 Good morning. Why don't we go ahead and get started? I'm David Pumphrey. I'm co-director and senior fellow for the Energy and National Security Program here at CSIS. And it's really a great pleasure to welcome Minister Oliver here to present this speech on Canada and U.S.-Canada energy relationships. North America is experiencing what I would really call a wealth of energy resources and really understanding that we in North America are a really energy rich, not an energy poor region. Unconventional oil and gas has shown us that there are important economic opportunities that we can seize here and really will be an important improvement in North American competitiveness. But to do this we have to be very cognizant of the environmental consequences that will go with this development and take the measures that we need to take to make certain that all this development is done as safe away as possible. That includes making certain that shale gas development or tight oil development proceeds safely as well as oil sands development in North, in Canada. In addition, the North American economy is highly integrated and the energy system is perhaps one of the most integrated parts of that. We were just talking briefly a second ago that it would be really great if this market could continue to operate as if there wasn't a border. But sometimes borders do interfere in differing policy agendas come into place. So to really exploit these resources we need to think in a North American context, we need to look at the infrastructure that we've got so that we can match that infrastructure with the economic opportunities that will be there. So I think that today's presentation by Minister Oliver will help us understand what is happening in Canada, Canada's perspective on the development and how to move forward with development as well as the importance of this relationship with the United States. A few brief words about Minister Oliver. He's been, was elected to the Canadian House of Commons and appointed Minister of Natural Resources in May of 2011. I wish our process for getting Cabinet officers appointed moved quite so expeditiously, but we're making our way forward. Prior to his election to Parliament, Minister Oliver had a career in investment banking starting with Mayor Lynch and then working through a number of investment banks has served in a number of organizations, investment dealers association of Canada as well as working internationally. Minister Oliver obtained his BA from a Bachelor of Civil Law at McGill University and then an MBA from the Harvard School of Business. So Minister Oliver, if you'd like to take the floor. Thank you very much, David. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We've come here to talk about the Canada-U.S. energy relationship, but first let me say this to my American friends and neighbors. In the wake of the tragic events in Massachusetts, Canadians stand by you, we grieve with you, and we offer our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the victims. I studied in Boston for two years, and I have wonderful memories of the city and its people, and I know that they will draw strength from each other in dignity and in determination not to waver in the face of this senseless, cowardly attack of terror. Now it's truly a pleasure to be here, ladies and gentlemen. The Center is one of America's preeminent institutions for the study of foreign policy and national security. I congratulate the Center as it prepares to move into its new headquarters on Rhode Island Avenue. If I may quote from the Center's Energy and National Security Program, forward-thinking energy policy should balance economic, environmental, and security priorities against market and geopolitical uncertainty. And that's how we in Canada see it as well. So today I will touch on each of these elements. Canada's foreign policy as it relates to the United States starts with a common continent, builds on a long history, and looks to a collaborative future. We share an unwavering commitment to freedom and democracy, to the rule of law, and to the understanding that free markets are the best way to create opportunity, drive innovation, and deliver prosperity. More than friends, we are allies on the world stage and when duty calls, time and again. Time and again Canadians and Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder to defend these values in two world wars in Korea and Bosnia and Afghanistan, a friendship forged in fire. We also share the biggest and most important economic and trade partnership in the world. In 2011, Canada U.S. trade totaled more than $716 billion, that's almost $2 billion in goods and services crossing the border every day, $1.4 million a minute contributing to jobs and prosperity in both our countries. More than 8 million American jobs depend on trade and investment with Canada, and in Canada one of every 7 jobs is linked to exports to the United States. Canada has also been America's biggest, most reliable and trusted energy partner for decades, and Canada has the resources to fill that role for many decades in the future. In fact, imports of Canadian crude and petroleum products have recently reached their highest level in history. Three million barrels a day, about 1.6 million barrels per day, higher than the next largest supplier, Saudi Arabia, and around triple the imports from Mexico or Venezuela. This audience is of course aware that the International Energy Agency has projected that the U.S. will be the world's biggest producer of oil as early as the end of this decade. As production rises, U.S. dependence on imported oil will decline. That's unquestionably good news for energy security and North American energy independence. In fact, the