Bill C-311 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change

[Michael Martin]

I want to be clear on the numbers. The policy commitment is for a 20% reduction. The 38% you're referring to relates to what the 2020 target proposed in Bill C-311 would represent.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you to our witnesses for appearing here.

I was going to be asking a question on comparable efforts, but I think you've handled that one quite well. I appreciate the question from my colleague Mr. Braid on the weakness with respect to Kyoto. Of course we don't want to make the same mistake of having a target that is proven unrealistic. I know there are those who will criticize us for our desire to come up with a realistic target this particular time. That's some of the discussion we're having around Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. We're asking if it's a realistic target for Canada, one that recognizes some of our unique factors. Choosing a target that is obviously unrealistic or unattainable will both discourage immediate action and could promote failure in the long run. So I think this is a very valuable discussion to have.

In that line you've talked about a pathway for Canada. What are some of the factors that influence Canada's pathway for coming up with a target that's going to be ambitious but realistic, something that we can actually envision attaining?

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

I have a specific question on Bill C-311. Does it contain an integrated North American approach, and is that important?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

We had testimony earlier this week, on Tuesday, from some of the lead climate scientists of Canada—Dr. Stone, Dr. Sauchyn, Dr. Fortier—and all those scientists called on the government to pass Bill C-311, and pass it expeditiously before Copenhagen, because they felt that it would be very instrumental in helping to move along the negotiations at Copenhagen and that it would improve the credibility of Canadian scientists.

How much are you relying on the opinion of Canadian climate scientists in forming the government position at this table?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is nice to see you again, Mr. Martin. I don't think I've seen you since Poznan.

Dr. Cooper, it's great to see you back with us again. I appreciate your testimony on tar sands and water. Welcome back.

Welcome, Dr. Buckley.

My first couple of questions are for you, Mr. Martin.

You have clearly read Bill C-311. You reiterated a couple of sections. In developing your negotiation position and your position at the table, are you also endorsing the preamble of Bill C-311? It states:

climate change poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources and environment of Canada; the impacts of climate change are already unfolding in Canada, particularly in the Arctic; scientific research on the impacts of climate change has led to broad agreement that an increase in the global average surface temperature of two degrees Celsius or more above the level prevailing at the start of the industrial period would constitute dangerous climate change; and scientific research has also identified the atmospheric concentration levels at which greenhouse gases must be stabilized in order to stay within two degrees of global warming and thereby prevent dangerous climate change;

In the negotiation position of Canada, do you accept what is stated in the preamble of Bill C-311?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for enlightening us about Bill C-311 and the ongoing international negotiations on climate change.

I am somewhat disappointed with your presentation and with your testimony. At best, you tend to blow hot and cold. On page 3 of your submission, you state that Canada recognizes the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed two degrees Celsius. You acknowledge that fact. That is the positive side.

On the negative side, you refuse to commit to reducing emissions to a level that is at least 25% below the 1990 level by the year 2020, despite the scientific evidence. You acknowledge the scientific evidence, but you are only prepared to reduce emissions to a level that is 3% below 1990 levels.

How can Canada's position be so diametrically opposed to that of the scientific community? How is it that you recognize the existence of scientific evidence, but that you refuse to make any real commitments?

[Michael Martin, Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am honoured to be here with you today. I am joined at the table by Mr. John Cooper, Director of the Water, Air and Climate Change Bureau at Health Canada, and Ms. Carol Buckley, Director General of Canada's Office of Energy Efficiency at Natural Resources Canada.

With your permission, I would like to start by making a brief statement providing some observations on specific sections of Bill C-311. My colleagues and I will then be pleased to respond to questions.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill define a long-term emissions reduction pathway for Canada by means of a target plan with an ambitious medium-term target of a reduction of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and a long-term target of an 90% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

The concept of a long-term emissions reduction pathway is already reflected in Canadian government policy. As you know, the government has defined a pathway that would reduce Canada's GHG emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020 and by 60% to 70% by 2050. As a point of comparison, current legislative proposals in the United States also define a long-term pathway for U.S. emission reductions of 17% to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

In the current UN climate change negotiations, Canada and the United States have both supported the idea, consistent with the imperative of achieving deep global reductions in emissions, that all countries should articulate a long-term emission reduction pathway. Each country's pathway would guide national policy-making and help to provide a clearer sense of global emission trends.

