Evidence of meeting #33 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was negotiations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I have one final question for you, Mr. Martin, and then I'd like to turn to Dr. Cooper.
Would you agree that one of the key triggers for moving forward on Canadian reductions of greenhouse gases would be a regulatory trigger?
11:40 a.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
In 2006, the government actually, I think, underlined its belief that regulatory initiatives would be essential. In fact, it launched four regulatory initiatives at that time. This House has participated in bringing those forward. They included a new national renewable fuel standard, for which there was legislation, changes to the Energy Efficiency Act, and new regulations on a very wide range of commercial and consumer products. They also included, of course, the overall industrial regulatory regime and, most recently, the new vehicle tailpipe emission standards. Those are all important regulatory initiatives. And it's certainly the case, I would agree, that significant regulatory action will be required to make significant progress in reducing our greenhouse gases.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Just for clarification of the record, it's my understanding that the government has announced those, but in fact, most of those provisions are not yet in force.
I'll go to Dr. Cooper.
Dr. Cooper, in the testimony of Dr. Sauchyn, he spoke to the report he led for the Government of Canada, which I understand was led by NRCan. He raised a lot of issues, particularly in the chapter he wrote about the impact on the Prairies.
I asked him questions about a study that has come out of the University of Alberta by Dr. Justine Klaver-Kibria, who has documented a number of concerns arising about the mental health impacts of climate change and the rising rates of mental health problems, and even suicides, in the farm community.
I've heard a number of scientists raise the issue, and in fact she raises this issue, that there seems to be a disconnect in the government developing its position. There doesn't seem to be a connection between, say, health, environment, and energy departments, and so forth.
I wonder if you could speak to whether Health Canada is dedicating resources to documenting and addressing the potential health impacts of climate change.
11:45 a.m.
Dr. John Cooper Director, Water, Air and Climate Change Bureau, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before this committee.
In terms of Health Canada's work and contribution towards the climate change agenda, clearly we recognize the health impacts associated with climate change, and I would say particularly in relation to developing countries. There's a disparity, obviously, between the impacts that we will see in terms of health and climate change in Canada versus the global impacts, which will likely exacerbate existing situations.
In 2008, Health Canada released a very comprehensive report on the health impacts of climate change in Canada, approximately 484 pages, and they involved academics and experts from around the country in pulling this together. They identified a number of key health impacts, ranging from food security and drinking water security to extreme weather events to the spread of infectious diseases and, certainly in terms of the north, the health impacts that will exacerbate existing social and economic conditions.
In terms of Health Canada's work, as you understand, greenhouse gases don't have a direct health impact in their being there, so our concern is very much focused on the need to adapt and prepare for climate change that's occurring in some areas of Canada and certainly around the world.
We have invested in a number of programs that are trying to address and come up with adaptation strategies to deal with, for example, heat waves. We know that in Europe, in 2003, approximately 70,000 people died as a result of three heat waves during that summer.
We have established, over the past year and a half, a pilot project in four communities across Canada to develop heat alert and response systems that bring together all the community social services, the emergency preparedness people, and the municipal people so that we can actually deal with those kinds of health threats when and if they arise.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here. This is actually very, very interesting.
I marked down some notes from Tuesday, a summary of what we heard: that globally, greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow and that a long-term goal is essential, referring to 2050; that we need short- and medium-term targets or objectives; that we need solid science; that we need a global effort; and that we need quick action on a global scale.
We also heard, in the witnesses' closing comments, that generally they agreed with Canada's approach that we have a North American approach to setting a target to tackle climate change. They acknowledged that it would be a stronger position, as we go into the negotiations in Copenhagen in December, to take a North American approach as we are doing now with the United States, their target being very similar to ours. Ours is a 20% reduction by 2020, and those are absolute targets. The U.S. has a similar target: a 20% reduction by 2020.
