Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 12th, 2007

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Murphy, to answer.

[Michael Murphy, Executive Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll only make a couple of quick comments here.

I think when you're looking at public policy development and planning in terms of dealing with climate change, it strikes me that you have to bring a whole lot of stakeholders into the picture. One we have been arguing about for some time now is on levels of government other than the federal government.

Clearly, if you accept our premise that energy and economic questions have to be part of the discussion, you need to stop talking about this question strictly from a silo perspective, if you want to put it that way, which I think we did too much of for too long and right from the get-go.

Provincial governments need to play a very significant role here. I don't mean in terms of looking at some of the specifics that might occur on things like provincial equivalency agreements, for example, which we think would be very important in terms of dealing with regulations in the right context, but it's also in terms of the fundamentals of making sure we make good decisions in Canada.

There's an issue with respect to the roles that provinces play in the energy area. Many of our members deal with provincial governments today. If you look at the two areas that are involved here from the standpoint of Bill C-30 in terms of both air emissions and GHGs, provincial governments are an important stakeholder.

Throughout the process, we've been arguing there's a list of people who you need to make sure are engaged sufficiently from a policy perspective. Provincial governments are right up there at the top of the list, I would say.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

If I may, I would simply like to add the following. If I understand correctly, Mr. Bigras, you're suggesting that we have territorial objectives or targets. I can't see how that would work, because the energy resources are scattered throughout the country. It is by chance that Quebec has electricity and Alberta has natural gas.

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

Don't natural resources come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, Ms. Anthony?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

That is right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm sorry; we're going to have to cut it off there.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

We nevertheless need to have a Canada-wide plan.

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

Yes, that is true.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Cullen for seven minutes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our guests.

Ms. Hughes Anthony, how many members are in the Canadian chamber? How many members do you have in your organization?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

Over 350 local chambers of commerce are members. We have slightly fewer than 1,000 individual corporate members, and about 65 industry associations representing various kinds of industries are also members of the chamber.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

When we're talking about regulations for the largest final emitters, the biggest polluters in the country, it is bandied about when you ask government how many there are, but there are usually fewer than 50. You can even narrow it down to some of the biggest and most polluting. Since we're talking about the economics of this proposal and the recommendations we want to insert into this bill--I think you're satisfied with it, but many are not--has your organization costed out the potential economic harm to the small and medium-sized businesses if the climate continues to warm?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

We've not done that costing. We're not a scientific organization, but that's one of the reasons--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I mean economic costing, not scientific.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

No, we've not done it, but that's one of the reasons we partnered with Pollution Probe on this modest document. We have a very large concern that there has been a lot of emphasis over the past number of years--the planning period--on large final emitters, and that's fine. I know that under the previous government there was a process through which many of those large final emitters were in a very active dialogue with the government, but in our view the whole question of small and medium-sized businesses has not really been raised. Many SMEs don't even think of this as an issue that will impact them one way or the other.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Do you believe it will?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I think it important for that dialogue to begin. That's why, as I said, we put together with Ken Ogilvie of Pollution Probe at least the beginnings of some kind of document to say we have to think about this, and you have to think about this.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I come from a rural part of the country where there is a lot of reliance on forestry, and the chambers of commerce in my region are absolutely desperate with worry over what's happened to our forests in northern British Columbia. The economy is being absolutely hammered.

When we had the forestry executives and some of the researchers who worked for them in front of the committee and asked if there was a correlation between climate change and what's happening with the pine beetle epidemic, they answered with total certainty that there was.

If we look at the Stern report and at this question of economic pain--because I think your organization has made an association toward the economic pain of honouring our Kyoto obligations--are there not two sides to this argument? The second side would be that the potential for economic harm to the small and medium-sized businesses in particular in our country is equally as grave if we don't act.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

Of course.

I just don't think it's the time now for us, whether we're politicians, business groups, scientists, or whatever it is, to try to polarize groups and say there's more pain this way or there's more gain this way. We need to get on with it. In this respect, many of us around the table agree that there is science that is very challenging, as was pointed out by the scientists on this panel today. There are signals that need to be given to consumers, there are signals that need to be given to small business, and as we've said very clearly, we accept that some responsible target-setting needs to be done by government. We've heard that loud and clear.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let's talk about those targets for a moment--

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I don't think we need more studies on the impact of this thing versus that thing; this is the reality, and we all have to pull together on it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is your organization in favour of an emissions trading system?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

The membership feels there need to be some flexible market mechanisms.

I don't think there is agreement that an international system that would send money offshore would be particularly fruitful.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is your organization supportive of a trading system? If you don't have a policy on it, then you can say so.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I'll just consult with my colleague. I think yes is the answer, but I think it would be a domestic one, as opposed to an international one.