Natural Resources committee  Only vaguely, because that covers a large number of pipelines that are more related to gathering and small-level pipelines, not the major transmission systems.

Natural Resources committee  But what--

Natural Resources committee  I think it's important to put the $5.5 billion into context and to consider the scale. I don't want to focus on Gateway, because the same could be said of expansions on the Kinder Morgan line. Either way, infrastructure investment to provide the choice of exports does not take away from the economic options of you might choose with respect to bitumen in Canada, just like building a new highway doesn't predetermine whether you're going to have shipments of oranges or shipments of orange juice.

Natural Resources committee  That question covers several different points. Let me try to respond. First of all, in terms of focusing on energy security in Canada, my own view is that it's important to keep in mind that economic development can be a tool through which we enlarge other types of energy security.

Natural Resources committee  Starting on the question of expansion, I think you're absolutely correct in pointing to the fact that infrastructure does exist. For over 50 years there has been trade through the port of Vancouver, and that continues. The Kinder Morgan system is expandable, and even today I'm told that out of every 10 barrels that are shipped there, about one is heading to Asia.

Natural Resources committee  --and as soon as I came in this morning, I thought, boy, I hope there aren't any major Senators fans or Leaf fans out there. In any event, I am here representing the pipeline sector. I'll provide a few perspectives from the pipeline point of view. Of course, the members I represent with the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association are all of the major oil and gas transmission pipeline companies in Canada.

Natural Resources committee  I haven't been in this room before--

Natural Resources committee  Thank you.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you very much.

Finance committee  It's a payment in the future. You want to make sure you have.... This is how it would work, just as any other--

Finance committee  The main premise for the qualified environmental trust that currently exists just for mining is a look at long-term industries where you want to ensure that there's a stable funding mechanism in place and that there is encouragement--like the RRSP--to ensure that the savings accrued are handled in a tax-efficient manner.

Finance committee  Currently no separate fund exists. It's about to be commenced.

Finance committee  We'll certainly do our part in it. What we're asking for is that changes to the Income Tax Act be equivalent to the mining industry and simply say that the federal government supports a tax-efficient accrual of those funds, so that as you set them aside in those savings, they're treated the same way as other qualified environmental trusts.

Finance committee  Great. The retirement savings plans or pension plans are kind of similar entities for which you're saying you want to make sure that the right responsibility is fully covered at the time it is necessary. Realistically, in this industry we are talking about something that is five, six, seven, eight decades away, but it's important to load-level the costs across energy consumers for inter-generational equity, and we think this is a fair mechanism that is being used in other sectors currently.

Finance committee  No, I'm sorry. I'm an engineer, so I probably misused that term. My apologies.