This recognition of the importance of long-term pathways was reflected last July in the outcome of the G8 summit in Italy. Canada and other G8 countries recognized the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees Celsius. Further, G8 leaders reiterated their support for a long-term global goal of at least a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050 and, as part of this, also supported a goal of developed countries reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate of 80% or more by 2050 compared to 1990 or more recent years.

As I noted, clause 6 of Bill C-311 clearly requires the Minister of the Environment to define a long-term emissions reduction pathway in the form of an interim target plan for the years 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 leading to the target for 2050 described in paragraph 5(a). I note as well that paragraph 5(b) defines a target for 2020, to be “valid prior to the target plan referred to in subsection 6(1), to a level that is 25% below the 1990 level by the year 2020.” This proposed 2020 target would represent a 38% reduction in Canadian emissions below 2006 levels, which would be one of the most ambitious of any developed country, in particular given Canada's strongly growing population.

New emission reduction commitments by developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the post-2012 period are a key issue in the current negotiations. These commitments are likely to take the form of quantified, economy-wide emission reductions for the eight-year period 2013 to 2020. At Bali in 2007, Canada and other parties agreed that the negotiations on these new emission reduction commitments by developed countries should reflect “comparable efforts”. This concept, which has its origins in article 4.2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, suggests that developed countries should each make a fair contribution to the aggregate emission reduction effort by developed countries based on their national circumstances and their mitigation potential.

In the government's view, the key consideration of any assessment of comparable efforts is cost. An important assumption in any calculations of cost is the extent to which the reductions would be achieved domestically and what percentage would be achieved through the use of international offset credits. It is the view of the government that its 2020 target is comparable to that being proposed by other developed countries, in particular given the fact that it does not assume significant purchase of international offset credits.

Finally, I would note that clause 9 of Bill C-311 suggests that Canada's positions in all international climate change discussions and in all negotiations must be “fully consistent with meeting the commitment made under section 5 and the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6”. I expect Canada will bind its 2020 target internationally as an outcome of the current negotiations. I would note that Canada's commitment to achieve a 20% reduction in GHG emissions below 2006 levels by 2020 is not conditional. Similarly, based on the language of Bill C-311, I assume the proposed 2020 target of the 25% reduction below 1990 levels would not include conditions.

It strikes me as unlikely that Canada would be able to revise the proposed 2020 target once announced internationally, unless we plan to adopt an even more ambitious target. Therefore, the 2020 target in paragraph 5(b) would not readily be subject to revision through the process described in clause 6. If the 2020 target in Bill C-311 were to be dependent upon the purchase of international offset credits, there may be some risks, including in terms of the costs of compliance associated with such an unconditional commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

We're getting off to a late start here. We will still try to have as close as possible to a two-hour meeting. We're going to continue on with our study of Bill C-311. This is meeting number 33.

We are welcoming to the table today Michael Martin, who is the chief negotiator for the climate change negotiations office, Department of the Environment. We also have, from the Department of Natural Resources, Carol Buckley, who is the director general in the office of energy efficiency. Joining us from the Department of Health is John Cooper, the director of the water, air and climate change bureau in the safe environments directorate. Welcome, all three of you.

Because these are public servants that we have, I want to draw everyone's attention again to Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 20, page 864, which says:

...public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. In addition, committees will ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions which involve the giving of a legal opinion, or which may be perceived as a conflict with the witness' responsibility to the Minister, or which is outside of their own area of responsibility or which might affect business transactions.

I want to remind you guys of that again, so, please, when we get into our questioning, keep in mind that we follow the rules.

I'd like to kick it off then. Who is going to speak first?

Mr. Martin, you have the floor.

Climate Change

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will vote on whether or not to further delay Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act.

I would like to read from an open letter sent to all members of the House by Nature Canada, Climate Action Network Canada, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, and more than 40 other organizations. It reads in part:

The climate crisis represents the most urgent challenge of our time. Failure to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to catastrophic changes in our climate, threatening millions of people...Less than two months before international talks in Copenhagen, you have a historic opportunity and responsibility to prevent a climate catastrophe.

