Environment Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Drexhage and Mr. McGuinty.

I now turn the floor over to Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, welcome to the committee. I think we have to have this good discussion before leaving for Bali. Of course, we hope the government changes its mind and decides to invite the opposition. A diverse range of opinions should be expressed in Bali, particularly since there isn't a strong consensus against the Kyoto Protocol. A majority of the population support the Kyoto Protocol, and I think the Canadian delegation should be representative of that majority trend.

The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that we should first stabilize our greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 if we want to avoid the worst. That is the first finding, and I think we agree on that. The second finding is that the two-degree policy, which would limit the average increase in temperature relative to the pre-industrial period, should be an objective, once again to avoid disaster.

The problem is how we should allocate the greenhouse gas reduction target both among the developing countries and among the industrialized countries. I was looking at the latest figures on per capita greenhouse gas emissions. I have those from China and from the United States. Per capita greenhouse gas emissions are approximately 20 tonnes in the United States compared to 2.3 tonnes in China. I believe they are approximately 25 tonnes in Canada.

As regards emissions and the historic contribution of the major regions of the world between 1990 and 2000, the United States and Europe alone total nearly 60% of emissions, compared to less than 8% for China. That said, that is not a reason for India and China not to act and for there not to be any reduction targets.

Doesn't the government's attitude in recent days, particularly that shown by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Summit, break a strong international consensus that there should be a common and differentiated approach in the fight against climate change? Without discussing the targets given to each of the countries, shouldn't the common and differentiated principles form the basis of the negotiations in Bali?

That's my first question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Are you putting your question to anyone in particular?

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

No, but I would like a brief answer because I have other questions.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I would argue that the answer is yes. The impasse we're facing right now is that many of us who have spent a long time in the Kyoto process are married to the objectives and the structure. In Bali, are you going to give up the objectives or the structure, because we're at an impasse and something has to give? We shouldn't give up on the objectives. We should strengthen the objectives, which means we have to look to a new structure.

In the Montreal Protocol we asked everyone in the world--developing nations--to bind to national emission limits. They said no, just like they're saying now. Somebody smart--one day someone will tell me who this person was, because I want to give credit where credit is due and I don't know how to do it--said, how do we get to the same outcome through an indirect method?

So the parties in the Montreal Protocol, including the developing nations, agreed to separate the question of the consumption of products that lead to ozone-depleting releases from the sale of those products and have two sets of reduction schedules, with each set being a phase-out of production and a phase-out of sales. They agreed to ask nations to focus on the products, the consumption of which creates emissions, and move from a focus on emissions to a focus on how we are managing trade in those products. That was the movement that broke the impasse at the Montreal Protocol.

But if we go to Bali and say we're not willing to make that kind of move here, we want you to come to the table and say yes to a cap, we're going to allocate quota, and we're going to screw you in the international trade in quota, they are not going to come. We won't get anywhere.

[Matthew Bramley]

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility you're referring to appears in both the Kyoto Protocol and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. That convention is still the framework for those negotiations. We must clearly continue to apply this principle, which is one of fairness. It is obvious that we won't be able to reach an agreement for after 2012 if this is not fair. No one can be compelled to take part in such an agreement.

As regards the negotiations that we hope will follow the Bali conference, the challenge is to continue differentiating countries by type, while starting to expand the participation of countries like India and China.

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

We are at a standstill, and we have to proceed with a reinforcement, but the question is what must be reinforced. Does the solution lie in reinforcing the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol? Among other things, I'm thinking of the Clean Development Mechanism, through which we could make it so that the efforts of the developing countries are taken into consideration within the overall effort. In recent years, haven't we neglected the contribution of the Clean Development Mechanism? Even Canada has not paid the minimum fees it was to pay the UN. The last I heard, it had not paid the Clean Development Mechanism its share. In short, shouldn't the clean development mechanisms be reinforced, which might make it so that there is a contribution from the development countries?

Furthermore, as my colleague said earlier about the WWF, this morning's report is quite glaring. We knew it, but now we have figures. The approach adopted by the federal government toward intensity won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms as the minister claimed. On the contrary, greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 129% to 219%. This approach takes us further and further away from the greenhouse gas emissions stabilization target for 2015 proposed by the G8. Wouldn't that distance us even further from the target of limiting the rate of global warming to 2%? Ultimately, wouldn't the government's approach risk undermining the global effort to reduce greenhouse gases?

