Environment Committee on June 19th, 2007

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Mr. Mulroney, welcome to the committee. I have no doubt that today you are going to promote this media release and the agreement on climate change that was signed in Germany. Since your signature is on it, you are also thereby required to promote the agreement, which you probably consider a success. Unfortunately, I am having a very hard time this morning seeing anything positive in this agreement.

After the summit, Chancellor Merkel said this:

The real question is: will we be farther along at the end of this summit? This would mean that we accept that climate change is a problem caused by human beings and that we need a process in which the UN is involved.

Mr. Mulroney, it seems to me that we have some way to go. I was in Kyoto in 1997 and those declarations had already been made and accepted by the international community. I am having difficulty seeing any progress. You are saying that we have a global problem that requires a long-term solution. But no concrete objectives or timelines came out of the G8 meeting.

Really, was the G8 summit meeting nothing but a rehash of the Asia-Pacific Partnership that is presently under discussion and in which Canada is very interested? But the partnership has no objectives or timelines to fight climate change either.

[David Mulroney]

The most important thing that came out of the G8 summit in Heiligendamm is the declaration of intent from countries like the United States. There is also the invitation that was extended to countries like China, India and the other major emitters to participate in a binding process that would tie in with the one being undertaken by the United Nations. So the difference is in the presence of countries that are not already signatories of the Kyoto Protocol.

The significance of what happened in Heiligendamm is that for the first time you have the agreement of the United States, first of all, in an agreement that includes the United States, the EU, Japan, Canada, and Russia in a single accord, speaking the same language, and the willingness, as I've said, of the United States to say they are willing to adopt real targets for climate change and that they want to do it by following a process that involves the major emitters.

You also have the engagement of the G8 with the key major emitters. If you look at the G8 plus what they call the Outreach Five, the other five countries that were invited--China, India, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico--that accounts for over 70% of greenhouse emissions, so it's a pretty important group of countries to be engaging. You have a process with the G8 leaders meeting with those countries and saying they need to work together with a view to bringing the major emitters together, agreeing on a framework for greenhouse gas reductions, and having this feed into the process that will begin in Bali in December of this year.

Experience teaches us that it would be very difficult to predict success for a process like that--we've been there before--if we don't have some indication that we can bring the major emitters on board. What the G8 leaders are saying is that they have, very usefully, a guide as they try to set a wider objective, and that they should look at what the Europeans, the Japanese, and Canada have done as a guide to what they might collectively aspire to.

Does that mean we declare victory and that all the work is done? Not at all. A great deal of hard work remains. There will be hard work in terms of the engagement of the Outreach Five. There will be hard work to do on the ground in Bali, but we have turned a corner and we're much further ahead than we were pre-Heiligendamm.

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

But you will admit that the agreement is vague, weak and inadequate. I would like us to understand that this summit in Germany does not bode well for the conference in Bali that is to be held in December.

A few months ago, I was in Nairobi. The negotiations were looking ahead to Kyoto 2 and people wanted an agreement as soon as possible. The G8 is an important part of the upcoming conference in Bali. The communiqué tells us that members of the G8 will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan to reduce global emissions by half by 2050. There is no commitment. Does that mean that the conference in Bali will set no medium-term target for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but that the decisions, the discussions and the negotiations in Bali will focus on long-term objectives, likely 2050, still with no commitment? Does the recent G8 summit not put into jeopardy an international agreement to set a target, as Europe proposed, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% or 30% by 2020—depending on the number of countries that decide to sign on? The Bali conference will fail because it will not address reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the medium term, but will talk only about 2050. Who knows, maybe people will come home from Bali without even a long-term target for greenhouse gas reduction.

[David Mulroney]

I feel that the member countries of the G8 recognized that the most important thing, if we want to be successful in Bali, is to achieve, or make progress towards, the cooperation of the major emitters. This is very important and it has eluded us up to now. With your permission, I can provide a little explanation. There will be a meeting of the major emitters who will work towards an agreement that will be included in the process to be begun in Bali and that will be conducive to a global agreement before the end of 2009.