geopolitical implications will be profound. But the point that is sometimes lost in the good news is that the U.S. will still need to import significant quantities of oil to meet its daily needs. In 2020, even as it's expected to become the world's largest oil producer, the IEA projects that the U.S. will still need to import 5.5 million barrels of oil per day in order to meet its energy demand. So let me underline that point. Seven years from now, the United States will still need to import more than double the volume that Canada currently sends to the United States, and more than six times the volume of Canadian American oil that the Keystone pipeline will transport. But not more than Canada would be able to export to the United States, provided infrastructure is built to deliver it. While development of tight oil and efficiency measures will continue to reduce demand, in 2035, but again, according to the IEA, the U.S. will still rely on imports for over a quarter of its oil, some 3.4 million barrels every day. That means every drop of Canadian oil sands could displace oil from other top suppliers to the U.S., including Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Iraq, and Nigeria. And that is important. Some have suggested that Keystone XL will be an export pipeline used to deliver heavy oil to foreign countries. But that is simply not the case. Even with a dramatic increase in domestic production, the U.S. will continue to rely on imports for over a quarter of its oil supply. The existing Keystone pipeline delivers oil to American consumers, and the Keystone XL pipeline will deliver oil the U.S. needs for domestic consumption, oil coming from a supplier the U.S. knows it can count on. Crude traveling through the Keystone pipeline will come from Canada's oil sands and up to 30 percent from the U.S. back in that North Dakota and Montana, consisting of mainly America and also some Canadian crude. There's been a lot of ink spilled in editorials and often on placards about the oil sands, so let me advance a few facts. Fact. As a result of technological advances and strict regulations, GHG emissions from the oil sands have dropped 26 percent per barrel between 1990 and 2011. Fact. Canada has implemented a world-class monitoring program unlike anywhere else in the world. Fact. About 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are controlled either by national governments or by state-owned enterprises. That leaves only 20 percent of free enterprise oil that is fully accessible to private sector development. And of that 20 percent, Canada holds about 60 percent in its oil sands. Fact. Unlike some other major suppliers of the U.S., Canada has never nationalized the assets of American oil companies, or like Venezuela threatened to cut off supplies every year for the past five years. In fact, Canadian ingenuity has contributed to the development of the oil sands, along with American ingenuity. This is the world's largest technology project. Through commercial research and development, it has made possible extraction, and it's made it affordable as well. The oil sands are the third largest proven oil reserves in the world, 169 billion barrels. And as technology advances, the oil sands could yield more than 300 billion barrels of oil. Oil that American consumers, businesses, and industries can and always have counted on in good times and in bad. But Canada is more than reliable. Canada can match its environmental performance to any other oil-producing nation-shipping oil to the U.S. Among the five major oil suppliers to the United States, only Canada has committed to absolute reductions. Canada is committed to the same greenhouse gas reduction target as the U.S., a cut by 17 percent over 2005 by 2020. And projections put us halfway there. We've aligned our regulations with the United States to make cars and trucks more fuel-efficient. Canada is the first major coal user to ban construction of new coal-fired electricity plants using traditional technology. And we now require all existing coal plants to shut down on a schedule that reflects their economic life, the first country in the world to do so. And that's very important because coal is a much bigger emitter of greenhouse gases than oil. So when we talk about the oil sands, let's put things in perspective. The oil sands accounted for less than 8 percent of Canada's total emissions in 2011. Globally, GHG emissions from oil sands production in 2011 represented 0.1 percent or 1,000s of total emissions. The entire oil sands emissions are less than emissions originating from coal-fired electrical plants in Missouri and less than one-thirtieth of U.S. coal emissions. Large producers in Alberta pay a per-tan fee into a technology fund that invests in research and development to reduce emissions. Companies operating in the oil sands are taking unprecedented action to accelerate the pace of technological development. A year ago, 14 major oil sands companies, intensely competitive, joined together to establish the Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. These companies are competitors, yet they are working together to develop and share technological breakthroughs to reduce the environmental impact of oil sands production in respect to water, land, and GHG emissions. Together with the province of Alberta, we are implementing a new world-class environmental monitoring system for the oil sands. It will provide independent, scientific-based environmental reporting founded on partnership with industry, with aboriginal communities, and with other levels of government. The environmental impact of oil sands extraction will be monitored, measured, and reported for all to see. No other major oil supplier to the U.S. can match