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.
12:35 p.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
It's a public document.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Your time has expired, Mr. McGuinty. We're going to move on.
Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plaît.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to come back to my colleague's question about provincial representation on the Canadian delegation.
Mr. Martin, you have stated quite clearly—and the minister reminded us of this—that Canada speaks with one voice. In the past, has a prime minister, or a provincial premier, notably Mr. Thomas Mulcair, ever addressed the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?
12:35 p.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
Monsieur Bigras, I am aware that you have actually been to every Conference of the Parties, so I would have to defer to your knowledge on what has happened at every Conference of the Parties over the last few years. I have only been to one Conference of the Parties, which was at Poznan. At that time, the Minister of the Environment for Quebec made a statement on behalf of subnational governments to the high-level segment. But I don't know the details of what might have happened in the past.
In these negotiations the Government of Canada, as the state party to the framework convention, speaks on behalf of Canada.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I seem to recall, Mr. Chair, a province addressing a gathering of the Conference of the Parties. A precedent has been set and a minister should not be prevented from addressing the Conference of the Parties, instead of simply being relegated to the role of observer, all the more so given that Quebec has adopted one of the most ambitious stands of all on climate change.
I'd like to get back to the subject of BillC-311. You say that if Canada were to adopt this legislation, it would likely be one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation ever developed by an industrialized country. That's what you appear to be telling us. The bill may be ambitious, but do you also think it is unrealistic?
12:35 p.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
I think it falls to governments to decide, ultimately, what is realistic. What I can do and what officials can do, I think, is help suggest policy options to achieve different goals and raise considerations. I think it falls to governments to determine, ultimately, what the appropriate goals are that need to be met.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
You always refer to a continental policy and give the United States as an example. To my way of thinking, the United States have a regime in place that often allows them to negotiate agreements with the different states.
Does the regime that you intend to put forward in the coming weeks on the eve of the Copenhagen Conference take into account the fact that bilateral agreements may be concluded with provinces that pledge to uphold Canada's international commitments? Will some provision be made for flexibility, asymmetry and bilateral relations mechanisms, or will Canada put forward a coast to coast plan setting out different national global targets for different sectors? Will there be the kind of flexibility that we see in BillC-311 that will allow provinces to conclude a bilateral agreement? When the Liberals were in power and Stéphane Dion was Minister of the Environment, the federal government had the option of concluding a bilateral agreement with Quebec. Discussions had taken place between the then federal and provincial ministers of the environment. Will the proposed regime give Quebec the flexibility to conclude a bilateral agreement on greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
Under the Canada Environmental Protection Act, there is a provision that provides for the federal government to enter into an equivalency agreement with a province. If the province is implementing measures that are at least as stringent as the federal government's, then the federal government will stand down. That provision exists within the act.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
The legislation makes provision for that, but it does not carry the same weight as an agreement between a province and the central government. That is my question to you.
I know the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides for equivalent agreements, but I'm talking about a European model where a State or nation can sign agreements and commit to upholding them taking into account national circumstances. In the case of the Quebec nation, it would be a matter of taking into account our different economic structure, our different position on energy matters and our different democracy.
Will provinces have the flexibility to sign bilateral agreements with the central government? Basically, this would be similar to the triptych approach adopted within the European Union.
12:40 p.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
Europe's situation is a bit different from Canada's. But in Europe you have a wide range of differences in the level of emission reductions that countries are undertaking. As I understand it, under the European Union emissions trading system, the post-2012 regime will be a single regime, and there will simply be an allocation centrally. Therefore, individual country targets under the emissions trading system will arise from the obligations of the regulated facilities.
There are other areas of policy in Europe that relate to energy efficiency goals that may be national. I don't know if there is a similar arrangement that could take place here. I think the critical issue is going to be whether we have effective collaborative action sufficient to achieve our goals and to place us on a pathway towards very deep emission reductions.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Martin, it's interesting to see the document that is guiding your negotiations. I have to say that I am left extremely confused. Your document states that the position of Canada at the negotiation table is that the federal government is pursuing clean electricity as part of its strategy. It says that this will be done by switching away from coal and expanding the use of nuclear and renewable power, and that the government is providing significant incentives to increase Canada's supply of clean electricity from renewable sources.
