Environment Committee on Feb. 25th, 2008

[Ian Morton]

Well, I think many of our negotiators who work with the international climate change bureau at Environment Canada have been involved with the negotiations since the beginning and have both the historical knowledge and expertise to provide counsel to the government with regard to the various aspects of negotiating specific elements, be they technology transfer, adaptation, or other areas in which Canada can play a very constructive role in moving forward.

I think, to the government's credit, there were some things that didn't get a lot of coverage back here in Canada, such as our contribution to the global environment facility, which I think is the second-largest of any country, and our playing an important role in adaptation and in making commitments.

I think there are always going to be people who can provide advice, and hopefully governments of any stripe will listen to that counsel. I would just draw the committee's attention to the fact that we have many leading experts within Environment Canada who have played a very important role, not only in providing advice to the political staff when they're in Bali, but also a lot of the historical background and knowledge, given the fact that many of them have been involved from Rio, and the negotiations in Kyoto, right through to helping Canada develop many of the elements within its plan.

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

Mr. Morton, I'm just going to interrupt you there for a second. It's Nathan Cullen, and I'm just taking over for my colleague, Mr. Stoffer, for a moment.

I welcome you both. As well, I apologize, as I had my flights cancelled in northern British Columbia. It's all this climate change weather we're having.

I have two questions. One is to Mr. Johnson, first of all. We met at the conference, and one of the questions we exchanged and had several conversations about was this credibility gap that's been developing on the international stage for Canada. Oftentimes this government in particular, and previous ones as well, has said that if other countries don't move in coordination with us at the same time, then it's dangerous for the Canadian economy to do anything of significance, particularly with the biggest polluters.

This is to you, Mr. Johnson. What credibility does Canada have along this continued path we've taken since 1992, in urging China and in being able to lobby the Indias of the world to come effectively on board with hard emission caps?

[Pierre Marc Johnson]

I guess that's pretty much at the heart of the issue: either we think climate change is important, or it isn't. I happen to believe it is. It's also my perception that the minister believes it is. He has stated and reiterated in front of us, and I believe publicly, that he accepts the science of the IPCC. Secondly, he accepts the principles of the UNFCC, which is the broad convention, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibility of the various countries.

We're in a situation in the world where we have 30 countries or so, which amounts to about 30 percent of emissions, that have accepted to put on restrictions. Some of these restrictions under the Kyoto Protocol, which apply only to OECD countries and a couple of the new economies in eastern Europe, create constraints, but I believe at the same time create leadership in terms of what has to be done. But if that parade is limited to these 30 countries, we're going to go nowhere; we're going to hit a brick wall.

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

So in terms of Canada's importance or influence as a middle power, as a country seeking to have, as this government has claimed, a stronger role on the international stage, it seems to me that there are almost two different international policies with this government. We see this when the talk is of Afghanistan. When it's on the war footing, it is very strong, and wants to have a role and a more effective voice, but then on the environment issue it is stepping out of the way, not having the influence of what the rhetoric pretends.

Did you see evidence of Canada being able to sway those developing countries, those other countries that are making up that shortfall in terms of climate emissions around the world? Were we pulling our weight? Were we having an effect? Were we able to push as hard as the Europeans were, for example?

[Pierre Marc Johnson]

Obviously we don't have the same interests as the Europeans. We're not pushing in exactly the same direction as the Europeans are; we're pushing, let's say, in a broader direction, the same broader direction. But in practice, the Europeans took decisions twenty years ago that they would close down coal facilities--whatever the reasons they did that for, including a pretty anti-union stance in Great Britain at a certain point. Secondly, France decided to go nuclear. When you go nuclear, you're not too concerned about your emissions, except when you take the cement to make these nuclear plants, which is a lot.

In practice, we have interests that are slightly different in terms of economics from those of the Europeans because we don't have the same margin of manoeuvre. Canada is not the only country that is not going to hit its targets by 2012. Spain and Portugal are not going to hit them. I believe that's also the case with Ireland, but I'm not absolutely sure. But they'll be saved under the umbrella of Europe.

What does Canada do in a context like that? Well, I believe that the Bali process is not where Canada can have the most importance.

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

Well, it clearly didn't.

[Pierre Marc Johnson]

But I don't think it's the preferred route to go, to exercise whatever clout, the medium power that Canada is.... Canada is not the United States.

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

It's interesting then that Canada chose to devote so much of its resources to this. The government sent a great number of people there. You saw it, as did I.

I have just one last question, because I'll run out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Very quickly, Mr. Cullen; you're quite a bit over time.

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

Did you see any evidence of Canada negotiating a cap-and-trade regime with the United States, Europe, or any other power? We've had a number of business groups here that have urged clarity on the pricing of carbon.

[Pierre Marc Johnson]

I didn't see any negotiation on that. Once again, I wasn't in every negotiating room, but I think it's becoming more and more obvious that's where it has to go. We have to go toward cap and trade.

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

But you saw no evidence of this? You didn't see any evidence of us negotiating such a....

Mr. Morton, did you?

[Ian Morton]

No, I did not.

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

Okay, thank you.

[Pierre Marc Johnson]

Which doesn't mean that there wasn't.

