Environment Committee on June 18th, 2009

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I appreciate you being here today, Mr. Hyer.

The responses that you're giving to us, a lot of them have basically come from Deep Reductions, Strong Growth. Do you have a copy of that in front of you, Mr. Hyer?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I do.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I could imagine.

One of the policy recommendations that you have actually said, significant price on greenhouse gas emissions, essentially a carbon price, is one of the major recommendations, obviously, that the Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute are putting forward. Economic modelling results on page 2 talk about starting out with $50 per tonne, moving up to $300 per tonne by 2030. Do you have anything you can offer to this committee in terms of what that would do to the price of energy for everyday Canadian consumers? How much would a litre of fuel be in 2030? How much would a cubic litre of natural gas be in 2030?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I know it'll be more than it is today.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Do you know how much more a litre of fuel is right now in Sweden or Finland than it is in Canada today, Mr. Hyer? Do you know that?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Yes, I do. I was recently there. It's quite a bit more.

I think you know that for me to comment would be speculative, and you're making a point, not really asking a question. But I will acknowledge that all of us are going to have to share in some increased costs in some areas, particularly in the energy areas in the future. There's no doubt about that; we all know that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Hyer, obviously you pay attention to public policy; that's what motivated you to get involved in politics while coming from a background as a professional biologist. We have similar backgrounds and we've discussed this at length in private conversations.

Are you aware, going back three years, as you take a look at the equalization formulas, which were the “have” provinces in Canada? Do you know which ones those were three years ago? There are two.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I'm not an expert in that area, so--

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Do you know which ones they were? I'll be happy to help you.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I know what some of them were, but if you want to finish your point--

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Ontario and Alberta. Now we're going through an economic recession, and if you go to page 3 in this very report, it talks about new jobs being projected in Canada between 2011 and 2020:

While meeting the science-based GHG reduction target, only the fossil fuel production sectors, crude oil extraction, petroleum refining, natural gas production and coal mining and the electrical industry would see net job losses.

Given that, three years later, if you look at the budget document that was tabled in the House of Commons, there are actually, based on today's equalization formulas, four provinces in Canada that are now considered to be “have” provinces. Do you know which ones those are?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

No.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Newfoundland and Labrador, a province that has basically access to oil and natural gas reserves, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, the four provinces in this country that actually have access to oil and natural gas deposits. Now we've lost Ontario, unfortunately, on the other side of that equation.

Would you care to comment on anything that's written in this report, talking about net job increases and net economic benefits, because it seems to me the reality of today would indicate that the provinces that are in the strongest fiscal position in this country are the ones that actually exploit the natural resources that your bill seeks to quash and kill?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I guess my comments would be two.

The first is that right now the energy sectors, particularly coal, oil, and gas, are highly subsidized so that we're not paying the real costs today, and we might have to move to full cost accounting here.

The other thing I truly believe is that the key to economic development from the resource sector in Canada has to do with more value-added in a variety of sectors, lots and lots of sectors.

Simply to be really clear, I am not anti-gas, I'm not anti-oil. I use those products and we're all going to continue to use them. It would be my hope that we can find creative ways to use less volumes, at least of the emissions, and maybe we don't even have to reduce the actual use of the resources. It's the emissions that are clear. This bill is about emissions, it's not about how much oil or gas we use. I hope we can maintain the jobs we have and actually increase them through more creativity and more value-added.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Is it not the position of your party to have a moratorium on oil sands development expansion?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

It was Jack Layton's quite strong opinion before the last election that there should be a moratorium on further development--not on current levels, but on further developments. I don't really have an opinion on that.

I do have a strong opinion that we need to reduce our emissions, directly or indirectly, but does that necessarily mean we need to curtail growth in the natural resource sector, including carbon fuels? No, not if we can achieve our goals in some other way.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has just expired.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hyer, for coming in today. I know it's a difficult situation for you as a member of Parliament to actually be called as a witness, but we do appreciate your giving testimony and answering forthrightly the questions that were put to you on Bill C-311. I want to wish you all the best.

With that, we're going to continue with our meeting. I'm sure you've all seen the agenda, which is being circulated again.

We're going to move to the motion by Ms. Duncan.

Ms. Duncan, if you could move that to the floor, I'd appreciate it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

My motion is that in order to ensure a timely and efficient review of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, the committee agrees to accept information, testimony, and materials considered during hearings conducted by the committee in the second session of the 39th Parliament on Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as supporting documentation for review of Bill C-311, and agrees to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-311 immediately when Parliament resumes in September 2009.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's a two-part motion--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Could I speak to the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You can speak to the motion.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am in no way trying to cut off discussion, debate, or potential for some witnesses coming forward. I'm aware that we have a large agenda before this committee. We have not even come up with any recommendations out of our oil sands review, which is very disappointing to me. We have not completed our review of SARA. Once the House comes back, we'll be dealing with estimates and so forth. In fact, we have other bills that have been referred to us, I think including the review of the sustainability act by the commissioner, and so forth. We have a good number of things on our plate.

Our time is limited, our resources are limited, and my motion is simply to suggest a way of providing for a timely and efficient review of the bill. That is why I have brought it forward.

I look forward to clause-by-clause consideration. I look forward to any relevant testimony that anybody may feel necessary to table before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Go ahead, Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

In response to that, Ms. Duncan, and to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-311 immediately when Parliament resumes, I'm open to accepting all the previous Bill C-377 testimony, but the world situation has changed so much that we have some serious issues we need to look at in and around Bill C-311. We have to hear what Canada's position is, what the world's position is, what's coming out of the negotiations that are happening now with the G17, and these sorts of issues. We need to know where the BRIC countries are and what kinds of targets....

There are things we need to talk about around Bill C-311 that will prevent us from getting immediately into clause-by-clause consideration with any ability to get somewhere.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Are you suggesting a friendly amendment to take out the clause-by-clause part?