In your brief you talked about pathways, so I think what you're insinuating is that each country may have unique situations, unique challenges. Is this what you're referring to when you say “pathway”? Would Canada, or even North America, have a different pathway, different challenges, different issues that they have to deal with compared to necessarily some other countries?
11:45 a.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
A pathway is a policy tool that helps you think through the choices, economic and others, that need to be made to achieve a set goal. It's generally accepted that there are likely to be different trajectories that countries will follow to achieve deep emission reductions, and those will be informed by their own circumstances. In Canada, people often talk about our cold weather, but our growing population could well be an even more significant factor. Our population has grown by 18% since 1990, and achieving our 2020 goals implies achieving a 26% reduction below 1990 levels in per capita terms.
So there is a range of considerations that will affect policy pathways. The key idea, though, is that all countries are taking action, and that they are working together to achieve a global outcome consistent with what the science tells us.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
The importance of a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is growing. That cooperation has been at the heart of Canada's position all along. We believe it is important to get China, the United States, and India participating in a new international agreement on climate change.
You said that Canada's 2020 target is not conditional. What are other countries doing? Are they attaching conditions to their targets? Can you give me some examples?
11:50 a.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
A number of countries, in announcing or suggesting their 2020 goals, have described certain conditions for those targets. For example, the European Union has articulated a 2020 goal that's in legislation. It said it would go to 30% below 1990 levels, provided that other countries achieve comparable reductions and that major developing countries also take meaningful steps. They have also attached conditions to the outcomes of the negotiations on international offsets. Japan, in announcing its target, has described similar conditions.
We should look to the representatives of these countries to describe their conditions. I think a number of people have described the conditions under which they would implement certain measures in a global agreement. Australia has also made such conditions known. Of course, if those conditions are not met, it implies that those countries would commit to achieve less.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So Canada's target of a 20% reduction by 2020 is an absolute target, without any attached conditions. Is that correct?
11:50 a.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
That's correct.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
That's substantial. You also mentioned that our targets do not assume significant purchase of international offsets. We have commitments to targets made by other international partners. Some of them seem very aggressive. If they are not going to be able to meet these targets, are they going to be buying international offsets, and will there be sufficient international offsets to purchase?
11:50 a.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
The discussion around international offsets is an important and lively one in the present global negotiations. Under the current rules, it's a legitimate policy choice for countries to look to make purchases of international offsets. In fact, under the plan announced in 2007 and the final regulatory framework in 2008, we anticipated allowing firms to purchase up to 10% of their regulatory requirement from approved CDM, clean development mechanism, projects.
The broader question going forward in the negotiations, as we look for broad global action, is the question of options for scaling up offset mechanisms. We also need to know whether countries will agree that this is going to be the most effective way of going forward. Many developing countries are increasingly raising questions about the viability of international offsets at a time when they themselves are looking to put in place measures to take action.
Clearly, whatever countries do, they have to think their way through their pathway and the policy choices that will drive the technological change needed to achieve these very deep reductions. In Canada's case, given the structure of our industry, the government has made it clear that it wishes to focus on domestic action. It wishes to drive those technological changes now, because it will only become more difficult to do so down the road. Many other countries are exploring ways in which to make significant use of international offsets. This is an important discussion in the negotiations.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
I'm going to pass to my colleague Mr. McGuinty. He knows how long-winded I am.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks.
Mr. Martin, in the interest of time, I'm just going to ask a couple of snappy questions, if I could, and hopefully I'll get some snappy answers.
How many Annex I countries have ratified the Kyoto treaty—36, 38?
11:55 a.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
There are 41 Annex I members under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. There are 37 countries and the European Community listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
How many of those countries have departed from 1990 as a baseline year?
11:55 a.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
Are you referring to new commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, post-2012? Is that what you're—
11:55 a.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
Well, a number of countries have laid out their proposals. For post-2012 in the Kyoto track of the negotiations, Canada has said it would use 2006; Australia has said it would use the year 2000; and Japan had said it would use 2005, but the new government has now said it would set a target from 1990.
