benefits across Canada in developing oil and gas industries in general. Many of you would know that CEPA represents the large transmission pipeline companies comprising the energy highways of Canada. We safely transport about 97% of all the onshore crude oil and natural gas produced and used, enabling about 20% of Canada's trade value, allowing the basic, everyday modern activities such as fuelling your car, and economic prosperity through delivering natural gas to power machines at manufacturing plants, for example.

We currently operate over 115,000 kilometres of transmission pipelines that move about 3.2 million barrels of oil every day, and 14.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas. This is an integral part of a very reliable energy system that enables the quality of life Canadians enjoy and ties our country together. We often talk historically about the railways, the Trans-Canada Highway, or the seaway. These have all in their time been and continue to be foundational to Canada's economic development. Pipelines are playing that role in modern times.

From over 60 years of practice and growth, we've touched virtually all kinds of communities and regions, beginning with the Trans-Canada Highway, a natural gas backbone built in the 1950s; the interprovincial Line 9, now Enbridge, in the 1970s, connecting to Montreal; the Norman Wells pipeline halfway up the Mackenzie Valley; and many more to come.

Nationally today we employ directly over 9,000 full-time employees in the course of operating these major systems. Of course, it's a trivial number compared to the many hundreds of thousands of jobs that are enabled by having energy produced and moved across the country and used. We enable about one-fifth of Canada's mercantile trade value. That's one out of every five dollars that comes in with respect to trade value to Canada, and that amounts to about $100 billion every year.

We pay, both directly and indirectly to the communities we operate in, over $1 billion in municipal, provincial, and federal taxes, and this can be used by local governments to support services such as health care, infrastructure, and education. We also have procurement expenditures in the order of $360 million each year across Canada, and a further $20 million in direct community investment, such as in the education and arts fields.

These national numbers often obscure, though, the overall contributions felt. We commissioned a study, which I believe you've each received. The clerk has copies, and it can be found on our website as well. It's a 2013 study by Angevine Ltd. to shed more light on regionally specific economic benefits. We can refer to it throughout the morning, if you'd like.

Clearly, there are benefits across the country in all regions. If we start on the west coast for instance, direct, indirect, and induced economic activity for oil and natural gas in British Columbia provided over 2,900 full-time equivalent jobs and $645 million in GDP in 2012.

In Alberta, it's almost 7,600 full-time jobs, and close to $4 billion.

In Ontario, full-time jobs amounted to 5,300 individuals, and $1.4 billion in GDP, with over $85 million in procurement to over 350 local suppliers, all a result of transmission pipeline companies.

In Quebec and other regions the numbers are also very large.

In total this amounts to about $8.8 billion in GDP in 2012, sustaining over 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs, and generating over $1.5 billion in labour income.

Now, many studies, and you may hear some this morning, do point as well to the role we play in ensuring Canada receives its maximum value for the energy products produced. Our studies indicate that close to $50 million a day is being lost due to a lack of capacity.

These are impressive numbers, but they're only a component of what we do. Of course our first job is safety and this entails adhering to a world-class regulatory system and continuously striving to implement newer and stricter pipeline integrity damage prevention and emergency response requirements and technology developments.

In that avenue, our members back up that commitment with more than $1 billion spent each year to ensure that crude oil and natural gas is delivered safely and efficiently. As an industry association we're moving forward on a number of safety measures that go well beyond compliance with regulation. We're increasing our transparency as well, and that is why we have rolled out our CEPA integrity first program. Under that program we developed best practices and have identified performance indicators that fall into broad categories such as safety, environment, and socio-economic issues, all the while minimizing habitat disruption of any sort and maintaining good relations with aboriginal communities and landowners.

These are the components that enable successful social licence and ultimately economic activity to the benefit of the country. Our safety record is impressive by any measure, but our goal is zero incidents, and we're striving to invest toward that objective.

In conclusion, our members are committed to safety first and foremost for the communities in which we live and work, and our social licence is determined by the benefits we deliver, not only economic but also the trust we earn through the integrity of our pipeline systems.

