Environment Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[John Drexhage]

Yes, I hope that would be the overall impact of it. Some people in the past have charged—and I don't want to judge one way or the other—that this is just a mechanism to embarrass the current government. I really hope it's not used in that fashion. I really hope we can use this as a constructive way of working and going ahead in addressing exactly how we are going to meet that ultimate objective of 80% reductions by 2050—which, once again, I will remind everyone around this table is what the Prime Minister essentially signed on to when he agreed to the two-degree mark at the G8 summit.

Thank you.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I'd like to ask one final question if I still have time.

The government isn't thinking beyond the economics. Do you think a bill like Bill C-311 could show that the economic picture—if it were to be studied in order to develop a plan—would be better if we had realistic and effective goals of 80% for 2050? What would happen if we didn't have this bill?

[John Drexhage]

I think this can't be resolved only by governments and Parliament; this really has to become a much broader national discussion. We have, for example, really called for a first ministers conference on a national energy strategy for quite a few years now. We need those kinds of discussions; we need this kind of bottom-up engagement. It can't only be solved in Parliament. Hopefully, Bill C-311 can be one of the many pieces in the quiver, as it were, that will press this forward.

Thank you.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Hornung, you said earlier that the government should invest more in renewal energy, wind energy in particular.

Do you think that that should be done, as Greenpeace says, using the money that currently supports the tar sands? If we were to lose some jobs, we would create other jobs somewhere else. In my riding, there's a company, AAER, that is thinking about moving to the United States. That means we're going to lose it because the government is not helping companies that manufacture wind turbines. In the United States, they get help. The government still wants to follow the American plan, but doesn't want to give companies the same subsidies the Americans provide.

Where do you think we should take the money from to support companies that make wind turbines?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur's Ouellet's time has expired, so if you could keep it to a very brief response, I'd appreciate it.

[Robert Hornung]

I would just highlight that at the end day, we are in competition for this capital. Mr. Ouellet has accurately pointed out that relative to the United States at this point in time, given the level of support and the choices that are being made, the support for renewable energy deployment is significantly less that in Canada, both in terms of direct incentives and regulated standards requiring renewable energy contributions to the electricity grid.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here and for their presentations this morning.

I'll start with a quick question for Mr. Bramley.

Unfortunately this report was late in coming to me, so the answer may be buried in there.

You mentioned in answer to a previous question that the economic modelling here is based on assumed economic growth overall between now and 2020 of 23%. Is that correct?

[Matthew Bramley]

That's not an assumption, that's a finding of the report.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Tell me what that 23% growth is based on.

[Matthew Bramley]

The way the model works is it contains a detailed database of technologies that have to do with greenhouse gas emissions. In the model we put the price on emissions and the other policies in place, and the model then sees different costs for those technologies and makes an adjustment to see where investments would flow and where emissions would be reduced once the mix of technologies responds to those policies.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Does the model fully contemplate the economic circumstances we're in right now? That's what I'm trying to understand.

[Matthew Bramley]

The starting point for the analysis is a so-called business-as-usual projection.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

This isn't business as usual.

[Matthew Bramley]

That's the starting point for the analysis. Then the policies are imposed and the model sees how things would change when the policies are in place. The business as usual projection we used was adjusted to take account of the economic downturn, in particular by modifying the projections for fossil fuel production, which is one of the most sensitive things when it comes to emissions.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Ms. Donnelly, it would have been very helpful to see additional information with respect to these 30 communities that you spoke to.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I'll send the list right after the meeting.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Without being exact, could you give us a rough breakdown?

My question is twofold. One would be a rough breakdown of the distribution of those 30 communities by province. Secondly, tell us what the unique characteristics of those communities are.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I might be remembering this a little wrong, but I'd say that of the 30 communities, less than 15, but close to half, would be Alberta and Saskatchewan; no communities in Manitoba. In the list I'm going to send you, it shows no communities in B.C., but if I step back from the numbers and look at it technically, I would put Kitimat near the top of the list, even though it doesn't technically show right now. It's based on 2007 numbers, so I would add Kitimat.

In proportion to population, the provinces with the greatest risk profiles are New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, because while they have greenhouse gas per capita exposures that are lower than others, the opportunities to generate new revenues are substantially lower than in other regions as well. So when you're looking at the community list, the situation is different for each context.

If you look at the community list again going to this study, this study does two things at the same time. It generates a whole bunch of new government revenues from operations that it presumes are going to continue to discharge greenhouse gases and buy permits to do so, but you can't have the money if they actually cut the emissions. The communities tend to be single-industry towns, sole-employer towns, so when you take out the sole employer, what I'm saying is that you'd better know what you're putting in its place. In British Columbia, where I live, every time we've taken out a sole employer, the primary source of income becomes government.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

I'll give my additional time to Mr. Woodworth.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have one minute.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

In that one minute, Mr. Chair, in response to an answer that I had from Mr. Bramley earlier about money being given back to Alberta and the west, I'll just say that Canadians have learned since the introduction of income tax in the First World War that they can be certain when government promises to take money away, but they ought to be deeply suspicious when government promises to give it back.

I have other questions, Mr. Chair, but in a minute I couldn't get to them. I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Malhi, the floor is yours. Do you want to ask any questions?

Okay, Mr. McGuinty will take your time.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I appreciate that. Thanks, Mr. Malhi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back, if I could, looking for positive go-forward opportunities, Mr. Drexhage.

What are we saying? We just don't have any idea; Canadians don't know. We've been asking and asking the government just to level with the Canadian people and tell them what Canada is saying internationally. The message keeps changing, and I don't understand it. I can't divine the inspiration for it or try to explain it away, but I think Canadians have a right to know. They won't tell us what our position is.

The dialogue keeps changing. They say, first of all, a bilateral dialogue; then they assert that we have a North American target, which is news to my Washington and Mexico City counterparts. Nobody has ever heard of a North American target. We don't really know what is being said anymore.

But you are tracking the international developments. What in fact is Canada saying internationally right now, in advance of Copenhagen?

[John Drexhage]

It is saying that it's very clear about its target, a 20% reduction from 2006 levels by the year 2020; that the base year is 2006 and not 1990, which all other parties have agreed to—