Environment Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

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

In your reading of the protocol, are we obligated to meet those targets?

[John Dillon]

I'm not an international lawyer, but yes, that's my understanding. Matthew Bramley has indicated what the penalty is if we don't meet the target. That's the only target that's provided for in the protocol.

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

The penalties that are described in the Kyoto Protocol are quite worrisome in terms of the health of the Canadian economy and the Canadian public accounts. Would you suggest that's true?

[John Dillon]

The penalty is a 30% make-up in the second commitment period. We have yet to negotiate that second commitment period. We have yet to determine what our target is and what other countries' targets are, and indeed how many other countries will not meet their target and therefore potentially have to apply that penalty to their future commitments.

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

How many years have we had consultations with large industry around climate change, from the federal government?

[John Dillon]

I'm not sure—

[Louise Comeau]

We started in 1998, going into the convention.

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

Maybe some of the other witnesses can comment on this.

[Louise Comeau]

We had consultations leading up to the negotiation of the convention itself. Those started in 1988. There was a whole series of what they called the international negotiating committee meetings that definitely were well in advance of 1992.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Dillon, did you want to finish your comment?

[John Dillon]

Industry has been consulted with respect to the convention and the protocol. With respect to what precise targets industry would have to meet, those discussions started after the protocol was negotiated. We didn't have much input into what the target was. We were told what it would—

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

When did those negotiations start? What was the year?

[John Dillon]

There was a series of tables first, through 1999, 2000, and into 2001.

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

It is safe to say that of the many things lacking in Canada's response to climate change, consultations wouldn't necessarily be one of them.

[John Dillon]

Well, effective consultation and consultation about what we're really going to do, as opposed to debating the target....

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

I understand. I suppose the frustration many committee members have in some of the testimony we've had, certainly from industry, is that we hear one thing: every industry that comes before us says it's not their fault; somebody else has done it.

If you took all—

[John Dillon]

That's not what we're saying, Mr. Cullen.

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

Allow me to finish.

[John Dillon]

Both Ms. Hughes-Anthony and I clearly said we have a responsibility--

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

Yes, and she said that industry was down 1%, I believe, in her testimony.

If we tabled all of the reductions that industries have done across Canada, we'd be 50% below our targets, according to the testimony.

[John Dillon]

No, that's not accurate.

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

My point is this. It is no different from fundraising, or a company going out to try to acquire capital. In setting a target, in setting a goal, whether that goal is necessarily achieved or not, the market—in your instance—looks upon companies favourably that are able to achieve targets and are able to set proper goals.

For Canada to do that, is it not important that we at least make the most sincere and wide-sweeping effort we can and that is possible towards our Kyoto target? If we fail on that, what possible negotiating leverage do we have heading into the next rounds?

[John Dillon]

Clearly, none of us in business feel good about a target that's not achievable, and then an international obligation. But we have to go back to what we are going to do in the future. What are we going to actually do to start reducing our emissions, and what does that mean about our approach to the international negotiations?

As I said to you earlier, I and many of my business colleagues have been a part of virtually every delegation that has gone to these UN meetings, and we've argued consistently that we need to get broader engagement. The Kyoto Protocol right now covers about 30% of global emissions, given the countries that have chosen not to ratify. Clearly, then, we need an approach for the future that brings more countries in; that develops the technology base that's going to produce real reductions over the longer term; and that makes that technology and that approach and that skill set, if you like, available to people and to countries around the world that all have this challenge going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is going to focus on some of these international targets.

Mr. Chairman, you would know this. In Kyoto, I believe you were there with the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Jean Chrétien. According to the knowledge and the information that I have, he was convinced not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, until he arrived at the scene and was basically convinced—