Environment Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

You don't have the answer to my question. I appreciate your trying.

The last question I have is for anybody who wants to tackle this. This is a sincere question based on the experience I've had as an Albertan growing up through the national energy program and through the last election in going through the green shift. Have any of you considered the effect this proposal would have on national unity, if Albertans are asked to shoulder an even more disproportionate share of this burden?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Drexhage, you go first.

[John Drexhage]

Thank you very much.

I too am a native Albertan. I grew up in Edmonton; I'm a Beverly boy. I grew up under the national energy program, I saw it for its short-sightedness, and the Eskimos and Oilers will always be my teams.

I have always been concerned about the national unity issue in this discussion and about how it degenerates so quickly. I'm really sorry that the last legacy former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had seems to have been in this area more than any other, ironically. It's really unfortunate, because I don't think it need be the case at all. I think we can have a very progressive, constructive discussion on this. I hope we can use this as a means of going forward on things instead of using it as a means of division, because it's not healthy for the country and it's not going to be healthy for the environment. And over the longer term it won't be healthy for the economy in Alberta, either.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Donnelly, Mr. Calkins' time is up, but you can give a very short response.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I think unity is at risk because expectations are too high. The whole Kyoto-U.S. congressional context penalizes regions that are most efficient and rewards regions that are currently least efficient. So in fact, if we actually went down the Copenhagen track, the region that's got the most difficulty raising new capital for anything is Quebec; it's not Alberta. You have to have a bunch of emissions to be able to cut them.

So I'm really concerned about the situation we're in, where we've got Manitoba, B.C., and Quebec anticipating reward because they're currently efficient, when we're in an international convention that's asking us to penalize those who are most efficient and move cash to those who are least efficient at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson, you have the floor, and you get the last question. You have five minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for appearing.

As a matter of a comment for the record, Mr. Chair, since this report comes to us very recently and with the TD Bank's sponsoring the report, Don Drummond, the economist, would be a good witness to have before the committee to explore some of the economic questions in the report. I leave that for the chair's consideration or the committee's consideration at a future point. I think it would be beneficial to have Mr. Drummond appear to explain the TD Bank's report.

Mr. Bramley, you said every model has different results. You've obviously chosen a very specific model for the report. I notice that on the inside cover the position of the David Suzuki Foundation talks about the policy choices being constrained by the model and says they represent some of the potential scenarios for achieving a GHG emission reduction target in 2020. I note further that they actually have a disclaimer that they don't specifically endorse the technologies and policies in the report. Apart from that, you've chosen a very specific path here.

I'm going to ask you some questions on that in short order by comparison too.

Back in the spring, I wrote the Parliamentary Budget Officer asking for him to do a full cost accounting of Bill C-311, and we had some exchange with Mr. Page. He presented a bit of an outline of what he thought could be a framework for considering this. Under the idea of new policy scenarios, he makes the point:

A number of policy scenarios would need to be developed since there are likely multiple approaches and combinations of approaches to achieve required reductions in emissions. The use of different approaches or combinations of approaches would likely result in differential economic impacts.

So my point, first of all, is that this is one opinion with respect to the economics, based on certain key assumptions. There are things that are not included in this report, in terms of alternate pathways to compare. Is that a fair assessment?

[Matthew Bramley]

It's one scenario. It's one pathway, and there are many others that could be chosen.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Right.

Mr. Page goes on to say:

The definition of “economic impact” could be broadened to include other economic indicators, social welfare measures, in addition, or what are the—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have a point of order.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The report Mr. Watson is referencing has not been shared with the other members at the table. Can it be offered to us?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It's a public document.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Watson, I know that—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We've been asking for this report for months, so could it be provided to us, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

But the request didn't come from committee; the request to the Parliamentary Budget Officer was made by Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That is correct, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

If Mr. Watson feels it is useful to share that with the committee, I would encourage you to do that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

He's referencing it today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

He has referenced it, but he's not out of order, so he can continue on with his question.

On the same point, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, my recollection is that Mr. Watson graciously accepted months ago to immediately share that report, or any correspondence back from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, when he received it. Ms. Duncan is perfectly correct. We have been asking, Monsieur Bigras been asking, and I've been asking for months.

Now, if we have a framework in terms of what might constitute a costing of a full climate change plan for Canada, that's great, and Mr. Watson would be well served, I think, to send it to Mr. Prentice so he can use it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, you have to understand.

A member of Parliament, a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, sent requests to the budget director. We fully supported those requests except that he has to work in cooperation with the committee. In other words, if he has information, he has to send it to the committee.

So it wasn't a member of the House of Commons who took the initiative; it was a member of the committee, and he has to assume his responsibilities and work with the members of the standing committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

And as you all realize, we are all just private members when we're off the committee, and as private members we can undertake any work that we see fit.

Mr. Watson did this initiative on his own. The committee never did ask, through a motion, to have it shared. He did offer.

So, Mr. Watson, I'll leave it up to your discretion unless the committee says....

On the same point of order, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Watson brings up a very good point, though, that his letter dated April 20, 2009, requested a costing of Bill C-311, because the author of Bill C-377 and Bill C-311--the Pembina Institute and Mr. Layton, both said it should be costed. And under that logic, that was his request.

To hear back from the budget officer saying he couldn't afford to do it and yet now can afford to do a costing at the request of a Liberal member of Parliament raises a number of serious questions, and we need to look into this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. I'll take this all under advisement and I'll talk to Mr. Watson after the meeting.

But let's continue on with our last question. You have two minutes left.