Environment committee  We have guidelines, recommended practices for many of the activities we undertake. We're always open, obviously, to improvements on that, but your question is somewhat contradictory in that you referred to guidelines and then said “you must follow”. In the context of best practic

Environment committee  The short answer is absolutely. We have a long history of building pipelines in a diversity of environments, including many stream crossings. Yes, the technology exists. We know how to do this, and one of the really unfortunate outcomes of the Mackenzie process—over and above the

Environment committee  Thanks for the question. I would strongly reinforce your premise that we need to find a way to make all of this work. We need economic growth, we need to protect the environment, and we need to find ways for the major stakeholders--aboriginal people--to be involved in the proce

Environment committee  We respect the government's obligation to consult and reasonably accommodate, and we respect the role we have to play in that. That's what we do.

Environment committee  I'll just be very quick. We're obviously supportive of timelines. We think they're a step in the right direction. We think there's an opportunity to go further in terms of the integration of the federal and provincial processes, which would help further in terms of solidifying ti

Environment committee  First of all, it should focus on environmental effects. That's the first message. Second, I think we need to look at the full suite of that, a positive ending, and understand the full impact of the project in all respects, but it should focus on environment. Very quickly, just

Environment committee  Absolutely. It can be helped if the federal and provincial governments work with industry and others to put in place better monitoring programs, verification programs. We need a baseline of good science. That should be there to inform decision-making, and we're strongly supportiv

Environment committee  Yes.

Environment committee  I can talk about that in the context of oil sands mining, where often the federal trigger is legitimately triggered by a relatively small issue, some impact on water course, for example. That invokes federal involvement in the process. There's a very, very extensive provincial re

Environment committee  Very quickly, I think we've talked about most of them, and they'll be addressed further in our submission, but the equivalence and substitution timelines, addressing the aboriginal consultation issue, and I think, very importantly—and I come back to reinforce this—the question of

Environment committee  My view is they're very rigorous, and these projects are subject to extensive scrutiny. There is not a marked difference between the two.

Environment committee  We have many analogies to the culvert example. It's just an example of an assessment being triggered over a rather trivial and routine issue. I talked earlier about the Mackenzie Valley experience, which nobody wants to repeat. I think there are some good lessons to be learned p

Environment committee  My short answer is this. I would just like to be really clear. Our view is that more regulation is not necessarily better regulation, but a foundation of all of this has to be environmental performance. Nobody's disputing that. I would come back to two things. One thing is the e

Environment committee  We can provide those submissions for you. I'd be happy to do that. I guess my observation would be that we've not done as good a job on the regulatory process as we've done on managing the financial side of the system, and there's an opportunity to improve.

Environment committee  There are some differences, and I think we have to acknowledge those. The best one that we've run across is some of the work that's been done in Australia. Mr. Gratton referenced that earlier. I think it is an example that ought to be looked at, and we can--