Environment committee  First of all, I object to the suggestion that there's been any dishonesty on our side in this study. We've tried to take a comprehensive look at some ambitious emission reductions in the public domain to try to elevate the level of debate and to try to get away from the kinds of

Environment committee  It's one scenario. It's one pathway, and there are many others that could be chosen.

Environment committee  It certainly takes into account the flows of capital within Canada. The model—

Environment committee  The model uses a fairly modest projection of business as usual emissions growth between 2010 and 2020, which I think is a conservative assumption.

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

Environment committee  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 adjust

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

Environment committee  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 proj

Environment committee  I was involved in discussions. We were consulted on ideas. That was about the extent of it.

Environment committee  We were asked for our input, yes.

Environment committee  Relative to business as usual, but Saskatchewan's economy would still grow by 16% between 2010 and 2020.

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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

Environment committee  That means the economy would grow by 23% between 2010 and 2020, at which time it would be 3.2% smaller than business as usual.

Environment committee  The economy would be, under this projection, 3.2% smaller in 2020 than under business as usual.