Evidence of meeting #66 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was countries.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Justin Vaive
David Mulroney  Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)
Mark Jaccard  Professor, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University
John Drexhage  Director, Climate Change and Energy, International Institute for Sustainable Development

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Perhaps you could slow down as well. The translators are having a little trouble keeping up with you and whatever other technical problems we're having.

11:15 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

The G8 achieved consensus on a way forward to combat climate change. G8 countries emphasized the importance of engaging all major emitters in the fight against climate change...

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I'll just ask if you could suspend for a minute. They're having other technical problems trying to get through to Mr. Jaccard.

11:15 a.m.

Professor Mark Jaccard Professor, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University

I'm here now.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Okay, you're there. Good, we're set to go.

Thank you.

11:15 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

...including their commitment to participate in the UN Convention on Climate Change conference in December 2007 in Indonesia, with a view to achieving a comprehensive agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

The G8 recognized in the clearest terms that climate change is a global problem that requires a global response and that we share the long-term goal of curbing it significantly.

In other words, we achieved consensus, the countries of the G8, through the leaders in their discussions in Heiligendamm. An agreement on combatting climate change was one of the key deliverables and one of the key topic areas of G8 leaders.

It was notable for a number of things: first of all, the idea that (a) the G8 leaders could come together on a forward-looking plan, and (b) that the plan included, implicitly, the notion of accepting global targets—as specifically pointed to in the communiqué from the leaders—of the nature established by the EU in its plan, by Japan in its plan, and by Canada in its plan.

I think two other things are noteworthy vis-à-vis the agreement reached by leaders. One was the willingness to engage major emitters, the notion that in order to make real progress on climate change we absolutely need to have at the table countries like the United States, China, India, and others who account for a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that has eluded us to date. Finally, I think you will find in the statement confirmation of the centrality of the UN process in this. This process begins again in Bali in December.

These are outcomes that were very much in line with Canada's objectives and Canada's plan. I think they represent one of the most noteworthy and positive outcomes of a successful summit in Heiligendamm.

I'll stop there.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I believe you're splitting your time, Mr. Godfrey, with Mr. Regan?

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

That's right.

Welcome, Mr. Mulroney.

I was intrigued by something you said towards the end, which was the whole notion of the implicit acceptance of targets. Implicit is good, but sometimes explicit is better. There were really two going-in positions, I guess, by not only the German presidency but also a number of other countries. One was the whole question of being explicit about the ambition of not allowing global warming to get past 2° Celsius. I wonder if you can tell us a bit about the push-me, pull-me, the tug that took place on nailing that down. That is a fairly widely agreed-upon figure by scientists as well as some states.

The other explicit target that was put forward was the idea of an overall average reduction around the world of 50% vis-à-vis the 1990 target by 2050, which would implicitly mean that countries like Canada would have to do better in order to allow for a fair and differentiated burden being borne by developing countries. In other words, we'd have to get up closer to 80% to allow that 50% to take place with the help of developing countries.

Can you tell us why both of those more explicit targets failed to make it through?

11:20 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

First of all, what was explicit from the leaders was the acceptance of targets themselves.

For the first time--and this is notable in the G8--you had the Americans speaking about the importance of setting and committing to a target. What they said--and this is a rational consideration from their perspective--is that they first want to have the process, the dialogue with the major emitters. They are not prepared to set their target until they've had that discussion. We, the EU, and Japan have already set targets, but we accept the willingness of the Americans to engage in a process that will lead them to establish a target in very short order.

The convening of the major emitters that would happen this year is a significant step forward. They're not at all vague about where they think the targets should end up. What you see in the text is explicit reference to the plans established by the EU, Canada, and Japan, all of which have the goal of halving emissions by 2050. I think there's a clear way forward and real progress in terms of where the Americans have been up until now.

The two-degree issue was not on the table when the leaders met. It was not discussed.

