A delegation from the Canadian section
of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group (IPG) attended the PNWER
- Economic Leadership Forum and Legislative Academy in
Regina from November 4-7, 2009. The focus of the
meetings was on economic challenges facing Canada and the United States,
governance differences between the two countries and energy issues.
The IPG has a long association with
PNWER, and typically attends PNWER’s fall and summer meetings. PNWER is a
statutory, bilateral, regional, private-public sector group which includes
Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, and the Yukon. The aims of the organization are to: promote
greater regional collaboration; enhance the competiveness of the region in
domestic and international markets; leverage regional influence in Ottawa and
Washington, D.C.; and achieve continued economic growth while maintaining the
region’s natural environment.
Economic Challenges
The discussions on economic challenges
centered on:
·the major challenges to economic recovery;
·the best practices for achieving recovery;
·assessing risks; and
·finding opportunities for economic development.
On the question of major challenges to
economic recovery, participants cited six points that needed to be addressed.
These include: better access to capital; improving workers’ skills and
productivity; encouraging more investment from venture capitalists; increasing
spending on research and development; having stable government economic policy;
and reducing government regulations. Delegates stressed that without the
resolution of these issues, economic recovery would be slow and difficult.
With regard to best practices, the
participants outlined a number of areas that businesses could improve to better
position themselves for economic recovery. These were: improving efficiency;
being more innovative and resilient; and collaborating more with governments at
all levels.
Risk assessment was also seen as a key
element in successfully coming out of the economic downturn. Speakers noted
that, companies and businesses, especially small businesses, will have to take
into account a number of risk areas if they are to “climb out of the
recession”. These included: realizing that there may be another downturn in the
economy and planning for it; recognizing that inflation will be higher; knowing
that underfunded pension plans could prove harmful to a business’s bottom line;
and being able to cope successfully with unpredictable government policies.
Finally, this session set forth a
number of opportunities that might be realized if companies could adapt to the
changing economy. These opportunities are: the ability to become more
efficient; the ability to take advantage of “smart” regulation by governments;
the opportunity to develop sounder governance regimes; and taking a regional
approach to resolving economic issues.
Energy and the Environment
Discussions on this subject focused on
carbon capture and storage (CCS) as well as briefly looking at what the United
States might be doing on the climate change file in the future.
Participants in these discussions were
told that CCS is a process that captures carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions and stores them in geological formations deep inside the earth.
Representatives from the government of Alberta outlined
their efforts in developing this technology. In 2008, the government of Alberta
created the Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council and
contributed $2 billion to reduce GHG emissions through new CCS projects.
In Alberta, porous sedimentary rock
formations beneath non-porous formations are ideally suited for the injection
and long-term, safe storage of CO2. The CO2 will be
separated from other emissions, then dehydrated, compressed and injected one to
two kilometres into the porous rock formation. Alberta is hoping to take the
lead in advancing this technology and market it to other jurisdictions.
Panellists told the delegates that
there are still a number of challenges facing the development of CCS. These
include: the need for a regulatory framework; the need to make the technology
more cost -effective; the need to ensure better site selection for projects;
and the need for better stakeholder relations in order to ensure “buy in” for
the projects.
Under questioning from participants,
panellists acknowledged that this was a very expensive technology, and that a
large project would have to be developed to show that “it can work” and build
public confidence in the technology. It was also noted that technologies to
deal with C02 are critical because, as one panellist said, there are
three shared truths:
·there will be increasing energy demand;
·cheap energy is long gone; and
·more energy means more C02.
On the climate change front, there was
much discussion regarding what might be occurring in the United States over the
next 12-18 months. Some participants believed that because economic and health
care issues are at the forefront of the Obama administration agenda, climate
change legislation would be slow in coming forward. Others thought that some
small steps might be taken to address climate change issues but that 2011
seemed a more likely date for this to occur. Finally, it was noted that even
without legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could still take
action on climate change through its regulatory powers. This option however,
was seen as a last resort because the EPA is a regulatory agency rather than a
policy body.
Governance
The sessions in Regina that delegates
found particularly interesting were ones dealing with the different governance
regimes in Canada and the United States. These sessions involved a free-flowing
discussion among elected representatives on both sides of the border and dealt
with the following items:
·the structural differences between the Canadian
and US government systems;
·how bills originate at the provincial, state and
federal levels;
·the role of committees at each level of
government;
·the role of public consultation, interest groups
and the media in each country;
·how the states and the provinces interface with
their respective federal government; and
·what motivates people to seek public office.
One overarching theme that arose from
these sessions was that while the political systems in Canada and the United
States differ, elected representatives had much the same goals when it comes to
serving their constituents and furthering good governance.
Conclusions
Canadian delegates to these meetings found them
particularly informative and had an opportunity to express their views on a
number of interesting topics. The sessions on governance provided them with an
excellent opportunity to enhance their knowledge of the US political structure
as well as informing their American counterparts on how Canada’s political
system functions. The delegates believe this will enhance Canada-US relations
and provide a sound basis for working on issues common to both countries.
Respectfully submitted,
Hon. Janis G. Johnson, Senator
Co-Chair
Canada-United States
Inter-Parliamentary Group
Gord
Brown, M.P.
Co-Chair
Canada-United States
Inter-Parliamentary Group