that kind of openness and accountability. Our government is also working with the province of Alberta to develop additional regulations that will further reduce GHG emissions from oil sands production. This will make Canada one of a very small handful of oil exporters with national binding regulations on its oil and gas sector. It will make us the only major oil supplier to the U.S. with such regulations. In the past year, we have implemented new national strategies for responsible resource development, a regulatory regime that offers both a more efficient and predictable process for investors and enhanced protection for Canada's environment. They are tougher environmental enforcement mechanisms, including substantial monetary penalties for noncompliance. And a key pillar of our plan is to uphold our moral and constitutional obligations to Canada's First Nations and other aboriginal peoples. Recently, I named a special envoy reporting to the Prime Minister to work with aboriginal communities in Western Canada to identify opportunities for greater participation by aboriginal peoples in resource development and strengthened environmental protection. We're committed to ensuring that our resources are developed responsibly and that they reach markets where they are in demand. And I should mention that rail to transport oil to the U.S. has increased significantly and it is an important supplement. However, rail by itself cannot be a long-term solution to our strategic imperative to diversify our markets to the burgeoning economies of the Asia-Pacific region. Now let me touch on another strategic issue that is important to both our countries, energy independence. It may seem strange that a country exporting 2.4 million barrels of crude to the United States, 3 million barrels including petroleum products, would be concerned about energy independence. But we are. The eastern part of our country purchases the majority of its oil overseas because we do not have a pipeline connecting it to Western and Central Canada. This must change and our government has made the construction of a new pipeline to Eastern Canada a national priority. But we understand this cannot occur in isolation. Our two countries are interconnected by a system of more than 80 major oil and gas transmission lines, so each new pipeline built in the United States or Canada contributes to the goal of North American energy independence. And Keystone XL can also make a major contribution to this goal. Canadian oil flowing through that pipeline will provide Gulf Coast refineries a secure supply of heavy crude. Those U.S. refineries have long depended on Mexico and Venezuela for the heavy oil they need to deal with their overcapacity. However, as the recent IHS CERA report on the oil sands points out, the supply for Mexico is already declining. Venezuela, which is a major U.S. supplier, has threatened to cut off supplies five times in as many years. In response to a dispute regarding ExxonMobil, the former Foreign Affairs Minister, Nicolas Maduro, also threatened to cut supplies in 2011. Well, that's not a reliable partner. That's not a stable source of oil. Canada honors its contractual commitments, and we would never turn our back on the United States. In fact, when North America was hit with the 1973-74 OPEC oil embargo, Canada, the U.S. and our allies founded the International Energy Agency. And through our membership, we committed to work together as friends and allies in times of crisis. This agreement was forged 40 years ago and has stood the test of time. Now, before I touch on the jobs and economic benefits, I think it's important to recall that the U.S. State Department, which is the lead department on this issue, concluded that the Keystone XL Pipeline would not have a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, it would be safer than typically constructed pipelines. The U.S. Department of Defense, the largest single user of energy in the world, also concluded that reducing reliance on oil sands oil would not reduce GHG emissions. The EPA recently expressed concerns about GHG emissions. Well, we concur with the State Department that there is no increase in emissions from Keystone XL. First, over 20 percent will be conventional oil from North Dakota and Montana, and a bit from Saskatchewan. Second, all the Keystone crude will be displacing Venezuela and other heavy oil, which has about the same lifecycle GHG emissions. This means shifting to Canadian oil will not increase GHG emissions at all. Furthermore, Canadian oil would still come in by train, and of course, Canada would export the oil elsewhere. Keystone XL is a $7 billion project which will create thousands of jobs. According to the U.S. State Department, it would support over 42,000 jobs in the U.S. during the two-year construction period. The long-term, full economic impact of Keystone XL is expected to be about $172 billion for the U.S. economy. TransCanada has contracts with more than 50 suppliers across the U.S. from West Bend Pipe in Arkansas and Cameron Valves in Louisiana to pumps, motors, and control equipment manufactured by Siemens in Ohio, Indiana, and Oregon. It will incorporate 57 additional safety features beyond those typically deployed in U.S. pipelines, standards such as the welding of pipe seams to inspections of the full right-of-way 26 times a year. And this is not your grandfather's pipeline. Ultimately, this comes down to a choice. The U.S. can choose Canada, a friend, neighbor, and ally as a source of its oil imports, or it can choose to continue to import oil from less friendly, less stable countries with weaker or perhaps no environmental standards. Moreover, Keystone does not represent some kind of fundamental shift in