Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2008

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a final question, then, so I understand where Mr. Godfrey is coming from. I appreciate that explanation.

Do you feel your amendment expresses that intent? If a government should see this 20 to 40 years from now, are they going to understand that intent? You've used the word “responsible” instead of “fair”. You've shared that it's based on scientific, historical, and per capita. You did mention the 1990 level.That would depend on....

Is your amendment going to give guidance to future governments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Sure. With respect to the reference in Liberal amendment 4, new paragraph (c) does reflect the strong commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, which would imply a commitment to the 1990 target.

Of course future governments are going to be dealing with the future and subsequent successor arrangements after 2012. It will not be the Kyoto Protocol; it will be something else.

I think this attempts to take the environment minister at his word, that Canada wants to be a leader, that Canada wants to be part of the international system. Canada is not denying the science of the UNFCCC and neither is the parliamentary secretary. It gives a formulation that is flexible enough to take into account the changes we can't anticipate, but lays down some principles of equity that will remind us of what, as a responsible, developed, leading country, Canada must do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I will add very briefly to my colleague Mr. Godfrey's wonderful contribution to the debate.

What's interesting about this amendment is that it makes this bill more fully symmetrical with the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force and effect in this country in late 2004, early 2005...what was the date?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

It was in 2005.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It compels Canada and all signatories to the agreement to actually invest more in climate change science, not less; to invest more in research and analysis, including the latest reports from the IPCC, not less. That leads an objective observer to ask why the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, located on Sparks Street in this city, is still without any new funding from the government after two years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased with the amendment moved by my colleague Mr. Godfrey. The expression “fair contribution” would be replaced by “responsible contribution”. The change is appropriate in that later, there is a reference to the objective of the UN Framework Convention.

One of the basic principles that we must not reject that of joint responsibility. The Convention makes provision for the principle of liability, not the principle of equity. It would be a shame to find ourselves in the same situation as in Bali, where the government spoke of a certain number of principles, such as national circumstances, in the consideration of objectives and Canada's future commitment to fighting climate change. It is not national circumstances or the principle of equity that must be considered, but rather the principle of liability. By taking this principle into account, I think we can comply with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I am rather intrigued by the discussion around this issue and wonder why Mr. Godfrey didn't write some of these criteria into it. To use the term “adjusting it responsibly”--even that doesn't have any well-settled criteria. Although I know you've attempted to be helpful with your....

As long as I can get the floor back, do you want to respond, John?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

There's only so much you can do, working with the legislation as you find it. So everything we've attempted to do here by way of amendment--and you'll see this again in the preamble in our amendments--is chiefly to update this legislation to reflect how the world has moved on since the bill was drafted. It has been nearly a year and a half since it was first presented.

It's not our bill. We're attempting to lay out the principles to guide future governments without overly restricting them and attempting to guess or anticipate where the world may take us. We want the direction and the ambition to be clear, but it will always be contextual, based on the science and the competitive aspects of what other countries are doing.

I think that's about as good as we can do, because we're notionally writing a piece of legislation to get us to 2050. That's pretty much it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott, does that answer your question?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Well, not really, because on the issue of the scientific total requirement, if I understand what you were saying there, John, that's more the global picture. I think we're saying that everybody has to contribute all around the globe to get to that particular point of whatever the scientific total requirement is. So that's not even domestic, really, is it? That's global.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Well, it does say:

(b) specify the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analysis used to establish each target

It's not that we're going to do this at any price. We're going to do this mindful of all three sets of conditions: where we are with the technology, what the impacts will be economically, and where the science is taking us. I think it lays out three very important criteria that future governments will have to balance without actually specifying that this is going to trump that. This kind of regulation has to be smart, and that's all it is really intended to do. I don't know if it can do more than that.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I have concerns around this issue of the historical record. We look back and do a study on development in different parts of the world, and our country in particular. I say this carefully, but I don't know if it's an issue of then looking back and it being a kind of guilt issue. I don't find that provides me with anything tangible or concrete. It's kind of like historians meandering to draw some conclusions there on who developed based on what, and who got the advantage over some other countries, I guess.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I don't think it's any more difficult to establish the historical record on greenhouse gas emissions than it is to establish the historical record of a company that has been polluting a site, say, for an awfully long time. We actually have the evidence. Economic historians do know how much carbon dioxide has been emitted by industrial countries over the years. There is a record of coal burned. I'm an economic historian, and I can tell you there is a pretty good record of what the burn rate was, literally, of coal in the 19th and 20th centuries by major industrial powers. That was the chief source of greenhouse gas emissions. That record is well known. There is an absolute correlation between the coal burned and the energy used and the economic success that accrued to those countries that did it first. That's what the Industrial Revolution was about. It is a known fact.

In terms of the principle of the thing, just as we would go back and try to penalize a company that over the years has built up its fortune by polluting a piece of ground, we're basically invoking the principle that one day or another the polluters have to pay, even if they didn't recognize at the time that's what they were doing, because the result of that activity was their wealth. They grew their wealth based on those emissions associated with energy consumption. That is the story of the Industrial Revolution, and it's known.

It is interesting that the UNFCCC said at Bali--and the minister did not contradict--that given that historical record, developed countries should see their reductions being at a minimum by 2020, with regard to 1990 targets, 25% to 40%. That is the conclusion you draw: you did it; you can't get away with it simply because you grew, or by saying that was then and this is now. You have to recognize how it is you got to be rich. That's how the west got rich, and they have to pay for it. We have to pay for it.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I will ask two quick questions, and then I'll close off here.

On the issue of the polluter paying, which you said, Mr. Godfrey.... I don't understand in effect what you're doing. I guess you're lumping it all together in a kind of national sense, in effect going back and tracing that the polluter doesn't pay. It's somebody else--the national government--who has taken responsibility for that. Maybe that's in fact what you're implying anyhow.

You don't speak in regard to GDP. Was there a reason for that? You spoke in terms of per capita, historical, scientific, but nothing in reference to GDP. Is that implied here somewhere?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

This is a piece of legislation that is trying to set out general principles. Since we are locating the conversation in the language of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, within that conversation there are assumptions about responsibility and about the historical record and about the per capita. That is part of the whole discussion about the United Nations Framework Convention. That's part of the whole discussion about Kyoto. Why is it that we have common but differentiated responsibilities? That is based on those principles.

By referencing it through the UNFCCC and through the Kyoto Protocol, we are assuming the logic of that conversation, which is going to guide us and which gets into things like per capita and historical record and ability to pay and common but differentiated. All of that is implicit when you reference it. There is no need to spell it out again, because once you have referenced it, you have said that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Is that okay, Mr. Vellacott?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

That will be it for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Could we have Mr. Watson next, please?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'll actually save my question for a little later.