Environment Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Michael Martin]

For the past many months, I have chaired a federal-provincial-territorial working group involving representatives of all Canadian jurisdictions, including Quebec, to inform and consult on Canada's positions in these negotiations. From my perspective, that has gone very well, and it lays the foundation for ongoing collaboration with Quebec and other provinces and territories. In Copenhagen and beyond, as we go forward, we will have provincial and territorial representatives as part of my negotiating team. We expect to have very strong representation from the provinces and territories in Copenhagen. We will work with them in a collaborative way.

The federal government supports strong, effective, ambitious action by the provinces and territories in their areas of competency and has contributed financially to achieving those goals. From my perspective, we have a very strong partnership with Quebec in these negotiations.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

So then, if I understand your answer correctly, Mr. Martin, you're saying that you will take the same approach with all of the provinces and territories, including Quebec, even though the government has recognized Quebec's special status.

[Michael Martin]

I think you may be referring to the arrangement related to UNESCO. In the terms of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Canada is the only party to the convention and it is only the Government of Canada that speaks on behalf of Canada in that body.

That said, we do have a very active consultative process with all the provinces and territories, including Quebec, as I mentioned. It is one that informs our positions and our interventions in these negotiations. The Government of Quebec has had representatives at the negotiating sessions held this year. I have worked with them very closely in formulating our approach.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

You reiterated several times in your responses that Canada has set some ambitious goals. On what do you base that contention? Do you base it on concrete facts, on science, on the inability to act, on the fact that nothing has been done to date? What reason do you have for claiming that the current objectives are ambitious?

[Michael Martin]

As I mentioned in my statement, the concept we're working with in the negotiations is comparability of efforts. So there's a discussion on how one defines comparability of efforts.

We believe that an important consideration is economic cost. There is a wide range of information that helps countries assess how implementing and achieving certain goals will impose certain costs. Those costs can be measured in different ways. It is on the basis of those assessments of cost that I believe those targets are comparable to those of others.

In terms of level of ambition and, again, based on the nature of our economy and our history, these do represent ambitious targets. But I recognize that ambition is a judgment and that there will be different views on what constitutes “ambitious” or not.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, your time is up.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Really?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you to our witnesses for appearing here.

I was going to be asking a question on comparable efforts, but I think you've handled that one quite well. I appreciate the question from my colleague Mr. Braid on the weakness with respect to Kyoto. Of course we don't want to make the same mistake of having a target that is proven unrealistic. I know there are those who will criticize us for our desire to come up with a realistic target this particular time. That's some of the discussion we're having around Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. We're asking if it's a realistic target for Canada, one that recognizes some of our unique factors. Choosing a target that is obviously unrealistic or unattainable will both discourage immediate action and could promote failure in the long run. So I think this is a very valuable discussion to have.

In that line you've talked about a pathway for Canada. What are some of the factors that influence Canada's pathway for coming up with a target that's going to be ambitious but realistic, something that we can actually envision attaining?

[Michael Martin]

In some of the analytical work.... There is actually very interesting literature around pathways. This tool is being used by developed countries and developing countries such as Mexico, which has articulated a long-term emissions reduction pathway.

I think there are a variety of very practical considerations. You have to look at the sources of emissions and you have to address each of those. To use one example, a very large percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions arises from the generation of electricity, the power sector. It's about 60% of total emissions. In many countries the most cost-effective thing you can do is to promote fuel switching in your power sector. So you switch from coal, which is broadly used globally, to either less carbon-intensive fossil fuels or, even better, to hydro, nuclear, wind, and other renewable sources of energy.

In Canada, about 75% of our electricity is produced without emitting greenhouse gases. About 60% is large hydro, about 14% comes from nuclear, and 1% is from other renewables. The government has made a policy commitment to increase that to 90% by 2020.

When you think about that in relation to a pathway, you then have to address what that means. In Canada's case that will mean the retirement of a number of coal-fired power plants, as is being planned here in Ontario, as well as identifying the other options for fuel switching, whether it is to bring new hydro online, promote the growth of renewables or other such measures, as well as demand management.

I think one of the critical issues going forward globally is to ensure that in developing countries, as they are building their energy systems to respond to growing demand from growing economies and growing populations, we do not lock in highly greenhouse-gas-intensive infrastructure, because that infrastructure would likely still be with us in 2050.

So that's one example of how thinking of pathways can help to inform policy decisions.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Very good. Then the retirement of Ontario's coal-fired plants would come as good news. Of course we've put aside $586 million from our ecoTrust for the province of Ontario for just such a priority.

Talking about other pathways, the government has said we're looking for an agreement that includes all major emitters. What are we looking for in terms of Copenhagen and this new post-Kyoto agreement with respect to major emitters? Who are they? What are we hoping to see captured with respect to major emitters--what kinds of targets and that kind of thing?