It then mentions that carbon capture and storage is an initiative into which the department is putting a lot of money, a lot of taxpayers' money. Turning the Corner, which is supposedly Canada's greenhouse gas strategy, last fall's throne speech, and this year's budget all state that the Government of Canada is going to achieve “cleaner electricity through nuclear, coal”. Nowhere in any of these three documents are the words “renewable energy” mentioned. There has been a commitment of many hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer dollars to the development of carbon sequestration. As far as I'm aware—and I can be corrected—the government has yet to commit any money for the renewable sector, and the money being spent now is still 2008 money.
I'm doubly confused to see that carbon capture and storage is now admitted by the government and industry to be for cleaning greenhouse gases from coal-fired power. Supposedly, the strategy of the federal government is to switch away from coal, yet we're investing hundreds of millions of dollars in CCS, and the Government of Canada is on record saying that they are dedicated to the expansion of coal-fired power, including for export. How do these things fit together?
12:45 p.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
I'll ask Carol Buckley to comment on the incentive program the federal government has in place for renewable power. Generally, I'm not aware of any particular commitment to expand the growth of coal-fired power. I'm honestly not aware of that.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
12:45 p.m.
Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment
I'll let Carol speak to the renewable power incentive program.
12:45 p.m.
Carol Buckley Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
You're clearly aware, given your reference to the 2008 money for renewable energy, that the government announced a series of energy programs, including renewable energy programs, which began in 2007. With respect to renewable power, there was a $1.48 billion investment in renewable power. We are into the third year of the four-year mandate of that program. It is very popular, it's very well known, and it has been discussed in many places. The demand for that program exceeds the supply of money. The government has committed about 80% of that $1.48 billion. More than 80 projects have been started to put renewable energy in place. So the program is well on track to displace 4,000 megawatts of carbon-based electricity with clean renewable sources.
That said, the government is currently taking advice in terms of what the next step is in supporting more renewable energy in the power mix in Canada. That program still has a year and a half to run, even though the demand is already greater than the supply of funds. My colleagues are consulting with officials from industry, environmental groups, provinces, and academia on what our next step to support renewable power should be. In fact, Minister Raitt is holding a national round table on this subject in November to get good long-term strategic advice on what our next steps should be.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
If I'm correct in understanding, the budget was passed in May or June, and no new moneys have been dedicated or announced yet, despite the fact that the renewable power program was oversubscribed. No new moneys have yet been declared and issued for renewable power, despite the fact that it is stated in here that “Governments of Canada are providing significant incentives to increase Canada's supply of clean electricity from renewable sources”.
12:45 p.m.
Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
No, that's not quite true. The budget 2009 investment in the clean energy fund, while it does have significant support for carbon capture and storage, also supports eight other priority areas for clean energy, including renewable technologies. So there will be investments made.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
12:45 p.m.
Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
They have not yet been made.
12:45 p.m.
Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources
Money has been earmarked and provided for in the clean energy fund to support renewable energy.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Your time has expired.
Mr. Warawa, you can finish this off for us. You have five minutes.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I find it interesting that all the questions, even from the NDP, had nothing to do with Bill C-311. It was all about Copenhagen. It's also ironic that the NDP voted against the budget and the commitment of millions of dollars for clean energy. They voted against that.
The focus is on Copenhagen. There's great interest in that. We heard on Tuesday, as I said before, from the scientists on the importance of having a North American approach. The target we take to Copenhagen is a North American target of a 20% reduction by 2020. We heard from scientists that it's good to have a coordinated approach.
You talked at length about comparable efforts from other countries. The North American commitment of a 20% reduction is comparable globally as we globally tackle the issue of climate change. What are Canada's key priorities as we go into Copenhagen? What is the approach of the major emitters, such as China, India, and other developing countries, towards these negotiations?
It's critical that we have all the players participating. As you highlighted, one of the weaknesses in Kyoto was that we did not have the major emitters participating. To have a successful, effective agreement you have to have the major emitters. What are our key priorities, and what's the approach of China, India, and other developing countries?