Natural Resources Committee on April 15th, 2010

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

The second one was that when you talked about weekly statistics that you were getting on the program, what kind of statistics are you getting? Is it just dollars spent in evaluations, or is it kind of a contribution to what the greenhouse gas reductions would be? I guess as a second part to that question—this will be my last question, with respect to the chair—in the evaluation that you're going to be completing over the next couple of months on the program, are you going to be taking those factors into account, including things like the 25% increase and what extra demand that incurred on the program, and look at that from the context?

I understood today, and I've been saying this all along, that the program hasn't been cancelled, it's going into review. Some of the things that you're going to be learning from the statistics I assume could end up creating a new program or a variation of this one going forward.

[Carol Buckley]

Thank you very much for the question. I'll try to be brief, being aware of the time there.

We track the number of pre-retrofit evaluations and the number of post-retrofit evaluations, which are in fact grant applications. We track the spending week by week. We track the spending forecast every week for the next 18 months, or March 31, 2011—in other words, the forecast liabilities associated with all of the participants in the programs to date. We track the emission reductions, the energy reductions, the turnaround time in dealing with the applications, and the number of calls and letters we receive about the program and many other things, but those are probably the most important. Certainly all of this information will be used in the evaluation to inform future decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

We are out of time. I did mention at the first of the meeting that there is some question as to whether we have three more meetings dealing with biofuels, carbon capture and sequestration, and other topics. Tentatively the clerk is setting up three more meetings, or is the plan to come back on Tuesday the 27th and start dealing with the isotope report?

There's the matter of whether we have two or three more meetings.

Mr. Cullen.

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

I have a suggestion. I'm just trying to remember the sequence of how we booked these.

When we set the agenda on March 16, I know there weren't a lot of witnesses set up around the retrofit; it was only at March 25, when the no new intakes, or the cancellation of the program, was announced. I'm suggesting to committee members that we need a day talking to....

We haven't seen anybody here yet who actually does the retrofits or is in the industry that deals with this. We didn't necessarily suggest witnesses because we thought the program was continuing, based on the throne speech and budget. It was only cancelled a week after we as a committee set our schedule.

So I'm suggesting that on the 29th, rather than get into the isotopes report, we do a day on retrofits with people actually in the industry doing the retrofits, to get a better sense of what the impact is of the government's decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the proposal from Mr. Cullen, that we have a follow-up meeting on the retrofit program with other witnesses on the 29th.

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

Through you to the parliamentary secretary, Chair, could a suggestion be made and a request made for the minister to appear on that day as well?

I don't know how other committee members feel about that. It would be on that same topic, that specific retrofit topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson.

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

Apart from this issue that he's just introduced, you were talking about the scheduling. I think most of us thought there were going to be three meetings following this one: one on biofuels, one on CCS, and one on alternative energy. I thought that's what we had talked about. I think the question was whether we were going to do the two, then interrupt it with the isotopes, and then come back to the third one.

I was going to make the suggestion that we do three meetings on these three topics and see those through. I would understand Nathan's adding a fourth meeting on home energy retrofit. I'm not so sure we shouldn't maybe have a little bit longer discussion on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay: how about at the next meeting we have a discussion on that?

Can everybody consider that?

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

But can we plan on doing those three meetings on biofuels, CCS, and alternative energy, which we talked about, in order, before we do anything else?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

[Inaudible--Editor]...and get it done, even if it is interrupting this.

In other words, if we did the three of those, then the isotopes, then go to...[Inaudible--Editor].

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll come back at the next meeting and decide. It seems like a reasonable approach, but it's not for me to decide.

I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for being here. I hadn't actually expected you to leave, and I knew that this would be a short discussion. So thank you all.

We'll see you all next Tuesday, when we will have the witnesses and will be dealing with biofuels, I believe.

The meeting is adjourned.