Canada-U.S. energy relations. In fact, just the opposite. This project is completely in step with the long and deep energy relationship between our two countries. So far, we have built more than 200,000 miles of oil and petroleum product pipelines in Canada and the U.S. that are part of an integrated energy system. The Keystone XL project represents a total of 1,700 miles, and the presidential permit applies to only 875 miles. It is a certainty that pipelines will continue to be built in the United States, regardless of the approval or rejection of Keystone XL. Rejecting this project would represent a serious reversal in our long-standing energy relationship. Canada hopes the decision will be a positive one. Energy independence is only possible with Canadian oil. But make no mistake, Canadian resource development and export, including from the oil sands, will continue Keystone or no Keystone. And this is important to understand. Anyone who equates the rejection of Keystone XL with some kind of body blow to the oil sands is just plain wrong. Rail will be used increasingly to transport oil sands crude, and pipelines will continue to be built in Canada. In fact, there are currently four major proposals for pipeline projects in Canada, which would connect Alberta oil to new markets. Two new pipelines have been proposed to move oil to our west coast, and two other projects would move oil to eastern Canada for refining and potential exports from Atlantic ports. On the eastward projects, one would convert what is currently a natural gas pipeline to carry oil, and the other would reverse the flow of an existing oil pipeline. Most people have come to understand that every single major natural resource project faces environmental opposition, usually fierce and frequently accompanied with misinformation and hyperbole. And that applies to clean projects like hydro and wind power as well. Having a healthy, informed debate rooted in the facts is integral to a democratic society and is an important part of the approval process for major projects. However, stopping every major energy project that encountered opposition, which is to say every one of them would have dire implications for our economies and the quality of lives of our citizens. Indeed, one of the energy projects facing opposition in a 2011 U.S. Chamber of Commerce study, nearly half were clean energy projects. The study said, and I quote, Activism has blocked more renewable projects than coal-fired power plants by organizing local opposition changing zoning laws, opposing permits, filing lawsuits, and using other long-delay mechanisms effectively bleeding projects dry of their financing. Close quotes. It is about balance. Balance between economic viability and environmental protection. And that is the balance that the government of Canada is striking. The oil sands are a massive resource. There's enough oil to meet the needs of Canada and the U.S. oil market for decades to come and still allow Canada to export significant amounts of oil to other countries. If I may go back to the center's quote I used at the beginning of my remarks, if the question is an energy policy that balances economic, environmental, and security priorities against market and geopolitical uncertainty, Canada is the answer. Combine Canada's resources with growing U.S. production and a goal that even five years ago would have been unthinkable is now within our reach. North America could be energy independent within 20 years. No more reliance on unstable or irresponsible producers. No more cartels. Only the security and confidence of knowing you're dealing with a friend who shares your democratic values, your belief in the free market, and is a proven and growing commitment to environmental and social responsibility. Thank you very much. Thank you, Minister Oliver, for an excellent speech, and I think you were able to be very clear about your perceptions and making the case. We'll go ahead and start the question and answer session. We have about 20 minutes for Qs and As, and we have a couple of ground rules we'd like to follow here. Just if you would identify yourself and your affiliation and try as best you can to end whatever comments you have with a question mark so that it can be put in form of a question, and then also wait for the microphones that will be bringing microphones around. But I thought take the prerogative if I could ask one of the first questions, and you had mentioned the efforts to open up the pathways to get to both coasts. That's been a lot of discussion about that issue and about the possibilities. I was wondering if you could give us a little more information about how that process is unfolding and sort of how you would rate the possibility. Many people are saying, oh, it's never going to happen, so therefore we can actually do that. But I think it would be helpful for you if you could help us understand that process you have going on. Every single project goes through an environmental assessment as it does in the United States, so I cannot comment on individual projects in terms of their merit. The Northern Gateway project supported by Enbridge would move oil from Northern Alberta, from Fort McMurray to the port of Kitimat on the coast of British Columbia. We are expecting the decision of a joint panel at the end of this year in December, and that will then move on from there depending on the decision. There's another project as well, the Trans Mountain project supported by Kinder Morgan. There are two major projects that are under review or will likely be registering for review. As well, I mentioned during my remarks two projects which would move the oil to the east. One is the Trans Canada Pipeline mainline, which would involve a conversion from