Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

On clause 6, we have Liberal amendments LIB-4 and LIB-5 on pages 7 and 8.

I'll go to Mr. Godfrey, please.

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

The purpose here again, as I think can be seen, is to take into account the work of the UNFCCC in a more precise way than was the case when the original bill was put forward, because a lot has happened since that time. We've had a new assessment report from the Bali conference.

There are really a couple of changes, and the challenge here--I'm on amendment LIB-4--is that proposed paragraph (b) has now within it--and you need to read after the “and”:

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

And then you insert LIB-5:

analysis used to establish each target,

And there's going to be an amendment to this too:

including consideration of the latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the most stringent greenhouse gas emissions targets adopted by other national governments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We've crossed from amendment LIB-4 to amendment LIB-5. We're dealing with the two of them together.

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

That's right. We already have the analysis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

And you want to change paragraph (b), is that correct?

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

I want to change paragraph (b) to insert LIB-5, and as part of LIB-5, I want to say, “including consideration of”—that is new to LIB-5—“the latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.

In other words, it has to be taken into consideration, as well as the other emission targets adopted by other national governments. It doesn't say you have to follow it slavishly; it says you have to consider it, because that's part of the competitive environment within which Canada will be functioning. That is that.

The only other change I would propose—and I apologize for this three-dimensional tic-tac-toe operation—is that after discussion with various parties, in paragraph (c) where we say “show that each target is consistent with a fair contribution”, we are proposing to eliminate the word “fair” en français et en anglais and add the word “responsible”, so that it reads “responsible contribution by Canada”, une contribution responsable du Canada, which seems to convey better what we are trying to achieve.

I realize this is a little messy because we're dealing with a whole bunch of things at the same time, but those are the amendments to the amendments and the incorporation of two amendments as one.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

We should add “ing” on the end of “prevent”.

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

You're quite right, “preventing”. Correct. There seems to be a—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Where is that one?

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

This is a good point, Mr. Watson.

This is the third line down in paragraph (c), “ultimate objective of preventing”, and I had that noted down.

I think that's an extraordinarily useful observation, and I want to thank you for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay, I think what we need to do is this. I can read what you've done here so that everybody can follow, and you can correct me if I've got a problem.

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

I will do my best.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We've got the first part of subclause 6(1):

The Minister shall, within six months after this Act receives royal assent, prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament an interim Canadian greenhouse gas emissions target plan for the years 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045.

And then we go to LIB-4:

The target plan shall

(a) establish a Canadian greenhouse gas emissions target for each of those years;

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

—that's now on LIB-5—

including consideration of the latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the most stringent greenhouse gas emissions targets adopted by other national governments.

And then we come back to paragraph (c), which is amendment LIB-4, which says:

(c) show that each target is consistent with a responsible contribution by Canada to the UNFCCC's ultimate objective of preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and with Parliament’s strong commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

Just take out the word “fair” and put in “responsible”.

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

Right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I hope everybody follows that.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We welcome this amendment. The issue in clause 6 that is being addressed is something that has been lacking in previous initiatives from the government, which is keeping Canadians and Parliament up to speed on where our targets are, what our goals are.

A lot of long-term promises are made within government legislation, back-ended financing deals that go out six years and beyond. The need to have a steady, consistent track with our greenhouse gas reductions is essential. This amendment seeks to embed within those estimations some measurement of what other countries are putting into their efforts and engaging Canada, I hope, deeper into the solutions that are out there.

I think for too long in this country we have relied simply upon our own initiative and intelligence to meet greenhouse gas emission challenges and not looked overseas and not looked to other countries, who are now far outpacing our country when it comes to energy efficiency and the like.

We think this is a good amendment to clause 6, and we look forward to its passage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there other comments?

Mr. Warawa, go ahead.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It's impossible to demonstrate what is fair or responsible so many years in advance. My question for Mr. Godfrey is, who is going to determine what is responsible? The word “responsible” is a better word than “fair”, but who is going to be determining that? How stringent will other nations' targets be, and who is going to determine that?

It would help a bit if he could answer those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey, could you respond to that?

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

The purpose of this is to reflect two things. One is that the state of our knowledge about climate change is always being added to by the scientific community, and if this is going to be a piece of living legislation, it always has to take into account the latest reports from the UNFCCC, for example. We can't be bound by last year's science if this year's science presents a stronger case for action. So that is one of the purposes of this.

The second purpose of this is that we locate our efforts within the context of what other countries do. This is an approach that the government itself has proposed. They have said that one of the ways in which we will judge our effort here is by what other major industrial polluters are doing--for example, China and India--so it is a judgment call by the government of the day, and the Parliament of the day, to look at what other large industrial emitters are doing and ask if this looks roughly responsible.

I think everybody accepts the fact that we are a privileged industrial power with greater capacity for adjustment than developing countries, that we're in a different situation. What “responsible” looks like is always going to be contextual. It will always be relative to what other countries are doing, whether they're developing countries or developed countries.

By the way, this is very much the European approach. The Europeans are saying that what they will do by 2020 is reduce their emissions by 20% vis-à-vis 1990, no matter what. If other large national governments have higher targets than are currently anticipated--such as the United States--they will then revise their targets upwards to 30%.

So this clause is designed to reflect our need to be competitive with other countries, because we wish to always be sure we are among the leaders in greenhouse gas reduction. What constitutes leadership will be an evolving story, depending on how other countries are doing, whether those countries are the United States, China, Russia, or whoever. This is designed to give both the government and Parliament the flexibility to take this legislation forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll hear from Mr. McGuinty first, and then Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm still asking my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sure, if you want, just carry on.

Mr. McGuinty, I'll come to you next.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Are the targets based on per capita? Are they based on the GDP? What are you basing them on? You mentioned the 1990 targets. What are you basing the targets on?

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

There are two kinds of targets. There are the scientific targets, which tell us, as a world, that we need to put forward a certain degree of effort or we will get beyond a 2% increase in global temperatures because of greenhouse gas emissions. So one set of targets is based on the science and tells us, as a world, what we have to do.

Another set of targets says common but differentiated responsibilities based, first of all, on historical record. That is what various countries have built their wealth on over time. We, and the industrialized world--Britain, Germany, United States--live off the riches of an economy created by greenhouse gas emissions, and we can't neglect that heritage. We did it. We've been polluting and we haven't been paying for it.

There is also a per capita component. As the Indians say, “We promise we will never emit more per capita than you do”, which is not much of a promise when you think about it.

So there's the historical component, which I think is fair, because there's a burden that we've developed over time, and there's a per capita component, which says, why should some citizens of the planet never get to the same stage of development as we are? Now that we're here, we're going to pull up the drawbridge; you can't develop.

Those are the three components: the scientific targets that need to get us where we are going to be; the historical components, which remind us of how we got to be rich in the west; and then the per capita components, which deal with the consequences, particularly as we think about equity, for those countries that are being side-swiped by climate change--the low-lying island states, for example.

Those would be the considerations that a government would have to take into account in establishing its targets. That's why the words “consideration of” are there. It simply sets out some principles of equity and allows the government of the day to make its best judgment, given competitive considerations and where other countries are.