Environment Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[Derek Murrow]

I don't have that number in front of me.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

There are a couple of other things.

Oh, we've lost Ms. Peace. Perhaps the other witnesses might be able to answer. This is more of a process question in terms of the U.S. political system. We're talking about the flux around where the policy will ultimately settle.

The House has a bill, the Senate has a bill, and the administration has some sense of where it wants to go with it. Ultimately with the two bills, if there are any outstanding differences they go to a conference between the two Houses to try to resolve this—is that correct?

Oh, we have Ms. Peace back. Let me rephrase the question for her benefit. I don't know if she heard the question or not.

This is more of a process question about the United States, its political system, where you were talking about the flux in determining where they're ultimately going to land with respect to climate change policy.

If the House passes a different bill or has elements that are different from a Senate bill, it then has to go to a process called a conference, if I'm not mistaken.

[Dr. Janet Peace]

That's correct.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

I don't know the U.S. system. Is there potential for consensus to unravel, depending on the outcome of the conference process, or is it that once the House and Senate have passed it, we know where the U.S. is going with respect to policy?

I'm just interested in knowing the answer to that question, because obviously I don't know how the system functions over there as well as I do over here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Tirpak.

[Dennis Tirpak]

Yes, it would go to a conference committee. The Senate environment and public works committee started with the Waxman-Markey bill, or the ACES bill, if you will, so that large portions of it are almost identical and would not present problems in a conference. But there obviously would be differences that have to be sorted out, and the result of that conference committee has to go back to the Senate and the House to be ultimately voted on.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The last question goes to Mr. Braid. You have five minutes.

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

I have a total of five?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll give you all five. You're batting cleanup.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here and providing us with an update on the experience and the perspective of the U.S.

Dr. Peace, if I could start with you, I'll perhaps piggyback on Mr. Watson's last question. The bill that's in the Senate, the Kerry-Boxer bill, when is it scheduled to come up for a vote?

[Dr. Janet Peace]

I think it's important to realize that the Kerry-Boxer bill is one piece of this puzzle, because there is also this initiative that's been started by Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman. They have talked about putting out a framework. There was some suggestion that the framework would come out before Copenhagen, but now we know that's not going to be the case. We understand there's going to be a framework that comes out after the first of the year.

That framework could include many pieces of the Kerry-Boxer bill. It will likely include many of the pieces from the other committees. For example, Senator Stabenow has a bill on offsets and Senator Baucus also has some provisions he would like to have included.

So our take on it at this point is that there is this independent process that could actually deliver a bill that's separate and distinct from the Kerry-Boxer bill. We think that could happen most likely in the first part of 2010. Again, health care has to conclude, and we know that's not going to be done tomorrow. So they're probably going to be dealing with health care in the first part of the year. Then they've got to do market oversight, and then they'll do the climate change bill. So March, probably, would be our best guess.

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

Continuing with a question for you, Dr. Peace, the Pew Center has obviously done a very good job engaging with the business community in the U.S. Could you explain how you've done that, and how the business community in the U.S. is preparing for the eventual carbon reduction regime, whatever and whenever that may be?

[Dr. Janet Peace]

Definitely there are leaders out there, and the Pew Center has been engaged with a number of those leaders for our entire existence. When we started, we had 13 companies. Now we have 46, soon to be 47, and that's in our Business Environmental Leadership Council. All those companies have taken meaningful steps towards dealing with climate change, whether it's pushing forward on energy efficiency or whether it's doing in-house training figuring out how to manage their emissions.

Many companies are looking at the opportunities that a low-carbon economy provides. You look at market opportunities, for example, for renewable energy, for energy-efficient appliances, and for being out in front of the curve. We've actually done a number of studies with our companies. One is “Getting Ahead of the Curve”. It's actually the name of a report we did. I offer that to you, if you're interested. We're also in the middle of a major project right now looking at corporate energy-efficient strategies. We intend to release that report in April at a major conference in Chicago.

In every case, each company is a little bit different in how it's approaching this, but the key issue is that they're looking at the future and trying to figure out how best to integrate what they do into that future.

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

My final question is to Mr. Tirpak.

Could you elaborate a little bit, Mr. Tirpak, on the power of new and transformative technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and where much of that promise lies?

[Dennis Tirpak]

I certainly think there is tremendous opportunity for innovation, but I do think we now have a history that shows that innovation is spurred by regulations, financial incentives, and a variety of different policy measures.

This is what we're seeing now in the world, for example, in the renewables area, particularly in photovoltaics. Because Germany and Spain and the U.S. have had rigorous renewable regulations, if you will, and financial incentives, we have a very vigorous photovoltaic industry in the world that is driving down cost with new technologies. Margins in many companies have fallen for a variety of reasons, but I think we have a good example there where policies have spurred innovation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Our time has expired and that wraps up our questioning.

I want to thank all three witnesses for appearing and helping to formulate our report and study of Bill C-311. Mr. Dennis Tirpak, Dr. Janet Peace, and Mr. Derek Murrow, I do appreciate you taking your time out of your hectic schedules to join us. I want to wish all of you a happy Thanksgiving, which you will be celebrating this week in the United States. As you know, we celebrated ours a month ago, but I hope you enjoy your day off.

With that, we do have a committee motion to discuss that deals with our schedule, which we always deal with in camera. So any people who are in the room who aren't tied to a member of Parliament I ask you to exit the room as quickly as possible so that we may be able to move in camera. With that, we're going to suspend.

[Proceedings continue in camera]