We are asking all Members of Parliament to join together to ensure that Bill C-311 is passed by the House before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen [this December].

I urge members to listen to Canadians from across our country and to show real Canadian leadership on the world stage.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have a question on the IPCC's fourth assessment report targets. We've heard a lot in discussion, both on Bill C-311 and Bill C-377, its prior incarnation in the debate. Particularly the New Democrats will call them scientific targets. Greenhouse gases know no political boundaries. Science has been able to quantify the aggregate problem. It's global in nature. But in proportioning the targets, a choice was made to divide target responsibilities between developed and developing countries using something called, I think, an equity interpretation.

First, to the panel, are you familiar with what an equity interpretation is? Secondly, is that a standard scientific judgment, or is that a values or policy judgment?

I'll start with Mr. Zwiers.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think whenever we talk about the severity of the problem of climate change and the impact of climate change, we're really preaching to the converted. I think everyone at this table understands that it's a real problem and that it's having ravaging consequences--drought, declining water levels, and so on and so forth.

I think that discussion is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. We're here more to establish whether the targets in the bill that we're studying are realistic for Canada to achieve, given the constraints that we have presently.

I would like to ask the scientists here a political question. And you may say, well, that's off-base, but you are scientists engagés. You're involved in the political process, and you've made political statements about the dynamics of the Copenhagen process.

Dr. Stone, you said we need ambitious targets above all to galvanize the Canadian public. That's a political statement. Those are the kinds of statements that politicians make. So I think this is a fair question.

Do you believe, if this bill were to be passed on December 11 by the House of Commons, that this government, especially a government that has a fairly stubborn reputation when it comes to environmental issues, in fact all issues, would change its negotiating position at Copenhagen because a day prior or a week prior or a month prior the House of Commons passed Bill C-311?

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you.

I'm afraid that I'm only going to be able to give you a partial solution, limited by my own expertise.

I think you're right in your implication that Bill C-311, in itself, will not achieve what we want to achieve. But to my view it is an essential first ingredient, that if we are going to set this country on a path to addressing climate change, then the first place to start is by setting an ambitious goal, an ambitious target, a target that will galvanize Canadians as individuals, Canadian industry, and Canadian governments at all levels.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of the witnesses who have come to appear before us today. I want to say at the outset that I appreciate the sincerity with which each of you has made your case. I would never for a moment question that sincerity, although, in all honesty, I have to tell you that I find your presentations to be lacking in a singular respect. I accept for myself, at least, that you have raised the alarm well and truly. There's no doubt in my mind about the problem of global warming and the fact that we have to do something about it. And I am on the search and on the lookout for practical and achievable solutions.

Once again, today, I've heard very little about achievable solutions. Simply setting targets, as Bill C-311 does, achieves absolutely nothing in itself. There's evidence of the awful cost of not taking some steps, but there's virtually no evidence on the cost of competing solutions. In one respect I find that rather odd, but I think I understand it.

When I ask the government for what solutions it proposes, I hear about progress in tailpipe emissions, extending hydroelectric grids, investments in renewable energy programs, research in carbon capture and sequestration, literally billions of dollars in green energy investments, improvements in resource extraction techniques, money to the provinces to close down coal-fired generators, biofuel incentives, automotive innovation grants, home retrofit incentives, and persuading international emitters like the U.S.A. that it's economically feasible.

Bill C-311 contains absolutely no plan whatsoever.

I would like to begin by asking Dr. Stone, what specific scientific measures would you put in a bill that would have the effect of actually reducing greenhouse gases in Canada? And could you tell me, for each of those measures, how many dollars would be required to devote to that particular solution?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to focus specifically on Bill C-311. My question would be for all of you.

Mr. Fortier, I like Rex Murphy. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think we....

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

My opinion is exactly the same. What are we going to say in Copenhagen? We have absolutely no power, no clout, no.... We're not in the game in Copenhagen, as long as we haven't ratified or developed a bill like that to force Canada to take some action.

It's impossible, but suppose we adopted Bill C-311 before Copenhagen. We could then walk into the meetings with something to say: Yes, we caved. We are going to participate. We are going to move ahead with that. This is what we think should be done.

Then we would have a voice. Until then, we don't have a voice in those meetings.