The energy pipeline industry is an enabler of prosperity across Canada and continues to be a hallmark of this country's nation building. We help keep the cars moving, factories running, houses heated, creating jobs and economic activity in every region of the country. I invite the committee members to visit our website at aboutpipelines.com and find further information on our safety practices and the economic data that I've been speaking to.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kenny, for the information you've given us, and for the written document you've left with the committee. It is very much appreciated.

And thank you for sticking to the time allocated. It's very much appreciated as well.

We go now to Michael Burt, director, industrial economic trends, from The Conference Board of Canada. Thank you again for being here and go ahead with your presentation for up to seven minutes.

[Michael Burt, Director, Industrial Economic Trends, The Conference Board of Canada]

Thank you for inviting me.

For anyone who is unaware, the Conference Board is a non-profit, non-partisan think tank based here in Ottawa. We do research in a variety of areas including public policy, economic forecasting and analysis, and organizational performance. My understanding is that we're talking about the oil and gas sector in Canada and investment associated with that. I thought we'd start with some numbers.

First of all, in terms of oil and gas in Canada, today, it accounts for 6% of the economy directly and employs 100,000 people. Obviously that's most prominent in Alberta where about a quarter of the economy is directly accounted for by oil and gas. But it's also an important industry in a variety of other provinces, for example, in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador the sector is a major component of their economy.

Those are the direct impacts. When we talk about the oil and gas industry it's also important to look at the other impacts, the secondary impacts in the economy. These take a variety of forms. For example, the investments that these businesses undertake, their supply chains and, also, what we call in economics the induced effects or the income effects, the money people earn in their jobs creates additional economic impacts when they spend it.

We've undertaken several studies looking at the economic impacts of the oil sands over the last few years. I'd like to talk a little bit more about one of those studies. The biggest one is called Fuel for Thoughtand it was shared with the committee. Hopefully if you've not had a chance to look at it, at least you can after my comments. But I'd like to focus a little bit on the findings from that study.

Basically what we expect to see over the next 25 years is literally hundreds of billions of dollars of investment going into the oil sands. This is going to cause considerable economic impacts outside of Alberta. Obviously Alberta is the locus for the economic activity but it's not the only province that will see economic benefits. Just as an example, 30% of the supply chain impacts associated with oil sands development will occur in provinces outside Alberta. Ontario is the biggest recipient. They get about half of that total. Industries in Ontario like financial services, professional services, and manufacturing all benefit as a result of oil sands development. But we also see benefits across other provinces as well, everything from transportation and, again, professional services, manufacturing; different types of industries in different regions are all benefiting from this investment activity.

Another type of benefit that is often forgotten when we talk about economic impacts is the effects of income remittances. Right now there's an estimated shadow population of about 40,000 people in Fort McMurray. These are people who don't live there but are working there. If you think about it, there are fewer than 80,000 people actually living there. So that's a huge share of the population. We estimate that at least 5,000 of those 40,000 people are out-of-province workers, and if you look at the income that they're bringing back to their home provinces, in many cases it's actually larger than the supply chain impacts that I just mentioned. Particularly for the Atlantic provinces that's true.

The other impact that we looked at in the study is the fiscal impact associated with the development of the oil sands. We estimate that it's about $80 billion in fiscal revenue for federal and provincial governments over the 25-year period. I want to emphasize that this is just investment. We're not looking at royalties. This is just the investment activity. Most importantly, about 60% of that occurs outside the province of Alberta. That's because a large portion of the revenues are paid to the federal government, which gets redistributed back to the provinces, largely on a per capita basis.

Of course, all of this investment will lead to increased production. If we add together the economic impacts of production and investment in the oil sands we find that today, directly and indirectly, oil sands activity supports about 400,000 jobs across Canada. Given our investment profile and our production profile, we think that number could rise to as high as 700,000 by 2030. It's a significant source of jobs today and it can continue to be going forward.