Lastly, I have a fear. I would like you to tell us, in the event we leave the Bali conference without a mandate, what risks that would entail in the greenhouse gas emissions credits market. Wouldn't there be a risk of a carbon crisis, a financial crisis in the markets, if we weren't guaranteed an acceptable follow-up to Bali?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

That's a lot of questions, in view of the fact there's only one minute and 10 seconds for the answer.

Mr. Drexhage.

[John Drexhage]

I'd like to quickly respond to the first question.

It's a very important point to keep in mind that when we're talking about further and more serious engagement on the part of developing countries, you need to look at what the Montreal Protocol accomplished with the multilateral fund. There are some very strong funding and investment issues that have to be taken into account, and developing countries have to be supported in that respect.

I think the initiative of the Indonesian government to host a meeting of finance ministers and a meeting of trade ministers, in addition to the COP summit of the environment ministers, is incredibly important. That will be part of breaking the impasse that Aldyen was referring to. It's about making it clear exactly how these investment flows and how these financial flows can support clean energy investment and their adaptation activities.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Do you have a second comment?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I just want to throw in a little reality check. The WWF report was originally published some time ago. To accept the oil industry emission forecasts in that report, you have to assume that emissions from the Canadian petroleum sector will grow at a rate that is substantially faster than the rate at which production grows. By comparison, between 1990 and 2000, oil sands production doubled and their emissions increased by less than 50%. So there's some pretty fantastic forecasting going on there.

Even if you accept this somewhat less incredible forecasting and use the WWF numbers, the tar sands emissions will amount to less than 7% of the National Energy Board's best-case scenario BAU forecast. I'm not saying give the tar sands a pass, but spending enormous amounts of resources and energies bitching about 7% of the problem is.... Excuse my language.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

Mr. Cullen.

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

It's okay, we're a tolerant committee. Rather you than one of us, let's put it that way.

To pick up on a small point Mr. Drexhage made, I'm trying to understand, in terms of interpreting all this back for Canadians, what the significance of this particular UN meeting is about and the process we're engaged in, because I think Canadians have reached a rightfully cynical place when they hear politicians talking about climate change. Our past record and our future plans both breed quite a bit of cynicism within the Canadian public, and I think Ms. Hayes summed up some of that frustration very well.

In turning the question as much to the environment, but also to the economics, the fact that our government has chosen not to send our ministers of finance or trade to these significant meetings to talk about the economic questions that are going on here--which have huge and important economic bearing on Canadian businesses, some of which Ms. Donnelly represents--I find a real fault of leadership and a real lack of foresight as to what's coming, as to the impacts. Canada has no expenditures whatsoever, that we can find, to understand what the climate change impacts will be on our economy right now. Whether it's pipelines, mining operations, forestry, fishing, any of our traditional resource-based extraction processes, the Canadian government hasn't got a clue—hasn't got a clue—as to what a two-degree or four-degree rise in temperature might do.

We've talked about the question of leadership. Ms. Hayes, again, talked about the frustrations with failed leadership. If this process fails, the consequences for a middle power like Canada, which is essentially what we're talking about--how a middle power influences a larger conversation. The question of credibility comes first and foremost.

To start with Mr. Bramley, what can we rely on right now, in terms of influencing other countries, as we head into Bali? What do we have in our pocket that we can lay on the table and then influence somebody else to alter whatever course it is they're taking?

[Matthew Bramley]

That's difficult to answer.

Clearly, there's a lot of concern about the attitude of the Government of Canada to our existing obligations under the first phase of Kyoto. The government has made clear that it's not going to attempt to comply.

Regulations will only be implemented in 2010, whereas Kyoto begins in 2008. The government doesn't want to put any money into the clean development mechanism, despite it being a valuable, important mechanism that counts toward meeting our Kyoto target.

So there's a lot of concern I think from other countries just on that single point.

The science is very clear about the kinds of emission reductions that will be needed from the developed countries if we're to have a chance, even only a chance, of staying within two degrees. Developed countries need to reduce their emissions by between 25% and 40% below the 1990 level by 2020, but Canada's target for 2020 is actually slightly above the 1990 level. So either we're saying it's okay to have much more global warming than two degrees or we're saying that because we're doing less, someone else is going to have to do more to compensate. It has to be one or the other.

