Natural Resources Committee on March 12th, 2009

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

To Mr. Dolan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead.

[Brendan Dolan]

Okotoks was part of the group that went with NRCan to Europe to look at alternatives. Okotoks also had a sustainability plan complete within their community. The solar energy capabilities of the location of Okotoks, with all those three issues—this opportunity to partner with NRCan and the federal government, and the funding that we could get from that to test this project and technology—became the driving factor behind using this type of technology to experiment and test the viability of it and see if we could push the envelope. It really is a demonstration project. That's why this technology was used in Okotoks.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You stated that more advanced technologies existed, but that they were more expensive. What technologies would you be referring to?

[Dr. Shahrzad Rahbar]

I think in the case of Okotoks they are the leading edge. They are trying something that nobody else has tried. Some of the other concepts that you have seen would have far smaller premium on a per house basis, so part of the cost associated with the Okotoks premium over existing technology is a totally new concept.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, M. Laframboise.

Thank you all very much for coming today. As soon as the guests have left the table, we're going to discuss two motions, and we'll get to that.

Again, I appreciate you all coming very much. Thank you very much for the information you have given the committee. It's an important part of the information that we will put into our report, I'm sure.

We are continuing with committee business here, if I could have the members listen. Order.

Go ahead, Madam Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

When the matter of the future business of the committee arose, I tabled the following motion, Mr. Chair:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources identify the limits of the ecoEnergy programs and that it propose the necessary modifications to maximize their accessibility and their environmental impacts and that it be reported back to the House.

According to the NRCan website, the Office of Energy Efficiency offers a range of programs targeting renovations all the way to biofuels and so forth. My Liberal colleague noted that some people, notably some of his constituents, were dissatisfied with the programs. So then, substantial investments are being made in programs. To what extent do these programs target specific areas, satisfy objectives and meet the public's expectations? I discovered that some of my constituents had done some renovations and followed the whole process, but were not getting the refunds and were encountering delays. I think it would be interesting for our committee to explore this important subject and analyze these programs to determine if any changes are needed, to gauge the level of public satisfaction and to assess the environmental impacts of the programs.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it was my understanding that we were going to resume debate on my motion, which I agreed last week to stand so that we could resume debate on that motion at this meeting. Now, if we're simply hearing this motion, that's fine, but I presume we're going to debate the motion that's already on the floor and which we stood until this week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Madam Brunelle actually gave notice of motion first.

I didn't quite see it that way. I believe we'll certainly get to yours as well, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I moved mine--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, you did.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

--we began the debate, and I agreed to adjourn on the basis that we would be coming back to it at this meeting, that when we got back to discussing motions, we would discuss my motion. That was my understanding.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think we had that same understanding when we concluded the debate last week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, that could be. My memory of that may not be clear.

Madam Brunelle, I'm just going to take a second here. I will say two things. First, Madam Brunelle's motion was first on the order paper, but I will get a reminder from the clerk as to what happened at the last meeting. Secondly, the bells don't start till 5:30, so we do have some time here.

Madam Brunelle, go ahead. We'll call it a point of order.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I just wanted to say that I'm amenable to dealing with Mr. Regan's motion before mine. I don't have a problem with that. I'll come back to it later. I see that they were tabled more or less at the same time. I tabled my motion on February 26, while he tabled his the following day. So, I'm fine with this arrangement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, that's why the ruling. If Mr. Regan had wanted to bring it up on Tuesday, he could have. He certainly would have had priority then, but because yours was on the order paper sooner and you asked that it be brought up, you would appropriately have had yours dealt with first today.

But there is agreement here, so you go ahead with your motion, Mr. Regan. We'll deal with it first and then get to Madam Brunelle's.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I've moved it already, can we simply resume debate on the motion then? I don't need to move it again, I presume.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Exactly. We can do that.

We will resume debate on the motion.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the last meeting, I would expect that considering what's happening in the economy, considering the fact of the billions of dollars that the government proposes to spend in relation to the economy, surely departments and certainly this department would be following what's happening in terms of job losses in the parts of the economy for which it has responsibility, and even if it does get that information from Statistics Canada, surely it compiles it, or surely it gets that information. They undoubtedly do some analysis of that, which would also be great for us to have, and I think the government would want the members of the committee to be as well informed as possible for the kinds of discussions we have here in these meetings.

So I would hope that we would have agreement on this. Again, I had some questions last time. I know Mr. Anderson was going to look into that, and I look forward to hearing what he has learned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

For continued debate on the motion, Mr. Anderson, did you want to speak to it? Go ahead.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'll just answer the concerns that Mr. Regan had. StatsCan does indeed gather these numbers together and then it presents them to the department, so we can supply these reports, but they will have StatsCan numbers that will be publicly available anyhow. We can do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

All right.

Mr. Cullen, would you like to add to the debate?

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

I just wanted to clarify that there is an ability to see the number of jobs losses or gains. I think StatsCan is where we're gathering numbers from. There's also an office of projections. Within each of these offices there's a projection of industries' expectations over the coming quarter and coming year. I wonder if Mr. Anderson can look into that as well.

Sometimes what we get from StatsCan is what the job situation is like right now. It's the snapshot. But they also provide the second piece, which is where the trend is headed. That, for many of our constituents, will actually be as important, if not more important, than knowing what jobs we've lost or gained, say, in the mining sector or forestry sector--that industry reports to StatsCan that this is what we're looking at over the next quarter to four quarters. That can be just as important for us to understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.