In terms of how we realize this future, one of the key threats, if you will, one of the key restraints, is the fact that we need to have a sufficient infrastructure to move the product to market. At present we only have one market for our oil, North America. North American demand is flat, and production is rising. Where is production rising? It's rising in Alberta, also, primarily, in North Dakota and to a lesser extent in Texas. What's happening with an environment of flat demand and rising production is we're having to displace imports coming from outside North America. Those imports primarily come in on the periphery of the continent. The increase in oil production is coming from the interior of the continent.

We have a transportation problem. We need to move the oil to market. This has caused a glut of oil in the interior of the continent right now. They're seeing significant discounts on Canadian oil relative to international benchmarks, and it's costing literally billions of dollars.

We did a calculation in 2012 of estimated costs of about $25 billion to oil companies in Canada. That translates through to about $8 billion in lost revenues for federal and provincial governments in terms of income taxes and royalties in Canada. This is a huge number, and it's something that we need to address if we're going to maximize the benefit of our non-renewable resources.

Finally and obviously, if we don't address this, it could significantly hamper the investment plans in the oil sands going forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Mr. McGowan, for your presentation and for the written document that you've provided as well.

We now have with us, by video conference from Saint John, New Brunswick, from the Atlantica Centre for Energy, Colleen Mitchell, president.

Go ahead, Ms. Mitchell, with your presentation. You have up to seven minutes.

[Colleen Mitchell, President, Atlantica Centre for Energy]

Good morning Mr. Benoit, Chair, and members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee and assist in supplying information on the benefits of developing the oil and gas sectors specifically as it applies to Atlantic Canada.

The Atlantica Centre for Energy serves as a bridge for governments, the education and research sectors, the community at large, and we foster partnerships to engage in energy-related issues. I'd like to point out that we represent a cross-section of organizations involved in the energy sector, not just users or producers of energy.

I'd like to put the Atlantic Canadian economy in context. The Bank of Canada stated last month that the Atlantic economy is still moving sideways from the 2008 recession. Five years later the gap between Atlantic Canada and the rest of Canada remains significant. Interprovincial migration across and the loss from Atlantic Canada to other parts of Canada is still the worst in history, and interprovincial employees, i.e. those who remain in one province and work in another, for example, the two weeks on/two weeks off, remain at over 400,000 people. In a country with our relatively small population, this number is staggering.

The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council reported that New Brunswick in particular had zero economic growth in 2013, and the 2014 forecast is a mere 0.9%. The development of key oil and gas projects that are identified here have the potential to reverse these economic trends.

First is the west-east crude oil pipeline, also known as the energy east project. There exists an infrastructure challenge, where eastern Canadian refineries right now rely on imported foreign crude oil, which is inaccessible because of western Canadian crude oil. Western Canadian crude oil cannot realize the full potential of its value due to infrastructure, as has been mentioned, because it cannot be transported to refineries. TransCanada Pipeline has proposed to connect this stranded crude oil to eastern refineries. That will add $35.3 billion in GDP, which will economically benefit the entire country. This project is of such significance that if it proceeds to completion it will have a profound impact on the Atlantic region.

A study by Deloitte estimates the economic impact to New Brunswick alone at $2.8 billion GDP. Tax revenue to the New Brunswick government would include $266 million during the development and construction and an additional $428 million during operations. The long-term stable supply of domestic crude oil to eastern refineries saves up to $11.50 per barrel, which is $377 million per 100,000 barrels per day. Eastern refineries also invest to increase flexibility for processing this crude oil. For example, $2 billion is the low-end estimate required for coking capacity at 100,000 barrels per day. This region has the potential to become a global centre for energy, as it will have a supply source, production, movement, value added, regional use, and the opportunity to export.

With respect to natural gas production, it has been brought back to New Brunswick over the past decade. We have proven and probable reserves at 70 trillion cubic feet, which is 10% of Canadian proven resources. The province has recently renewed activity. One of the reasons for this is due to increased related infrastructure and pipelines. While early results have been encouraging, current production remains insignificant by national standards. There's a great opportunity here for developing it.

The benefits include creating a stable, long-term supply of natural gas and lowering tolling fees to local manufacturing, industry, and residential users. It creates an opportunity for export, balances the Atlantic energy requirements, and provides a significant source of royalty and taxation revenues to the government.