gas to oil. It would bring oil to the refineries in Quebec City and Montreal, the Ultramar and Suncore refineries, and it's intended, if the full line is extended, to bring it to St. John New Brunswick to the Irving refineries, which is the largest refinery in Canada. The advantage for Canada is the opportunity to bring lower cost crude to refineries which are operating under capacity at the moment. The refining business in Canada for sure has been a very tough business. There hasn't been a refinery built since the early 1980s, and we have this rather counterintuitive situation where we've got all this oil in the west, and yet in the east they've been importing a lot of oil from North Africa and the North Sea. That was a result of the economics. It was actually less expensive to import foreign oil than to move Canadian oil. Economics are changing, and so that represents an opportunity to provide lower cost crude to Canada, but also an opportunity to move some of the crude which has been refined in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada where there is a deep water port to overseas markets. What we have strategically, just to put the whole issue in perspective, we basically have one customer. 100% of our gas, 99% of our oil exports go to the United States. The US, as we talked, has found massive amounts of shale gas and tight oil. So we're going to be looking to markets that will represent over the next 35 years over 90% of economic growth, and that's the non-OECD countries, so it's critical we move our resources to tide water. So there's two real objectives. One is the diversification, and the other is the issue of North American independence. So we very much want and see it in our national interest to continue to be a major supplier of resources to the United States, and I've talked about why we believe that's in the US national interest as well. Okay, so I see Joe and then followed by the gentleman there. My name is, first of all, thank you, Minister, for an eloquent and very compelling presentation of the importance of US-Canadian energy relations. My name is Joe Dukert. For more than 20 years, I've focused on energy and environmental cooperation among the three countries of North America, Mexico. And so my question broadens your topic to ask you to expand a little bit on what you foresee for the North American relationship among Canada, the United States, and Mexico. I know that meetings take place at least once a year in Ottawa, or in Mexico City, between Canadian and Mexican energy specialists in the government. Most specifically, do you think that there is a possibility of reviving an effort that came close to success four or five years ago to produce officially a North American energy outlook that considers not only fossil fuels, but electricity and all forms of renewable energy? Did that go up? Yeah, I'll be meeting with the new Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, tomorrow. And I'll be starting a dialogue on a number of bilateral issues, one of which I think is important, which is the international initiatives that we ought to pursue together. The most obvious one of which is a comprehensive North American approach, and so we'll be talking, I imagine, about some of the issues that you've raised. Specifically? Well, I don't want to, you know, foreclose alternatives or predict what precisely we'll be talking about. I'm also looking forward to meeting the new, my counterpart, the new Secretary of Energy when he is confirmed in that role, but obviously I can't meet him just yet. There's a question over here. Good morning, Minister Oliver, and thank you for coming today. Oh, my name's Ted Kahn. Well, I'm with Climate First, which is a Maryland corporation concerned about climate issues. Canada has a very good record as far as environmental protection issues, and I think everybody in this room really appreciates that. But how do you square that fact with your government's intentions to exploit tar sands in view of the fact that Dr. James Hansen recently retired from NASA, and probably the world's preeminent climate scientist has said the tar sands has to remain in the ground if we are to preserve climate, preserve a stable climate. It keeps going up. First of all, let me address a point on terminology. There's no tar in the oil sands. That's why we refer to it as oil sands. Secondly, in respect to James Hansen recently with NASA, I mean, he was the one who said that if we go, I think four years ago, if we go ahead with the development of the oil sands, it's game over for the planet. Well, you know, this is exaggerated rhetoric. It's frankly nonsense. And I don't know why he said it, but he should be ashamed of having said it. The oil sands represents 1,000s of global emissions. As I said, coal-fired electricity in the United States is well over 30 times that. I wonder why the focus on an area which, when there are 999 more important areas to focus on, quite frankly, I think that kind of exaggerated rhetoric, that kind of hyperbole, doesn't do the cause any good at all. And I think people are sensible. Americans and Canadians are logical people. And when they're presented with predictions that four years ago it says in four years we're doomed and we're not, it frankly undercuts an issue which is very important. So, you know, people, you know, as most of us do understand the importance of this issue of climate change, you know, frankly are not helped when people like him make the comments that he does. Okay, so that's one of the first times we've had applause for an answer. I thank whoever it was. Mr. Oliver, thank you very much for your comments. And I want to push a little bit more on that issue because it, not to make an issue out of it, but because it is sort of at the crux of the conversation that we've been having. Sorry, I'm Sarah Ladislaw here with the Energy Program at CSIS. You're with, I didn't catch who you're with. I'm here at CSIS. Oh, at CSIS, okay, thank you. So, one of the things that we're spending a lot of time talking about from a broader energy perspective here in the United States is whether or not conflicts over specific issues like the Keystone XL pipeline or LNG export issue or a variety of things that have sort of become these pivot points in sort of the U.S. energy policy discussion, whether or not they have sort of a distorted effect on the overall energy conversation that we're having here. And because your purview, and you've already sort of touched on this, is sort of the remit, or your remit is sort of this U.S.