[Michael Martin]

Mitigation or emission reductions is at the very heart of these negotiations. In Copenhagen we're looking for developed countries to commit to binding economy-wide quantified emission reduction targets for 2020. We are also looking to establish targets that place us on a pathway of achieving deep aggregate reductions by 2050.

From developing countries, we are seeking actions that are listed in an agreement and that are subject to review. Clearly, to be environmentally effective, we will have to draw in the major emitters in the developing world. We will need cooperation from China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Mexico. At the same time, we are working in the agreement to undertake much broader action. There are more than 192 countries involved in these negotiations, most of them developing countries. We want to build a regime that enables broad participation and broad action from countries that are smaller but still significant. Columbia, Peru, and others will be significant.

In addition, significant action on forests could be a very important outcome of these negotiations, and on this matter you might also have to address some countries that are not as far along in their development.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

As chief negotiator, Mr. Martin, for the Canadian government at Copenhagen, are you hopeful we are going to reach a deal there?

[Michael Martin]

In my experience, it's always good to be optimistic in negotiations. We have a powerful interest in achieving an ambitious and comprehensive outcome in Copenhagen. We have a strong interest in achieving effective global action that addresses this problem. I am optimistic, based on the tone in the negotiations, that we can address some of the major questions. Whether the dynamics of what is ultimately a completely multilateral process will enable us to get there, I can't say. I am optimistic, however, that we can achieve a significant agreement in Copenhagen.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Do you believe it helps you in your job when someone such as the Canadian environment minister, in a speech yesterday to Microsoft, said that he felt we were probably not going to reach a deal in Copenhagen?

[Michael Martin]

We have to be precise in what we think constitutes a deal, and this is being discussed. There will be a lot of discussion about that. It does not seem that we will have a treaty to be signed, a legal text, but we are continuing to work hard in the hopes of achieving a broad agreement on the key elements. Those are my instructions.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

One of the issues you brought forward was the conditional nature of some of the other countries' targets. You mentioned something along the lines of a 30% reduction from 1990 levels for the European Union by 2020. This is extremely ambitious and dependent on other countries' participation. Canada's position is to reduce emission levels by 3% from 1990 levels. According to Dr. Stone, whom we heard from on Tuesday, the 2006 benchmark would actually have us going over 1990 levels by 2% or 3%. We seem to be quibbling over hairs.

Do you think it's not countries like Canada, which is refusing to set ambitious science-based targets, that are interfering with the progress the whole world is trying to make? If we're putting forward conditional but very ambitious targets, should we not also be participating in that and trying to be a world leader instead of a cautious laggard?

[Michael Martin]

I honestly think that our 2020 goal, when translated, is comparable to that being proposed by others. Of course, it's a negotiation. There is a political debate around level of ambition. I understand all of that. I think the important thing to think about is how we at Copenhagen can reach an understanding, an agreement on elements, that is actually going to change the global trajectory of emissions from growth to one of decline and put us on a path to achieving a low-carbon global economy. Canada's proposed actions, I think, are an important contribution to that. I think they're comparable, as I said, with what other developed countries are doing and they're also consistent and aligned with those being proposed by the United States.

You're correct, sir. There is a debate around this issue, and it's part of the negotiations.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

In preparing for Canada's position on Copenhagen, because of various levels of inaction by different federal governments over the years, many provinces and municipalities have chosen to go at it alone. What kind of agreements has the federal government got with provinces on combining our negotiation positions at Copenhagen?

[Michael Martin]

As I mentioned, it's the Government of Canada that is at the table and speaks for Canada in these negotiations. As I mentioned, we also have a very meaningful process of consultation under way with the provinces and territories. There is a working group that I lead. Mr. Prentice has also visited every provincial and territorial capital in the last two months and met with every premier to discuss how we're proceeding on climate change and at Copenhagen. It is important that we work collaboratively with all levels of government in order to achieve the goals we have set out, and that is what we're seeking to do.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

What are the conditions we're going to be expecting in order for us to agree to a deal? What are we expecting from countries such as China and India? What is our initial position that you have going into it? What have we told the Chinese and the Indians, for example? Have we told them that they have to deliver to this degree if we're willing to step out and hit some targets of our own?

[Michael Martin]

Our 2020 target is not conditional on an outcome in Copenhagen, but what we're looking for in terms of a global agreement is actions by developing countries that would lead to a significant deviation from business-as-usual emissions growth. That doesn't mean that developing countries would assume absolute emission reduction targets similar to those of developed countries, but rather that they would take a series of actions, and those actions would be expressed ex ante in an agreement, listed, and would be subject to some form of review going forward to help aid and ensure their effective implementation and also, importantly, to improve the quality of information we have available to inform policy-making. Currently, as you may know, only developed countries produce regular emissions inventories; developing countries do not. That means that most of what we're working with are broad estimations of emissions. We need to better understand what global emission trends are and how the various policy measures that have been in place are having an impact on changing those trends.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Goldring, the floor is yours.