Nova Scotia has foreign investment potential for a proposed export terminal for natural gas. The New Brunswick Repsol/Irving Oil-owned LNG import terminal now has an export permit, but requires a source of supply. The economic impact of having an indigenous supply of natural gas in New Brunswick includes $21 million in direct, indirect, and induced investments and a direct GDP of $4.5 million.

As an example, the royalties that Saskatchewan receives from the oil and gas sector roughly equate to New Brunswick's equalization payments. Once developed, natural gas royalties in New Brunswick could transform the balance sheet of the province.

With respect to regional competitiveness, industry located in Atlantic Canada must be able to operate in a cost-competitive structure. This is important for the suppliers of energy as well as the users of energy. Industry cannot continue to absorb price spikes or shortages of supply and bottlenecks in the New England market. The current situation is not sustainable. A stable supply of cost-competitive natural gas benefits large and small businesses, electric utilities, residential customers and, of course, government revenue streams.

In summary, oil and gas have a major influence on this region directly impacting GDP. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have strong oil and gas offshore developments. New Brunswick has flat GDP growth, with the potential for growth on the horizon if these initiatives can get off the ground, mainly the energy east project and the development of its own domestic natural gas reserves. Canada's oil and gas sector can continue to be a major source of economic benefit to the country. To maximize the price of our oil and gas reserves, Canada needs to have the infrastructure in place, so that we can use it domestically and for foreign markets.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Ms. Mitchell, for your presentation.

The information you've given will be very helpful to us with our study. Thank you very much for that. I'm sure you'll have questions directed to you later.

We go now to our final witness by video conference from Edmonton, Alberta, from the Alberta Federation of Labour, President Gil McGowan.

Welcome, Mr. McGowan, and go ahead with your presentation up to seven minutes, please.

[Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour]

Thank you. Good morning.

I've appeared before this committee before and I know how quickly seven minutes can go. I'm going to move right into my talk by presenting you with the Alberta Federation of Labour's top five reasons why the oil sands are a blessing, but a mixed one.

Number one. The oil sands are a mixed blessing as opposed to an unambiguous and unadorned blessing because the pace at which governments at the provincial and federal level have allowed development to proceed is one that's open to question. Before he died, former premier Peter Lougheed made it clear that, if he were still in charge, he would only approve one major oil sands project at a time. By taking a more reasonable and measured approach to development, Lougheed said, we could avoid overheating the provincial economy, we could improve the economics of value-added projects as opposed to always opting for rip-it-and-ship-it projects, and we could do a better job of balancing economic concerns with environmental concerns.

Interestingly, after announcing his retirement and being freed from the yoke of Conservative Party discipline, outgoing Fort McMurray MP Brian Jean gave a few media interviews in which he sounded an awful lot like Peter Lougheed. Mr. Jean said his community is feeling the strains of the gold rush approach to development. He said it probably would have made sense to set a more deliberate pace for development. As federation president in Alberta, I spent a lot of time in Fort McMurray and I can tell you that, if it was up to the people who actually live in that community, the pace of development would look a lot different from what it does.

Number two. The oil sands are a mixed blessing because the public who owns the resource is not getting a fair price for the sale of their assets. When talking to investors, oil industry leaders have bragged about mountains of revenue and avalanches of profit, but when it comes to the public share, the mountain is a molehill and the streams of cash are a relative trickle compared to the cascades of corporate profit.

In Peter Lougheed's day the public, as the owner of the resource, was paid about 40% of the revenue generated by Alberta's oil and gas sector. Today, the public share has dropped to as little as 10% of the oil and gas pie. According to a study from the Alberta government itself, which we had to pry out of their hands using freedom of information legislation, we get far less for our heavy oil than other nations with comparable resources. We get less than Norway; that's perhaps no surprise. We get less than Russia; we even get less than Angola. The biggest reason we get less is that since the 1990s developers in the oil sands sector have been getting a sweetheart deal the likes of which is not enjoyed by any other industry or sector in the Canadian economy.

