Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's a fairly wide-ranging question. I'll do my best to make some comments on it.
The National Energy Board, as you know, has the specific mandate to review projects, infrastructure projects particularly that cross interprovincial or international boundaries, and so is very much involved with the Clipper and Southern Lights. It doesn't set trade policy per se. As you mentioned, we are subject to larger trade agreements such as the North American FTA.
It is the case right now that the capacity for refining and upgrading is below the amount that's actually being produced out of the oil sands. I just want to mention that the reality of the oil sands is that it's growing in terms of its production. In fact, in relationship to GHGs, it's not at all the highest or largest proportion of GHG emissions in Canada--in fact, that honour goes to the electricity sector in this country--but it is the fastest-growing area of GHG emissions. Those were addressed recently in “Turning the Corner”, the regulatory framework announced by the Minister of the Environment. It will make a big difference in terms of the amount of emissions from the oil sands.
Just going back to what the minister was mentioning, our strategic objectives at NRCan are very much around economic competitiveness, environmental leadership, and the safety and security of Canadians and our natural resources. We do work on that in conjunction, very closely, with the provinces. As you will understand, a lot of the determinations on the pace of development rest with the provinces in terms of their ownership of the resources.
But we have a particular role to play, and we do that through our own department and through the portfolio agencies like the National Energy Board, who are prescribed by their own act in terms of how they make their decisions. As I mentioned, they make them within the context of existing trade agreements and our trade obligations.