Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all committee members and witnesses for being here today.
Before I proceed with my questions, I want to take a few minutes of the committee's time to put a motion on notice, which I'm sure my colleagues will have anticipated. I do apologize for interrupting the witnesses, but this issue is of utmost importance. I'm sure everyone around this table will agree.
As you all know, on April 8 Kinder Morgan suspended all non-essential spending on the Trans Mountain expansion, and provided a deadline of May 31 to stop the challenges, settle the obstacles, and provide certainty for the completion of the approved expansion which is clearly in the national interest.
As recently as April 18, Kinder Morgan reiterated that the expansion might be untenable. This continues to be a crisis for all of us. If this issue is not addressed, and Kinder Morgan halts the expansion altogether, it would, of course, have serious ramifications for the Canadian economy overall, including provinces, municipalities, indigenous communities, interprovincial relationships, energy sector development, and investment in Canada now and in the future.
Given the urgency of this issue, I want to put the following motion on notice:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee immediately undertake a study to find solutions to the obstacles facing the approved Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion; that the Committee consider factors such as: (a) the May 31st deadline issued by the proponent, (b) the potential economic, socio-economic, investment, and government revenue losses, and impacts on market access for Canadian oil, related to the potential cancellation, especially on Indigenous communities, (c) municipal, provincial, and federal jurisdiction as it relates to the project, (d) potential points of leverage between the federal and provincial governments, (e) potential fiscal, constitutional and legal solutions; that the first meeting take place no later than May 3rd, 2018; and that all meetings be televised where possible; and that the Committee report its findings to the House.
Thank you for allowing me to take the time to provide notice of this motion, Mr. Chair. I'll proceed with my questions. We have copies of the motion for the committee in both official languages.
I'm really interested in this discussion taking place so far. I would ask the witnesses to confirm that this does not necessarily seem to be an issue of a lack of data, information, or sources of information, but that you seem to be suggesting there's a lack of compilation and consolidation of the information.
I want to take this time to recognize the outstanding, and longstanding exceptional work of the National Energy Board. Over the past several years there have been many implications that the agency had not been up to par. Certainly, on behalf of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, I want to recognize, on the record, that the National Energy Board has for decades been recognized as a renowned and exemplary regulator. It is second to none, literally, of any oil and gas producing jurisdiction in the world, including in terms of its consultations; standards; independent and objective evidence; decisions made by experts; its incorporation of indigenous and traditional knowledge; and its assessments of the environmental impacts of energy development and the cumulative economic effects. It's important as committee members that we recognize, particularly in this context, the longstanding outstanding track record of the National Energy Board.
I invite you to expand more on the following. Is it just a mandate issue that somebody in the federal government has to say, “Get more information from the provinces”, where natural resources are their rightful jurisdiction, or does this necessarily need to be the creation of a whole new agency or arm? I respect that each of you can't comment on policy, but perhaps you could address that.
Also, Laura, you mentioned the U.S. Energy Information Administration. I would invite you to expand on that, specifically the key factors that you see setting it apart. Perhaps both witnesses would like to comment as well.