Previously two degrees had been raised under a number of headings. Two degrees was a kind of place holder for a reference to what the global science was telling us. Two degrees was also held out--although this was recognized as unsatisfactory--as some kind of target by some in the G8. It was realized, though, that it's fundamentally a target that is unmeasurable. What happened was, one, in the final statement there was more explicit reference to the global science itself without selecting one element from that, and two, the target reference was made more explicit and measurable by referring to the halving of global emissions by 2050. That is present and explicit in the plans of the three: the EU, Canada, and Japan.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

All right.

I'm going to turn my time over to Mr. Regan.

June 19th, 2007 / 11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Thanks very much, Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask what Canada's continuing obligations are under international law with respect to the Kyoto Protocol.

11:20 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

Mr. Regan, thank you very much for that.

That's something that goes beyond my sphere as G8 sherpa. I'd be glad to have someone come from Environment Canada to address obligations under Kyoto specifically.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

But surely when you went into this meeting you must have had the obligations under Kyoto in mind. You must have some idea of our obligations, whether or not you're an international law expert.

11:20 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

We had objectives in front of us to achieve a global agreement on a way forward, on the engagement of a broader community than is currently among the Kyoto signatories, and to establish a target, and ultimately a mandatory global target. Those were all things that I think we made progress on in Heiligendamm.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

The G8 chair's summary says: “We will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050.” It doesn't say from what base. When I refer to the obligations under Kyoto, I don't see how you can know where you're going if you don't know where you've been. If you don't know what your baseline is or what you're measuring, how can you say you're going to halve something that has no reference point? That seems to me to be severely lacking.

Why do you think that's the case?

11:25 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

I think what's clear is that for the first time you have a document that is signed by the leaders of the major industrial states, who among them account for a significant percentage of global emissions, mentioning the desire to set a target. In each of the national plans, of course, there are target years and base years. The objective is to have others sign on the same basis, but all agreeing that the ultimate goal of 50% reduction by 2050 is the way forward.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

But how can it have any meaning if we don't know that it's halving the levels from 2010, from 2006, 1990...? We have no idea what it relates to, so how can it have any meaning?

11:25 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

The plans that were referenced, I believe, do have a base year. I'm not sure if it's specifically in the Japanese plan, but the Japanese Prime Minister had spoken about 2006 as a base year. Certainly in Canada's plan there's a base year, and certainly the Europeans have had a base year. The idea is that others would follow suit, follow the practice established by the three groupings: EU, Canada, and Japan, and put in place a framework for measurable reductions.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

So they're different base years. The EU doesn't have the same base year as Canada, obviously.

11:25 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

But the net effect of Canada's reduction of 60% to 70% on 2006 is a 50% reduction on a 1990 base year.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

I'd like to know your interpretation of common but differentiated responsibilities, as well as the commitment to contribute our fair share to tackle climate change. How do you interpret those? How does Canada interpret those commitments?

11:25 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

Common but differentiated accepts the fact that every economy or large grouping of economies is different. Canada is, in the G8, an example of a nation with a growing population, a growing economy where there's a significant energy sector, yet we're willing to make commitments that will result in real gains over time. There is a desire to work flexibly with countries, acknowledging that they face special challenges. Certainly bringing the Outreach Five, the countries like China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, will require flexibilities when it comes to the use of technology, technology transfer, sharing best practices on market mechanisms that can work.

So there's an acceptance that we all need to work together to achieve plans and that we're all not starting from the same place.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

In the history of G8 meetings and other international forums, can you tell me about other cases where there's an agreement to seriously consider something, particularly where there's been agreement to seriously consider global emission reduction targets? It seems to me that obviously that is an extremely weak statement from the G8, and I wonder how it came about that it wasn't stronger.

11:25 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)

David Mulroney

The Prime Minister has mentioned this in his own interventions. He was very explicit in referring to this as a new step forward for the United States, a willingness to commit to a process of setting targets. He made that explicit in his direct address to the President, and in his address to other G8 members, as a significant step forward. At the same time, he made clear to all in the room, including the U.S., the importance of setting targets, the importance that we all have to bind ourselves to a process. As he said later, this is particularly important for Canada because of course we share a border, we are economic partners with the United States, we share an airshed with the United States.

So it's seeing the U.S. move to a new position where they're willing to set targets and move forward. It's important not just for the G8 but for Canada too.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bigras.