The oil sands royalty regime has been tweaked since Ralph Klein introduced it in 1996, but the basic outlines remain the same. Oil companies pay a token royalty until they pay off their capital costs. Once these capital costs are paid, which can take years and years, the royalty goes up but it is still lower than most oil-producing jurisdictions in the world.

When the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers puts billboards or bus stop ads out in public spaces saying that they're paying for health care and education, they're engaging in a fabrication. The truth is that the public is paying. Specifically we're paying a large portion of the costs for all of those expensive oil sands projects in the form of forgone revenues. Instead of Canadians thanking CAPP for the abundance that they bring, CAPP should be thanking Canadians, and particularly Albertans, for the giveaways that have allowed them to prosper while ordinary Albertans struggle with cuts to things like education, health care, and universities and colleges.

Number three. The oil sands are a mixed blessing because the current rip-it-and-ship-it approach to development doesn't create nearly as many stable long-term jobs and economic spinoffs as would be the case if we followed Lougheed's advice and focused on upgrading. We've all heard the numbers from CAPP and from other organizations about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are being created and will be created by the oil sands, but those numbers should be taken with a huge grain of salt. CAPP has never released the methods that they use to get those numbers, and those numbers have been used by other groups like The Conference Board of Canada in their reports, and they don't jibe with the numbers that you get if you used Statistics Canada's own multiplier tables. The truth is that there are about 22,000 direct, permanent jobs in the oil sands, and that's great news. A lot of our members hold those jobs, but it would be better if we upgraded and refined our resources before exporting them instead of shipping them raw and cheap. Here's a quote for you on that subject: the export of Canadian bitumen rather than higher quality upgraded oil “could become the greatest loss of economic value for any country in world history”. Now, that's not a quote from me or some wild-eyed socialist. That's from Wilf Golbert, who is the chairman of the Calgary Economic Development Board.

Number four. The oil sands are a mixed blessing because overheated development in the sector is being used as a pretext to expand the temporary foreign worker program, to the detriment of individual working Canadians and the broader Canadian labour market. Employers say they need the program to address labour shortages, but the facts tell a different story.

The facts tell us that there are currently seven unemployed Canadians for every vacant job in Canada and 2.5 unemployed Albertans for every job vacancy. The facts tell us that the majority of academics and senior policy experts, including people such as former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, don't think Canada is suffering from a labour shortage.

The facts also tell us that employers are using the program as a first choice rather than a last resort. Whether it's a company like Saipem, on the Husky Sunrise oil sands project, or Pacer Promec, on the Kearl Lake project, employers are using the temporary foreign worker program to displace Canadians and drive wages down.

The problems used to be more evident in the low-wage service sector, but now it's high-paying and high-skilled jobs that are being affected. Conservatives are fond of saying that Canadians should train themselves and move to where the work is. Well, that's exactly what was done by dozens of apprentices who were displaced by temporary foreign workers at the Kearl site not very long ago. These are people who were from Hamilton, Cape Breton, and Montreal. They followed the rules and they followed the advice to head west, and what was their reward? Their reward was to be displaced by temporary foreign workers and the program that the federal government has put on steroids.

Number five. The final reason the oil sands are a mixed blessing is that they have been used to entrench what I would describe as an “energy McCarthyism” at the heart of Canadian politics and democracy. For some reason, we can't have a rational, nuanced conversation about the benefits and costs—and I underline the word “costs”—of developing this important resource. For too many people in government and industry, “you're either with us or against us”. If you raise a question about pace, or royalties, or value-added development, or, heaven forbid, the environment, then you are painted as a simpleton, or, worse, some kind of traitor to Canada and its core industries. This has to stop.

To the Conservative members of this committee, I say this—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McGowan, you're half a minute over your time already—actually three-quarters—so could you could wrap up really quickly, please? Thank you.

[Gil McGowan]

Okay.

To the members of the committee, I say this. You want to hear about jobs, but we would argue that more jobs, and more stable and valuable jobs, would be created if we moved up the value ladder rather than down. You want to hear about royalties, and I would suggest to you that there is a possibility for more royalties than are being collected. You want to hear about the benefits of the development of the oil sands that accrue across Canada, but I would suggest that if we moved up the value ladder, this would be a win-win situation for all of Canada in a much bigger way than it is right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. McGowan, for your presentation. I'm sure there will be some questions directed at you too.