-Canada energy relationship. There have been some that suggest that it's been sort of waylaid a little bit by the fact that we're focusing so much on this one particular issue, and that it could benefit from sort of being broadened out a little bit. What are some of the key pillars of that portfolio that you would put forward that you think are the things that we really should be focusing on in order to sort of broaden this out? And does it include a more sort of deliberate and open conversation about climate change? Or do you feel like you're doing that and it's just sort of getting overshadowed by this one issue? I think we ought to have a conversation about climate change, and we are in fact doing that. And one of the messages that I've been conveying here in the United States is that we share the same overarching objective of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 17%. We have the identical rules on standards for fuel consumption for automobiles and light trucks and heavy trucks. And in respect to coal, which is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, we are really ahead of the world. And so look, we know on a global basis the most effective way of reducing global emissions is transitioning several countries, including China, from coal to natural gas. I mean, that would be an immense contributor in that regard. We have taken very significant action on the emission issue. I mentioned some of them before in my remarks. We've spent some $10 billion, which is a lot of money for our country, on green technology, reducing the environmental footprint of conventional and non-conventional resources, and looking for alternative sources of energy. And we will continue to invest in science and technology, because that will be an important part of the solution. With innovation, of course, it isn't smooth. It's sort of jagged, but it continues to make a significant contribution on this issue. One of the most economically efficient ways to do it is through energy efficiency measures, and we've devoted a lot of attention to that. We have an Echo Energy Homes Program, which one-twentieth of the homes in Canada participated to make them more energy efficient. We've provided financial incentives to do that. We're part of this Echo Star system, which identifies more energy efficient products, and that can make a very big difference. And we're looking at what the U.S. is doing on that important file, and that will be part of the discussion that I have with Secretary Joule and with others. We talked about the international side, energy efficiency is very important, addressing non-conventional energy development, smart grid issues. There's a lot of stuff which is below the radar, but really makes an important difference. So we ought to have that discussion, and that's part of a broader discussion about the energy relationship that our two countries have and what we see ahead in the light of enormous change in the energy market. I mean, it's fairly obvious to everyone here that these profound changes will have all sorts of political, economic, and environmental implications. You know, the days of concern about peak oil are long gone. Energy around the world is more diffuse and diverse, comes in different sources in a lot of different countries. It's going to have political implications, and we as a sharing a continent have a number of common objectives that we want to pursue, and I certainly am going to try to advance those with my American counterparts. We have time for a couple more questions so I can see maybe we can get them queued up. And I've been looking to the right for a long time, so let me go. I'll take one over here on the left. This lady had her hand up. So we'll do three quick questions. In fact, why don't we gather them up and then you can answer them all sort of together. So why don't we start here and work around? Maybe I should. I was wondering if you could talk about Canada's interest in small module reactors. Why don't we get the other two questions on the table. So there'd be one here in the front and then the gentleman in the back. Right there. Yeah, that's you for you. No, we're going to gather all the questions together and then the minister can maybe weave them together. That's right. Yeah, exactly. Mine is specific. It's not sort of up here. It's down here. You've had experience. I'm sorry. Jessica Stone with CCTV. Obviously has had experience with spills from particular of TransCanada. There are 14 spills on record in the EIS that was released last month. I wonder what your experience is with and your concerns are with future spills, because that's one of the main concerns that people along the route have. And based on the experience of the people in Michigan and Kalamazoo, there's no indication that this is the same to clean up as conventional crude. So I wanted to kind of get the Canadian perspective on how you've dealt with spills in Canada and