Environment Committee on Jan. 28th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm standing in for Mr. Cullen, who's the environment critic for our party and who attended Bali, and I'm sure he would have quite a number of questions to ask you on it.

When the minister made his presentation at the beginning, he outlined the types of commitments that Canada was willing to make over the long term to this process. At that time, how many of the other presenters from various countries made a similar commitment or a similar statement about their willingness to reduce emissions by a certain percentage in the medium term, a certain percentage over the longer term?

[Ian Shugart]

Some countries did and some didn't. We share with the EU and with Japan, for example, a commitment to the long-term goal of reduction by 50% by 2050 in emissions. There are other medium-term goals, some of which are, I might say, in the process of being spelled out.

The EU, for example, is prepared to contemplate a reduction of 30%, I think, by 2020, conditional on other countries joining in that commitment. Some, such as the United States, have not made any numeric commitment at all, although now, as a result of the Bali road map, have committed to participating in the process. We would hope that would result in numerical commitments in due course by the United States, as well. In addition, some of the other major emitters in the emerging economies have committed, by way of the Bali agreement, to appropriate national actions to deal with emissions. China, for example, has a policy that emphasizes goals with respect to energy intensity, energy efficiency in their economy. So I would say that it is a mix.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Can you describe any reaction that other countries may have had to the Canadian baseline that was presented, the 20% reduction by 2020?

[Ian Shugart]

I think Canada's position is regarded with a mix of views. Obviously the European Union, for example, would like us to go farther sooner. The issue of the baseline is of course one that is always on the table in order to ensure that we are, in the end, comparing apples to apples, and we agree with that.

There are other countries that are interested in comparing what policy measures we're going to take across countries in order to achieve our objectives, but again, Bali was not a negotiation of the targets and the numbers. There wasn't, I would say, that kind of comparison or reaction of one country to another in terms of its particular policies or targets. That will undoubtedly come.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Among the signatories to the protocol, were there other countries that made a public show of their failure to meet the obligations they undertook under the protocol?

[Ian Shugart]

All I can say, Chairman, is what the government has clearly indicated. It does not believe that it will, in the time remaining, be able to meet the particular agreements arrived at in the Kyoto Protocol, but it is committed to the--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That wasn't my question. My question was, were there other countries that made it public that they would not meet their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, to which they were signatories?

[Ian Shugart]

No, not particularly, although I think it is well known that there are other countries, a significant number of countries, in the same position as Canada.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Certainly, but Canada has taken a course to publicly say so and to create the climate where this kind of failure can be part of the ongoing dialogue of this protocol. I think it is very significant that Canada did what it did.

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, it's in the terms of the agreement; it's giving many countries the opportunity to point to Canada and say, well, they didn't make it, so we don't have to make it. That's a failure on the part of Canada for sure. I'm not assigning blame here, but I think it's a move that was made that certainly hurts the opportunity to continue the pressure for countries to come as close as they can to the protocol agreement.

In terms of the delay of the final communiqué, could you explain that more completely? What were the causes? What were the particular issues that were making the communiqué unavailable at the time it was supposed to be?

[Ian Shugart]

It certainly took longer to finalize things than the scheduled meeting, although I might point out for the interest of the committee that this is by no means the only time that this has happened at a COP. Some of my colleagues have been around this much longer than I, and they could tell me the number of times that it's happened. So that in itself was not a particularly unusual circumstance.

One of the issues near the end of the meeting had to do with how one would characterize the participation of developing countries, who are referred to in the road map in appropriately different terms from developing countries, the Annex 1 countries. I think it would be fair to say that there was a degree of suspicion on the part of some of the developing countries about how the road map might be constructed if it were to imply the same level of obligation and so on. So that was a lengthy and somewhat difficult discussion, which took quite a lot of time. I'll ask my colleagues if there were other particular issues in the last hours of the meeting that contributed to the delay, but that was certainly one of the ones I was most directly a witness to.

David.

[David McGovern]

There were also some challenges for the secretariat. These are very complicated undertakings, and there were issues with respect to negotiations taking place among blocs, like the G-77 and China, at the same time as the plenary session was trying to conclude decisions on text. So there was a bit of a disconnect for a period of time on the Saturday morning, where I guess because people had been up quite late there were suspicions that simple mistakes were being construed as sort of behind-the-scenes negotiations.

The secretariat got those sorted out. They were able to circulate common text that countries could actually look at and then the process could pick up again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bevington.

I will assure you I was at a number of COP meetings, and they all were late in their communiqués. Many of them went all night too.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank each of you for being here. I would also like to thank you for clearly sharing Canada's position. I think that's what the committee wanted to know: the position of Canada going into the negotiations.

There has been a history of rhetoric from a number of sources, and I think it's very important to get us back focusing on what the goal of the conference was and what Canada's position is: launching the negotiations, building those building blocks for a post-2012 agreement, and agreeing on an end date. That question has been asked in the House. I answered that question a number of times. A number of my colleagues are aware that those were the goals, and they were accomplished. I think there was a great success at the Bali conference.

Did Canada's position at Bali differ from its previous positions at other international conferences, say over the last five years?

[Ian Shugart]

Of course there has been an evolution, most notably as a result of the science, the work of the International Panel on Climate Change. I think the level of intensity and of urgency has increased.

A number of elements of the agreement, the protocol, are in a sense coming due. For example, the review under article 9 of the protocol is an issue that we faced this time for the first time.

I think the other element of the evolution of this process has been the unprecedented expansion and emergence and growth of the large developing economies and the change in the distribution of emission output, with a greater and greater recognition that in order to be successful over the long term we need to find a successful and appropriate means of the emerging economies participating in the future agreements. It seemed to many of us, not only at the COP in Bali, but in other international meetings, that the emerging economies themselves recognize that there will need to be an appropriate level of engagement.

I think that will be one of the key elements of the negotiations that will follow in the next couple of years. Frankly, I think it will be one of the most difficult issues to grapple with. But I think that while that has been some time in coming, my impression is that it was at this particular COP that the essential engagement of the emerging economies was most pointed at this meeting. I couldn't say if that is something that is absolutely new from the position of previous governments of Canada at the COPs, but it certainly is one that is growing in its focus.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask you to keep your answers just a little shorter, because I have a number of questions for you.

Could you provide your title to the committee?

[Ian Shugart]

I'm the Associate Deputy Minister of the Environment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Previously with Health Canada.

[Ian Shugart]

I was the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, at Health Canada.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay. How long have you been in public service?

[Ian Shugart]

After spending a number of years on Parliament Hill, I entered the public service in 1991, I believe.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So in terms of seniority, where does that place you in your department hierarchy?

[Ian Shugart]

Well, in seniority, I feel like I'm aging rapidly, but I'm a deputy minister, the associate deputy minister. I guess the deputy minister, Michael Horgan, who's been here, is there at Environment as well.