If I may finish, Mr. Chairman, on this issue, I believe the best forum for Canada to act in harmony with its usual allies and in a context where it accepts the science and considers that there are strides to be made in the coming couple of years is the G-8 and the G-8 plus the so-called Gleneagles five--which means China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa--and then the MEM, the major economies meetings, which adds to the G-8, plus the Gleneagles +5, plus Indonesia, South Korea, and Australia, plus the UN and the EU as institutions.

I think that's the fit. Why? Because that's 85% of the world's GDP. Because that's 80% of the world's emissions. I think that's a real table, without denying the importance of the multilateral process of the UN. If the countries that represent 85% of the economy of the world and 80% of the world's emissions cannot agree on a direction, I don't believe an assembly of 194 countries will.

The question is, where can Canada play its better role? I think it's in the context of what I've described.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Warawa, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Morton, and thank you, Mr. Johnson, for being here. Both of you are incredibly well respected and what you're sharing here at the committee is very enlightening.

Mr. Morton, you said you were very proud of the Canadian team. Mr. Johnson, you said the Canadian team was a remarkable team.

There have been questions on the purpose of Canada at Bali. What was the objective of the Canadian team? What was Canada's objective when we went to Bali?

[Pierre Marc Johnson]

I think it was, first and foremost, carrying out its responsibilities as a member of the concert of nations.

Secondly, it was to occupy a space that was very uncomfortable, and that uncomfortable space is the fact that the Canadian government has said, pretty much out loud, what some other countries believe: that the process has reached its peak in the context of Kyoto and the next step has to be much broader.

That said, up to now Canada has not abided by its obligations under Kyoto, and chances are it won't get there by 2012. That's the pragmatics of it, and that's what makes it difficult for Canada to come to a large forum and tell people what to do. But I do think that Canada, in the context of the G-8, the Gleneagles +5, plus the MEM, can play a more substantive role precisely because I think it's in Canada's interest to broaden the base of the instruments we'll give ourselves to face what is a real, collective world issue, not only a Canadian issue.

The palette of options, which by definition will be opened in a dialogue with major developing countries, which I personally call the new industrial countries, might give a space for Canada to make a major contribution in a context where the world moves forward, not only a fraction of it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Morton, what did you see as Canada's main objectives going to Bali?

[Ian Morton]

To my understanding, Canada's objectives were for a mandate for negotiating by the end of 2009 a new global agreement to combat climate change after 2012. I think the minister, in various meetings with UN officials, indicated Canada's support of the United Nations process and a willingness to participate to the best of its abilities.

Speaking to my comments earlier, from my interaction with our negotiators and from having the chance to attend a number of the negotiating sessions, whether focused on technology transfer, deforestation, adaptation, or capacity building, I think that the expertise of the negotiators from Environment Canada and their commitment to work towards positive outcomes was very impressive. As I said in my opening remarks, it made me proud as a Canadian to see the dedication and the hard work.

As Mr. Johnson indicated, during the last three or four days the negotiations went on almost non-stop. Our minister and the negotiating teams worked very well late into the evenings, and I think the processes themselves that ended up helping to articulate and to get us a road map and the various benchmarks along the way this coming year were indicative of the fact that Canada did at least achieve its objective, which was realizing the overall objective: the Bali road map, a mandate for a new global agreement by the end of 2009 to combat climate change post-2012.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Here's a question. The media portrayed the minister as not being engaged at the conference, saying that he missed key meetings. Do you think that was fairly reported?

[Pierre Marc Johnson]

I don't know what's fair reporting; I have been out of politics for so many years. I would say that I saw the minister as being very engaged. I'm an early riser, especially when I'm on jet lag. I think we were all on jet lag, and I saw him at 6:30 in the morning and I saw him at midnight the same day, and he was working like crazy, like everybody. He participated in one of the so-called contact groups. There's one in which he did not participate, because the chair of the meeting decided to do some cherry-picking as to who would be in that room and did not invite Canada to be there, as it did not invite some of the other G-8 countries to be there.

But the minister was doing lots of bilaterals at the same time, and I know he met with the Secretary General of the UN also along the way. So I would say yes, the minister was there; yes, he was working obviously pretty hard—he looked pretty tired at the end, like all of us—and I think his participation was conditioned in part by what we talked about here in the past half hour: the fact that Canada has a hard time on that issue in that forum and has had for a while.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

My question to both of you is for more specifics about what your advice was to the minister. Was the minister...? He was very busy, as you've shared—as was everyone—but how often would you meet with the minister, and specifically what kind of advice would you give the minister, and did he listen to you?

[Pierre Marc Johnson]

I'm afraid I cannot answer the second question, which I think is really part of the confidentiality of the relationship with a minister of the crown.

As a group, we met with him at least twice a day, always at a breakfast meeting, and sometimes with him alone and then with him and his officials. We did the same in the evening. Sometimes he asked us to be with him at a specific moment during the day. So we met at least twice a day, sometimes three times, as a group, and of course in the briefing sessions of officials, because we were entitled to go into that room, which was very useful for us to get a sense of how the Canadian delegation was going.

Individually, I can say I met with the minister over the week, I don't know, 12 or 15 times. I didn't count them, but I did spend 15 minutes here, half an hour there, with him, with one or two of his officials. I also spent a lot of time with the officials.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Morton, could you answer that question too? The minister was attacked by the opposition and media. Do you find he was unfairly attacked? Was it your observation also that he was very busy? Could you share how often you advised him and met with him?