whether you've gotten the right information from the company as they've promised with the hazardous materials contained in the diluents, all of that. If you've felt you've gotten enough information from the company to be able to deal with those types of situations on your own soil. And then the third question right there. Thanks for speaking today. I'm Blake Subcheck with Energy Wire. I was just hoping you could elaborate a little bit on your comments about crude by rail volumes. And I'm wondering if one of the results of this whole debate and some of the delays associated with various pipelines might be to give the North American freight rail industry an outsize influence in oil markets. So that gives you a good range of topics to choose from. I don't have a direct answer on the small modular reactors. I will say that nuclear is important in Canada. It represents 15% of total energy, over 50% in our largest province, Ontario. Canada has a very strong record in terms of clean energy in the production of our electricity. It's 63% from non-emitting sources compared to 13% in the United States. And if you add nuclear, which is a non-emitting source, if you look at total non-emitting source, it's 77% in Canada. That's a very high number. We're very supportive of the nuclear industry. We are, in fact, the second largest producer of uranium in the world. And we're taking some steps to broaden the markets. We entered into an agreement very recently with India, a nuclear cooperation agreement which will honour our non-proliferation obligations. And we expect an exchange of diplomatic notes to finalize that very, very soon. So we're involved in the industry in an important way. We recently, the government sold to the private sector our Kandu reactor division, but we're still involved in science and technology and nuclear waste in the production of medical isotopes. And the private sector is looking at the sale of Kandu reactors and the rebuilding of existing nuclear plants. I just don't have an answer on the small modular reactors, except that it's clearly something of real interest and it can be a clean source of energy which would reduce emissions in the production of energy. You know, in various non-conventional projects. So I don't think that there's anything in the works on that in Canada, but it's something that's been talked about from time to time. In respect to the issue of pipeline safety and spills, the number of safe transport of oil in Canada, and I believe it's the same in the United States, pretty much is 99.9996% safe. That's a record that goes over many years. However, we acknowledge that the .0004% landing in your backyard would not make you a happy camper. And so the objective clearly is to eliminate any serious spills in Canada we've done quite a bit in that regard. I mean, first of all, technology, of course, is improving and that's why the U.S. State Department has said that the Keystone pipeline would be safer than existing pipelines because of technological advance and because of some 57 conditions that it imposed on TransCanada pipeline in respect to that. But everybody understands that pipelines are the safest form of transportation for oil and gas. I mean, there's nothing close to it, but that does not mean we shouldn't have an extremely robust emergency preparedness system. I mean, the objective is to move very quickly, instantly, and to have a cleanup which is complete, comprehensive, and based on polluter pay. So we're doing a lot in that regard. We've doubled the number of annual audits. We've increased the number of inspections by 50%. We've imposed monetary penalties on companies that are not compliant with the rules. That's what we're doing in Canada, and the U.S. administration can talk about what's happening in the United States. But there's hundreds of thousands of miles of oil pipeline. As I said, it's a certainty that the U.S. is going to continue to develop pipeline because the alternatives are either to move the oil by truck or by train, which is not as effective a way to do it, or stop transporting energy, which is unthinkable because of the impact. So, you know, it's interesting. Pipeline companies were considered pretty boring. It was like sort of watching paint dry. And now everybody in North America knows about this individual project. It's perhaps unprecedented. So everybody is sort of focused on these issues, and that's perfectly fine. But they also have to step back and look at the fact that energy, where North America is laced with pipelines, probably over a million, well over a million, including gas and so on. And the U.S. builds 1,400, on average 1,400 miles of oil pipe every year. The unapproved portion of Keystone would be 875 miles. So why wouldn't you build, you know, include that in the building plan when it's considered safer than existing pipelines? So look, we take safety extremely seriously. We've got a very, very good overall record in both our countries. We have to continue to do more, and we will. In terms of rail and, you know, with this outsized influence, I mean, I guess, you know, as I said, rail is picking up the slack right now because we have a shortage of pipeline capacity, and that's going to get more acute, particularly in Canada, if during this decade we don't go ahead and build that infrastructure, which we intend to do. So it's been a boom for the rail industry. I think it can be a very important supplement to the transportation, but over the long term, the large amounts will have to be transported by pipe. Well, Minister Oliver, thank you very much for taking the time to come by. For members of the press, there will be an opportunity to ask some questions, I believe, in the corner up here if you would like to join.