Evidence of meeting #15 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bali.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Pierre Marc Johnson  Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual
Ian Morton  Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson, for being here with us today.

When you say that you were not in a position to advise the minister, would you clarify what you mean by that?

3:50 p.m.

Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

Pierre Marc Johnson

That happened on the last day, and I was on a plane that day.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Okay. So you were already on your way home?

3:50 p.m.

Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

All right.

3:55 p.m.

Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

Pierre Marc Johnson

Let me give an explanation about that. It happened to many people. The conference overshot by 24 hours--it's a normal delay--and it put many people in a position of having to choose between missing the last day or maybe waiting a week to get back. Since I was an adviser--and may I say not paid for it--I decided to come back after seven days in Bali.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

That's certainly understandable. I guess the concern might be that the last 24 hours would also be the most critical period, one would think, for trying to work out the final agreement. Oftentimes you hear about negotiations, of course--and this is clearly a negotiation--that go down to the wire. I don't mean to suggest that it's not understandable that for those good reasons you would want to leave. However, in view of the importance of your role, one would have thought they would have wanted you there for that last 24 hours.

3:55 p.m.

Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

Pierre Marc Johnson

I wouldn't want to over-inflate the importance of the role of Mr. Morton, me, Mary Simon, or Elizabeth Dowdeswell. I think we were there to give advice to the minister, some of which he solicited, some of which we volunteered. He demonstrated great openness about that.

That said, we were not in the negotiation process. Mind you, I would have liked to be, maybe, but that's another issue. I wasn't part of the negotiating team, nor was Mr. Morton. We were part of what happens a lot at the UN, which is informal things that go on in the corridors among people who know or have known each other. There are specialists and negotiators. The Canadian delegation, I must say, had a remarkable team. I am able to, I would say, pass judgment on that, because I have done this during the past twenty years quite a bit. I would say that the team that was there was a remarkable team, both in terms of experience and energy and in its capacity to cover many bases at the same time. But these aren't the negotiators. None of us in the group of advisers were doing the negotiation. We were advising the minister on various issues.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Bigras, please.

February 25th, 2008 / 3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today. It must not be easy for advisers of the minister to come before parliamentarians. I want to thank them.

That said, they did provide advice to the minister and we have a right to ask for explanations. The first, Mr. Johnson, concerns your statement on December 12, 2007. I was in Bali, like you were, and I was a little surprised to read what you said in La Presse. You said that Canada had a credibility problem because it had not delivered the goods for 15 years. We will give you a chance to explain that because people often remember only the headlines.

Could you tell us what you meant by that statement in Bali?

3:55 p.m.

Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

Pierre Marc Johnson

Yes, Mr. Bigras.

Canada was remarkably proactive in the area of environmental negotiations beginning in the late 1980s, at the time of the Brundtland report. At the Rio Conference, Canada made a substantial contribution. It made a certain number of commitments, including regarding financial transfers, the refocusing of IDRCs efforts and sustainable development issues.

However—and I have to say this because I often heard it at the United Nations over the past few years—Canada has lost some of its credibility. And the problem goes back quite some time. There is a feeling among the various delegations—these are things that are never said publicly—that Canada espoused a certain number of principles in 1992 but did not necessarily implement them. Once again, I want to say that this is not something that I have just heard this year but rather something that people have been saying for years. I think that there are all sorts of reasons for this. I am sure that you have looked at the Auditor General's reports like I have, and probably even more than I have, since this is part of your responsibility.

Beginning in 1992 and until very recently, Canada did not take the necessary steps to meet its international commitments. One might ask why that happened. Are there administrative problems that go back 10 years? Perhaps, but there may also be other reasons, such as more important political reasons, especially with respect to climate change. In my opinion, the problem Canada has with climate change stems from a combination of the action we have to take as a developed country to meet the science-based requirements in order to ensure a livable future for our children, and a certain number of constraints; these include the proximity of the U.S., which has not shown much enthusiasm for this issue, at least at the federal level, even though a number of states and municipalities are on board.

Second, the United States did not adopt the Kyoto Protocol. That raises the eternal problem of how much we can expose our industry to that when the Americans are not doing the same. This is not a new problem, but rather one that has come up often in other sectors. The other reason, which I feel is fundamental but not often mentioned, is that Canada is part of the energy equation for the Americans, which means developing the oil sands. Because of how that oil is produced, it is responsible for much of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions since 1997. That is one of the public policy constraints that cannot be denied, in my opinion.

Does that mean that we should be doing nothing? No, I do not think so. It is not my job to judge the government's policies. I would simply say that we absolutely need to take serious action, but that the Government of Canada's internal constraints cannot unfortunately be raised in public forums: things do not work like that. These things can be mentioned, but they are not an answer.

It is like when you borrow money from the bank: you can certainly explain that your brother-in-law got sick, that you helped him out and that your child's tuition fees were higher than expected, but the banker will tell you that you have to pay back the money. Maybe you can renegotiate your loan.

I think that Canada's situation with respect to climate change and its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol are a little like that. It cannot deliver on all its promises, but the reasons that it cannot do so are not ones that it can use constantly because the international forums are like the banks: they are not interested in those issues.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you. I really like the parallel you made with loans and renegotiating them. One of the conclusions at the end of the discussions in Bali concerned the reference date that should be used to set future targets. On the one side, you had the Europeans who were insisting on 1990, which was the year used in the Kyoto Protocol, and on the other you had countries like Canada that not only included 2006 as the reference year in its climate change plan but that also persuaded the other countries to adopt that position.