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

I think there's an interesting irony developing, which we'll be looking at in Mr. Layton's bill that will be describing some of those mid-range targets and beyond. They are science-based targets, something that's been missing from a lot of this conversation. As people go through...we knew in the previous government the target that was selected had no basis.

I don't know if they talked to you, Ms. Donnelly or Mr. Drexhage, but we couldn't find anybody the government talked to before they actually picked their target previously, a mistake that many of us have pointed out.

I'm wondering about what I'd suggest might be a myth, that is that in Bali, as a process, developing nations do not have to seek...or there is no process within the UN for developing nations to seek hard and firm targets. I've heard the government say this, that we won't commit to things because this process is wrong and doesn't ask other countries—developing China and India are often picked out—to pick targets as well.

I'm confused by this, and I'm wondering, Mr. Drexhage, if you could point it out.

[John Drexhage]

To be strictly accurate, right now, under the terms of the Berlin mandate for the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries are expressly exempt from taking on additional commitments.

There are commitments that are referred to under the convention, but those are the commitments that were drafted prior to Kyoto and continue to be elaborated on. It has to do with the preparation of some greenhouse gas inventories and any other kinds of actions that countries are taking to meet both their development and greenhouse gas reduction objectives.

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

What are the chances, then, of bringing the Chinas and Indias into the fold of commitments, hard commitments, if Canada is unwilling to do it first?

[John Drexhage]

If Canada specifically isn't willing to do it first, it wouldn't help the chances, that's for sure.

But I think the bigger question, to be absolutely honest, if we're going to deal with the global real world of realpolitik is whether the United States is going to be willing to take the lead and whether Canada will be a part of that, in consenting to do it, or not.

To be absolutely blunt about this, if at the end of the day Canada says, we're uncomfortable taking the lead without developing countries doing so, but the United States says it is, what is essentially going to happen is they're going to go ahead with it and say to Canada: you made that decision; you're outside of this process.

Canada, as part of the North American contribution to this, can play a critical role. I think it really needs to be accentuated, because it has to be much clearer about how it's planning to take that lead, how this 20% is going to be achieved. That all needs to be much further elaborated for them to have any kind of credibility.

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

I have a question for Ms. Hayes, and I want to get over to Ms. Donnelly in a second.

I'm a little confused as to why the folks within your organization and your group are raising their own money and spending their own time to go to something like this. I don't think it's generally put forward as a great time for most folks your age.

And—this is a comment to the committee members—I can't recall having somebody of your age present to committee before, in the three years I've been here. There's some absence of that, in terms of the general Canadian population that Parliament actually hears from; we don't hear from your generation.

I'm wondering why bother, and why bother now with such significant numbers?

[Barbara Hayes]

The reason we're bothering now, in specific terms, is due to a lot of the things that have already been addressed. Now is the time; we need a strong negotiating mandate to go forward if we're going to have a continued process past 2012.

Why the youth specifically are going is that we really feel that Canada needs to step it up. We need to have alternative voices there representing Canada and also bringing information back to the rest of the country about what's happening over there.

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

But we have a process, and that process selected a government, and the government goes out and represents the country. Why not just be satisfied with that?

[Barbara Hayes]

At this point we don't feel they're representing us, or most of the people I know, or the people in the 20 communities who are mobilizing for the International Day of Climate Action, who feel that Canada is really not living up to its commitments and is not taking leadership on this issue, and that it is a necessary issue on which to commit to strong targets—and we're not doing it.

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

Thank you.

This is a question for Ms. Donnelly. The government rolled out its plan some months ago. It's been unsupported by any major environmental group or group dealing with this issue that I've been able to find so far.

We haven't found any regulations that have gone out that have specifically applied or that have affected....

Do you represent some energy companies, some oil and gas companies?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

Yes, and I'm aware of, but not directly involved in, very detailed discussions that are going on between Environment Canada and industry.

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

But have any of your companies seen any regulations? Have we seen anything on the ground? Have businesses been affected? Can you point to an instance where, because of what the government has done, the people you represent have been affected one way or another?