The Bali process begins this year. Up until now it has been very difficult to have an agreement that truly engages all of the major emitters. That's the thing that I think has escaped us in Kyoto to date. But the idea is that major emitters would be convened with a view to achieving a global framework, an idea for reductions, by the end of 2008 that would in turn contribute to a global agreement in the UN process by the end of 2009. So leaders were seized with the urgency of moving quickly. They realized that in order to have a post-2012 agreement, we need to move now, in real time. I think the innovation coming from the G8 was the idea of engaging the major emitters to work by the end of next year on a framework for consideration of the UN process to reach an agreement by the end of 2009.

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

Do you think that these discussions on the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate... Are you aware of the discussions?

[David Mulroney]

Yes, the AP6.

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

Right. Some major emitters are part of that initiative. Do you think that these discussions on climate change that are going on in the Asia-Pacific context and the principles and premises of those discussions might provide an interesting basis for the meeting in Bali in December? Do you think that, in those Asia-Pacific discussions, any of the negotiations might be helpful for the meeting in Bali that is coming up in a few months?

[David Mulroney]

I feel that there will be a number of forums and processes working to achieve progress. There is the main United Nations process, there is also the Gleneagle process started by the G8. There is also a process within APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. So discussion is taking place on several fronts, but ultimately everyone has to participate in moving forward the process that will be undertaken in Bali this year.

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

Fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Cullen, please.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Mulroney, for coming today.

Do you feel happy with the way the negotiations went?

[David Mulroney]

We feel that we achieved success in Bali.

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

Your mandate directly comes out of policies of the government. Is that true in terms of what the government is willing to concede to and what it's not? You're not an independent actor. You have to direct yourself from the instruction of the government.

[David Mulroney]

The title means that I'm the personal representative of the Prime Minister to the G8 process, so my responsibilities are.... Each of the leaders has a personal responsibility to take instruction from their leader to help shape the agenda and some of the documents for consideration by leaders through the course of the year. So we take our instructions from the leaders.

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

You'll forgive Canadians for feeling somewhat skeptical over this recent celebration, the announcement, of how much was accomplished in Germany. They've seen celebrations before from the world leaders when it comes to climate change, but there's been one consistency, which is that Canada has performed among the worst of the economically developed nations.

Is that a fair statement in terms of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions?

[David Mulroney]

I can only speak to the process that I've been part of, and I've only been sherpa since February. I want to tell you, if I may, the fact that Canada has a plan and has a plan that will allow it to move forward with real reductions was recognized within the ranks of the G8 membership and warmly greeted. In fact, I think that's why it's present in the final communiqué. So I think there's recognition that Canada is making progress.

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

It's interesting. It must not be much of a tough crowd, because between the previous administration and this current one, Canada, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, as a developed nation--you must know this, you deal with this file--has one of the worst records of any developed nation.

It seems passing strange that there was almost a tone of lecture from our Prime Minister and in some of your comments today towards the United States, in saying that the United States needs to involve themselves and include themselves in this process. The United States has in fact done better than we have since the signing of Kyoto. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the American negotiators were able to smile quietly to themselves at being lectured from a country like Canada, whose record is so off base with what the world is trying to do.

Is there an official government policy in terms of what the limit of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere should be in parts per million or degrees? You've said no. Do we have an official policy going into these negotiations?

[David Mulroney]

If I created the sense that I was lecturing or anyone else was lecturing, that was certainly not the case. I think the Prime Minister has been very frank, both publicly and in the G8, and that's the reason we've had the success we've had. He's talked very honestly, any time he has spoken about this, about where we are in terms of our performance and the situation in which we find ourselves. He doesn't embellish that or try to hide it.

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

In terms of frankness about our target, let's be specific to our--

[David Mulroney]

But what he then says--

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

Excuse me for a moment, Mr. Mulroney. The specific question I have is whether you were given instruction going into this negotiation over a global limit on greenhouse gases. Was there any instruction to you to say that this is the target we're aiming for, and to negotiate and pull the other countries towards that target?

[David Mulroney]

My policy guidance flows from Canada's own climate change plan.

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

Right.

[David Mulroney]

Beyond that is the desire to see us engage in a process that involves other major emitters, starting with the U.S. That's not a question of lecturing the U.S. or feeling superior to the U.S., but it's acknowledging that it's important that we all establish long-term targets.

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

Sir, please don't avoid my question. My question is specifically this: were you given a negotiating mandate, going into this negotiation, to try to establish a global target for greenhouse gas emissions for total parts per million or for two degrees, or any such target? That is my specific question.