When an individual has worked hard in the past and decided to tighten his belt, then decides to pay back part of his debt, the banker may well be willing to renegotiate, but would it not be more respectful and more fair to recognize the efforts made by countries and corporations in the past? Do you not think that the reference year should not be negotiable? Do you not think that we should recognize that these countries and corporations which, sometimes for economic reasons, have changed their industrial processes to make them more productive, of course, have also made efficiency gains? Do you not think that it would be fair to recognize the efforts that they have made in the past?

When that question was put on the table in Bali, what did you recommend to Minister Baird? Did you tell him that you felt that Canada, in all fairness, should defend 1990 as the reference year?

4:05 p.m.

Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

Pierre Marc Johnson

I said earlier that I was not present when that decision was taken. It was taken at the very last minute. However, the minister went to Bali with what was obviously a mandate from cabinet or one he had given himself. You know as well as I do that a minister does not make a commitment of behalf of the government alone at night, hoping things will improve, even after consulting his advisers. The minister must be in synchrony with his government and act according to the mandate given to him by cabinet.

So, when I heard the minister refer to a 20% reduction by 2020, and then mention 2006 as the reference year, I was not surprised that this turned out to be the position. It is clear he had a mandate.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

But there were other negotiations...

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I wonder if Mr. Morton wants to get in on your answer. We haven't heard from him for a minute or two.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Chair, I believe it is my right as a parliamentarian to ask questions of the witness of my choosing.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

That's fine.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

I have a final question. You were at the Bali meeting, and one issue came up while you were there. It was the proposal to include in the final document the IPCC report, but to include a reference to the 2°C increase in temperature by the end of the century. At the end of the meeting, some participants wanted to put the reference in a footnote, and that was ultimately done. I believe Canada was opposed to this.

Did you advise the government to highlight the reference to the 2°C increase in the body of the Bali document, instead of in a footnote, out of respect for the report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change?

4:05 p.m.

Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

Pierre Marc Johnson

Again, the issue was not framed in that manner, but yes, we had the opportunity to discuss everything which was as stake, be it mitigation, adaptation, advances in technology, financing or science. I am not surprised at what happened with the 2°C reference. The IPCC has been in existence since 1988; it was created by the World Meteorological Organization, and it produces the science used in climate change studies. The IPCC's fourth report, which was published in 2007, raised issues which other reports had not. It was a fairly categorical report with regard to a number of things. First, in my view, it categorically stated that climate change was here for good. Second, it categorically stated that climate change is due to human activity. Third, it clearly set out the consequences of climate change in a certain number of countries. The report even explained what should be done to adapt to climate change.

The issue of the 2°C increase in temperature is a relatively new thing in climate science and analysis. Of course, those who advocate moving forward slowly say that this is new science. May I remind you that these same groups claimed just a few years ago that human activity could not possibly be the cause of climate change and its consequences today. Perhaps people are being more reasonable now in accepting the science. But this time, people had doubts with regard to the 2°C increase in temperature. Personally—and this might just be my intuition speaking, rather than my belief in the science—I would say that the 2°C increase in temperature will become received wisdom by the time the Denmark conference takes place at the end of 2009, just as it is now received wisdom that human activity causes climate change.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Stoffer.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Morton and Mr. Johnson, thank you very much for coming.

Mr. Morton, were you involved at all in the Kyoto or Rio discussions with previous governments?

4:10 p.m.

Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

Ian Morton

No, that was a little before my time. I'm still relatively young--in my early forties. I wasn't involved in either of those two negotiations.

As I mentioned to Mr. McGuinty earlier, my expertise on the public policy side has been more related to activities within the province of Ontario and the climate change action plan process that was set up in the late 1990s. But it was a few years ago that I was involved in those processes.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you.

Mr. Johnson, were you involved at all in the Rio or Kyoto discussions with previous governments?

4:10 p.m.

Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment, the Hon. John Baird, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Bali - December 2007), As an Individual

Pierre Marc Johnson

I was involved in the Rio process for almost four years. Then in 1993 or 1994 I was involved in the convention on desertification, which was one of the promises of Rio to largely African countries. I was a mediator between G-77 countries and OECD countries on financial aspects of that convention. I participated in various implementation activities and published a book about it in London a few months ago. That's my background.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Thank you.

Gentlemen, although I wasn't there, I did follow the proceedings very carefully, not only over the net but on television as well. It appears, at least to the people who've spoken to us and to our party, that Canada went there with the intention of ragging the puck, if I may use a hockey term. It didn't appear that Canada seemed too convinced of previous Kyoto commitments. There were some of these same groups and countries there.

It just appeared, at least when we looked at it—and correct me if I'm wrong—that Canada went kicking and screaming to the final negotiation, which, of course, as you know, went overtime in order to be done.

My problem is the perception—and I certainly won't ask you about what you personally spoke of with Mr. Baird on these issues—that the government is not fully convinced that climate change is a result of human activity or that we actually have a role to play in it. You had talked about these very good, professional people on the team you were with and of trying to convince him otherwise.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Morton, even if you and Mr. Johnson weren't at the Kyoto conference, but were at this one, would you have used the previous advice or previous discussions with people who had been at the Kyoto conference to continue these discussions at Bali, or would you have gone there with just the information you had currently?