Evidence of meeting #35 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was target.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'll repeat that question: isn't it true that there's no other developed country that has indicated a willingness to bear economic costs at a level of 3.2% of GDP, associated with climate change?
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
I don't know whether that's true or not. It may well be that there are analyses done in other industrialized countries. Japan might be a candidate. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see those kinds of numbers--
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'll be more specific, then. Isn't it the case that you don't know of any other developed country that has indicated a willingness to bear that level of cost?
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
I haven't looked at the analyses done in every other single industrialized country.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Without having any other developed country that you know of that's indicated a willingness to bear that cost, isn't it just a little preposterous to describe Canadian costs, of so much greater magnitude than the EU and the U.S., as low or acceptable?
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
These effects on GDP are not much greater than any number of analyses that have been done of greenhouse gas reduction targets in the past. Study after study shows typical effects on GDP in the range of 0% to 3%. So I see this as very much in line with the kinds of costs that are being contemplated elsewhere in the world.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
You've mentioned that the EU is about 2%, so we would know that these costs are at least 50% greater than what's contemplated by the EU. Isn't that right?
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
One study was 2%. Every model has different assumptions. These numbers are never precise. You get a different range of results.
Conservative
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
But we're talking about growing the economy by 23% between 2010 and 2020 and we're talking about jobs growing at essentially the same rate as they would under business as usual.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
With respect, sir, I'm talking about the cost over business as usual that's set out in your report.
Let me move on to another subject here.
As I understand it, the cost to Alberta's economy would be as much as 12% GDP. I see that in your report. Correct?
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
That's relative to business as usual, which is a growth of 50-something%.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Correct. For Alberta's negative GDP relative to business as usual, that impact is at least four times higher than the national average, relative to business as usual. Correct?
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
Relative to business as usual, but Alberta's absolute growth would be higher than any other province.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
In fact, doesn't your report disclose that in 2020 there would be some $12 billion to $15 billion less being invested in Alberta under the ENGO plan? All of my questions are about the ENGO plan.
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
Can you tell me which page of the report you're referring to, then?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
No, I can't. So I'm going to pass on that, because I didn't footnote everything here.
But let me move on to Saskatchewan. Wouldn't Saskatchewan experience a drop over business as usual of as much as 7.5% GDP under the ENGO plan?
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
Relative to business as usual, but Saskatchewan's economy would still grow by 16% between 2010 and 2020.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
And I can footnote my next question for you. Looking at page 8 of the final report, which is on one of the websites, it seems to disclose that $23.71 billion of the carbon revenue under the NGO plan would come out of Alberta. Do you agree with me on that?
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
From memory, I think it's $22 billion, but $19 billion of that would go back to Alberta, notably through the tax cuts and the reimbursement for home energy cost increases.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Check your website and you'll see it's $23.71 billion. The Manitoba amount is $1.76 billion. Does that ring a bell with you?
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
Again, if you compare the two tables that show the revenues—where they come from and where they go back—you'll see there is very little in the way of net revenue flow because of the deliberate use of the policy to reimburse household energy costs. Most of the money that comes out of a province goes back into it.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
We're going to go on to our five-minute round. To be fair, I'm going to keep it tight like I did with the first round.
Mr. Scarpaleggia, please kick us off.
October 29th, 2009 / 12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Drexhage, as an expert on these international negotiations, do you think the United States is sending the right signals in advance of Copenhagen?