We will start now on the government side with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Ms. Block.

Go ahead, please. You have up to seven minutes.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome our guests here today. It has been good to hear each presentation.

To those who have joined us by video conference, thank you.

My first question is going to be for you, Mr. Burt. In your opening remarks, you mentioned the need to look at the secondary impacts. You spoke of lost revenues in the range of $8 billion. You said that this could significantly hamper investment plans. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on that, please.

[Michael Burt]

Just to give you an example, the paper that I was referring to in my piece was written about a year and a half ago. Since then, the price discount has become much more entrenched. It's no longer viewed as a temporary or one-off phenomenon. It's now being built into investment plans inside the oil sector. We have seen projects being deferred or cancelled. We have seen at least some of the ongoing projects slowing down the pace of development.

It's also showing up just in terms of the bottom lines. The oil sector was far more profitable five to six years ago, with essentially the same or similar price levels, than it is today. Part of that is cost escalation over the last few years, but the issue also is that the discount we're getting relative to the international benchmarks is much, much higher today than it was at that time. There's definitely an impact in terms of the business activity that's going on, which of course impacts the potential for growth going down the road. It's also affecting the bottom line both for businesses and for government today.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that clarification.

Dr. Kenny, I have a number of questions I would like to ask you but I know seven minutes goes very quickly, as one of our witnesses mentioned.

In our government's responsible development plan, we have focused on four pillars, one of which is enhancing aboriginal engagement. I'm wondering if you would be able to tell me how CEPA member companies support Canada's aboriginal communities.

[Dr. Brenda Kenny]

Sure. I don't have specific hard numbers in the economic data broken down with respect to those communities, but I would point to a number of major developments that have been proposed to allow for the possibility of equity shares and a lot of models are available to consider should communities wish to have sustained long-term revenue as partners in these big developments.

In addition, a lot of the jobs can very much be afforded to aboriginal communities with appropriate support for capacity. I was very pleased to see the announcement just two or three weeks ago by the Prime Minister and National Chief Atleo with regard to the education supplements that would be directed toward enabling those communities to participate.

I think there's also a great interest on the part of our members to engage early and often in sustained relationships. In addition to the type of consultation that's relevant to a specific project, one clearly needs a basis of trust. When we build infrastructure, it lasts for many decades and generations, so it's very important that you have a position of trust within those communities and can engage together on issues of mutual benefit whether that's environmental monitoring, emergency response training, construction operations, what have you.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

We have come to understand that corporate social responsibility is not just nice to have, it is a must-have.

[Dr. Brenda Kenny]

Yes.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

And the companies that you represent would definitely make that corporate social responsibility—

[Dr. Brenda Kenny]

We're absolutely committed to that. That's a central tenet of our CEPA integrity first program in the industry. Our members have signed on to that and I can tell you that without exception our board members are pushing us to ensure deeper and faster collaboration on all those fronts. You can't look anymore at any type of responsible development without considering it through the lens of corporate social responsibility. I know from my doctoral studies that this is exactly aligned with sustainable development. You're fundamentally looking for the triple bottom line connection and a means to fundamentally address public interest through the actions that you undertake as a responsible member of society.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you. I have one last very quick question.

You talked about regionally specific economic benefits and the ability to access that information.

Did you mention a website?

[Dr. Brenda Kenny]

Our website, aboutpipelines.com, is our best attempt so far to be as transparent as we can, and that's continuously being populated with more and more information related to the industry. The particular economic evaluation that you have before you, commissioned from Angevine in the fall of 2013, is our best available information with respect to economic activity and jobs with regard to operating systems. For the new projects I would direct attention to specific project development websites.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much. I still have a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Would anyone like to take another question in Ms. Block's time?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Sure, I will give that minute to Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Mitchell, could you describe the current benefits of the oil and gas industry in New Brunswick. What are the basic benefits now and where do you see them most directly?