Environment committee  In complementing the legislative changes that are proposed in the budget implementation act and looking to this conservation plan, imagine an outcome where we could redirect some of those funds away from details permitting and look at positive environmental results, in effect creating an environmental legacy for the project.

Environment committee  Thank you. I think you'll find our comments to be fairly consistent with what you've heard from the upstream. Just to set the tone, what's different for our industry is that this is about long, linear infrastructure. I represent the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. We're very pleased to be here today.

Natural Resources committee  If I can use the analogy of a manufacturing plant in Ontario, the expectation is that if I am planning to invest in that manufacturing plant in Ontario, there will be sufficient highway, bridge, and border-crossing capacity for me to be able to deliver my goods to markets. If I suspect that's not the case, I may hesitate about that investment.

Natural Resources committee  I won't reflect on any personal experience at the NEB, but my understanding is that crown land does not usually trigger something like eminent domain because it's actually crown to crown saying, “I think this infrastructure is important.” Aboriginal interests are of course critical, and finding a way to have sincere and clear consultation is important.

Natural Resources committee  It would depend, but a typical easement would be about 30 metres in width or less. Sometimes during construction you will need some additional working space, which is negotiated separately on a very temporary basis, just because you take the topsoil off first and carefully store that as you're doing the trenching and stringing the pipe.

Natural Resources committee  It would depend on the working conditions and the sort of construction that's under way. It's not very large, particularly, but it is just a temporary workspace issue. Once a pipeline is constructed, it is typically about a metre below the ground, so in our experience active land use is unimpeded.

Natural Resources committee  Eminent domain is always essentially a court of last resort, purely from a public interest standpoint. This is something that can be used by regulators and government if there's a sense that an overall national need is causing an imperative desire to see that infrastructure go ahead.

Natural Resources committee  I would observe over the course of a number of hearings—and I'll include the Mackenzie Valley hearing, which took virtually six years to get through—that sometimes the pipeline decision attracts some other policy elements. In the case of the Keystone XL, for some reason unknown to me, American policy-makers chose to point their attention beyond their own borders and question things like GHG emissions from our oil sands, even though our total basket of crude here is better performing than even some Californian crude.

Natural Resources committee  I would say no, not at all. Existing infrastructure crosses a wide variety of terrain and has done so very safely for decades. For example, discontinuous permafrost can be tricky, where you have some parts that are solid and some parts not. But we have the Norman Wells pipeline that's been operating since the late 1980s, going halfway up the Mackenzie Valley.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct. It was built to flow Canadian crude oil from the west to the east in the late 1970s, and it was reversed once to go east to west. Now the desire is to go again from west to east.

Natural Resources committee  They did have public hearings. In fact, at the time, Mr. Calkins, I was working at the National Energy Board, and I remember those well. The primary focus at the time was actually related to markets and tolling, because this was a line that had been operating, frankly, with a federal subsidy for 20 years, in that its original purpose was geopolitical safeguarding.

Natural Resources committee  No, that was not of issue, except from a marketing perspective. There were some discussions with regard to tanker safety, as I recall, but none specifically of any significance with regard to pipeline safety, and I am an engineer, so that was the part I worked on.

Natural Resources committee  No, I cannot. I know they went out for public comment and they made a decision, and a few folks wanted to discuss origins of oil and a couple of first nations groups raised their hand as well. But on the matter of substance, given that it's existing infrastructure, you'll have to ask the NEB that.

Natural Resources committee  I don't know what issues could possibly be raised at this juncture, given that the scope of the application simply has to do with that piece of facility.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, I would agree with that. I would say that many Canadians are really unaware of pipelines, given that they are buried. In fact, we did a recent survey, out of interest, of 3,000 Canadians. A very large percentage still believe that they are above ground, and since they never see them, they don't think they're really there, which is interesting.