Environment committee  Thank you, Elizabeth. I'll close by saying we believe overall the process set in motion by the Government of Canada to reform the regulatory system is very important. We feel, particularly with respect to pipelines, which of course are governed nationally by the National Energy Board, in which the environmental assessment is fully incorporated within public interest determinations, that these are important avenues to clarify to enable everyone to focus on the issues at hand that matter most, and so that regulators have the necessary resources and tools to perform their roles.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. My name is Brenda Kenny, and it's a pleasure to appear before you to share some of the views of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. Joining me is my colleague Elizabeth Swanson, who is chair of CEPA's work group on regulatory affairs.

Environment committee  Very extensive regulations and an array of actions are taken if there is a leak. That includes extensive cleanup and repair, so there's assurance that if the pipeline is opened again for operation, it's high integrity and will be safe, and that it is completely restored in the locale where there may have been some damage.

Environment committee  Just very briefly, I was going to say that, I agree, regulatory capacity follow-up, monitoring, and adaptation are all part of the package. In the current BIA there is $14 million more for the National Energy Board to do more inspections, more audits. We welcome that, because transparency in the follow-up is part of this.

Environment committee  I think that's a good summary, because this is really about being results-oriented, as opposed to prescriptive. We need to be clear about the objectives we're trying to achieve and then enable an array of options to get to that end point, and monitor whether we get there, and if not, why not, learn from that, and continue to move the science.

Environment committee  I want to add, from a pipeline point of view, that we also believe the budget implementation act suggestions will open the door to a better environmental outcome, in part because the consolidation allows you to look at the whole set of opportunities for improvement in a project plan and to address it in an integrated way, which is the core for sustainable development.

Environment committee  First of all, prevention is the number one thing you address. Canadian companies routinely use internal inspection to keep an eye on what's going on inside the pipeline and through the wall of the seal. It would be similar to your experiences with your doctor in terms of medical opportunities today to keep an eye on things through MRI or CAT scans, as opposed to always having to go in for exploratory surgery if you suspect something.

Environment committee  In your project design, I would say yes. That's what some of these legacy projects are. Certainly some of the examples provided here do cost money. I don't know what the right quantum is. I would say that before the major projects management office today, for resource projects, is a total of I think close to $200 billion worth of shovel-ready infrastructure.

Environment committee  I'll use a specific example of past and future. Some of these changes are being addressed through the current budget implementation act. A large pipeline project—we'll say it's travelling over 1,000 kilometres—might cross over a hundred streams. In the old world you would get worried about each and every stream, as you should in terms of mitigation.

Environment committee  Absolutely. And of course when you're actually evaluating the design and the plans, you look at each level. But I am saying that those would be integrated into your plan and addressed on a location-specific venture. But at the same time, you would look strategically at the overall impact of the overall project and ask, how can I do a better job to have—as you heard from some of the other speakers—a net zero impact?

Environment committee  That's a great question. I just tried to put that out as an illustration of the kinds of investments that are made that aren't necessarily resulting in any better environmental improvement. For all of those industry investments, keep in mind as well, there are government bureaucrats chasing paper, as opposed to actually doing environmental protection.

Environment committee  It's over sixty years on the big transmission pipelines and a hundred years on more local systems.

Environment committee  I want to clarify that it would be doubling the throughput, not doubling the impact. There's a right of way. There's space in that right of way to add additional pipe capacity, and that is what is being proposed at this point in time.

Environment committee  That's a good illustration of an absolutely iconic landscape that any well-meaning citizen would take great pride in and great care with. From a pipeline point of view, it is private investment, but there is a duty to move energy to where it's needed, and that implies crossing landscapes that are vast and varied.

Environment committee  I do agree with that. I think I would just observe that the word “plan” does often lead to a very prescriptive outcome. If a conservation plan is used to say that you plan to protect Canada's boreal forest broadly, that's fine, but then to Dave's point, you need a very flexible framework with sub-plans within that.