Environment Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Michael Martin]

Well, in May 2008, the Prime Minister was speaking about the estimates done under Turning the Corner, announced in 2007. In 2008 we published a detailed modelling study of the economic and emissions reduction impacts of that plan, which you may have seen back then, and it also included that $65-a-tonne figure. It was based on the compliance regime that was being envisaged at that time.

In terms of the work of the national round table, they've been doing some modelling that looks, overall, at what the economy-wide costs would be of achieving a target domestically, and then at policy design issues that might help to contain those costs, which is a very important part of any discussion. It really depends on the parameters you're using and the assumptions and policy choices you're testing in any model that will tell you what the actual carbon price might be.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, would it be possible to obtain for committee members the plan Mr. Martin referred to?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I was going to ask Mr. Martin to submit that at another meeting.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

And maybe through you, Mr. Chair, how long will it take to obtain that? If it's available today, a full climate change plan for Canada would be very helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. Martin, could we have that, sir?

[Michael Martin]

Mr. Chair, I do have what I referred to, the submission that Canada made to the UN in June. It's a public document. I have copies of that in English and French for the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, great. We'll see that it gets distributed. Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plâit.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for enlightening us about Bill C-311 and the ongoing international negotiations on climate change.

I am somewhat disappointed with your presentation and with your testimony. At best, you tend to blow hot and cold. On page 3 of your submission, you state that Canada recognizes the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed two degrees Celsius. You acknowledge that fact. That is the positive side.

On the negative side, you refuse to commit to reducing emissions to a level that is at least 25% below the 1990 level by the year 2020, despite the scientific evidence. You acknowledge the scientific evidence, but you are only prepared to reduce emissions to a level that is 3% below 1990 levels.

How can Canada's position be so diametrically opposed to that of the scientific community? How is it that you recognize the existence of scientific evidence, but that you refuse to make any real commitments?

[Michael Martin]

Well, I'm not a scientist, but we are informed fundamentally in the negotiations by the work of the IPCC, and that, I think, is broadly reflected in governments' broad recognition that holding temperature increases to below 2 degrees is consistent with avoiding dangerous climate change.

The question of the contribution of every country to achieving that global goal is indeed the issue we are negotiating; that is, how will we all share the burden of achieving the very deep reductions that will be required to achieve that goal? And it is recognized in the negotiations that countries will make contributions based on a variety of circumstances: where they began their industrial structure, their population growth, and others, including the tools they may have to use. So I don't think there's an inconsistency in that regard. But clearly there is a debate in the negotiations among all countries of what our respective shares of that burden should be in terms of emission reductions, in terms of financial contribution, and in terms of technological innovation.

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

I understand what you are saying, Mr. Martin, but it is as if a patient went to a doctor, was diagnosed with cancer and refused to receive treatment for the disease. You are more or less in the same situation. Your answer has confirmed what I was thinking. Within the framework of the negotiations, you can choose either to consider the scientific evidence or to do exactly what you have just described, namely, take into consideration the national situation. Is that in fact what you're telling us?

[Michael Martin]

No, what I'm saying is that the global community is informed by the science. The actions we're taking in the negotiations are fundamentally founded on that. I think the area of debate and what we are negotiating relate to what we are going to do collectively. The science can only tell us what we need to achieve globally; it cannot tell us what individual countries or groups of countries must do.

There are other considerations—equity considerations, for example—that inform the fact that developed countries have to lead in this process. There's a debate around the historical emissions and how these accumulated emissions inform temperature increases today. But I don't think there's an inconsistency, though I think you've put your finger on what we are negotiating, which is the burden sharing.

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

Can you tell me whether or not Canada has met to date all of its financial obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, specifically with regard to the clean development mechanism?

[Michael Martin]

Yes, it has.

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

In terms of setting a future plan to combat climate change, could a variable geometry and variable speed plan work in Canada? In other words, could one emissions target level be set for one industry—in this case the oil industry, a national concern— and another for other sectors of the Canadian economy?

[Michael Martin]

The policy commitment is to achieve an absolute reduction in emissions by 2020. In absolute terms, our emissions in 2006 were 718 million tonnes. That would mean, in 2020, our annual emissions would be 575 million tonnes.

On the specifics of the industrial regulatory regime, I think Mr. Prentice spoke about that recently in the House in terms that ongoing work. I wouldn't wish to comment further on what he has said.

The overall policy requirement to fulfill the commitment is to have in place policies and measures that achieve an absolute emissions reduction. The choices to be made on that, of course, are still under discussion as it relates to the industrial regulatory regime.

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

As I understand it then, it is possible that different targets will be set for different sectors of the Canadian economy. Is that what you're telling us?

[Michael Martin]

As I said, I think the government is reviewing the industrial regulatory regime. They have not reached final decisions on that. I believe Mr. Prentice took questions in the House on this very subject the other day, and I would refer you to his responses.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. The time has expired.

Madam Duncan, the floor is yours.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is nice to see you again, Mr. Martin. I don't think I've seen you since Poznan.

Dr. Cooper, it's great to see you back with us again. I appreciate your testimony on tar sands and water. Welcome back.

Welcome, Dr. Buckley.

My first couple of questions are for you, Mr. Martin.

You have clearly read Bill C-311. You reiterated a couple of sections. In developing your negotiation position and your position at the table, are you also endorsing the preamble of Bill C-311? It states:

climate change poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources and environment of Canada; the impacts of climate change are already unfolding in Canada, particularly in the Arctic; scientific research on the impacts of climate change has led to broad agreement that an increase in the global average surface temperature of two degrees Celsius or more above the level prevailing at the start of the industrial period would constitute dangerous climate change; and scientific research has also identified the atmospheric concentration levels at which greenhouse gases must be stabilized in order to stay within two degrees of global warming and thereby prevent dangerous climate change;

In the negotiation position of Canada, do you accept what is stated in the preamble of Bill C-311?

[Michael Martin]

As I described, I think that's consistent with what G8 leaders agreed to in July.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

We had testimony earlier this week, on Tuesday, from some of the lead climate scientists of Canada—Dr. Stone, Dr. Sauchyn, Dr. Fortier—and all those scientists called on the government to pass Bill C-311, and pass it expeditiously before Copenhagen, because they felt that it would be very instrumental in helping to move along the negotiations at Copenhagen and that it would improve the credibility of Canadian scientists.

How much are you relying on the opinion of Canadian climate scientists in forming the government position at this table?

[Michael Martin]

As I mentioned, the government's views and its policies on climate change are informed by the work of the IPCC and the fourth assessment report. We fully accepted and supported the findings of the fourth assessment report, and that informs our policies and our work.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I guess you leave me a little bit puzzled, Mr. Martin, because you said that the government recognizes what is stated in the preamble to Bill C-311. And it recognizes the work of the renowned scientists of the IPCC, for which many Canadian scientists also received that Nobel Prize, who continue to work, including the scientists from Environment Canada who appeared at the committee.

What puzzles me is that many of the nations of the world are stepping up to the plate and committing to the IPCC targets and are committing beyond, in fact. It appears, contrary to what you've testified here, that we seem to be in keeping with our other trading partners, such as the European Commission and Japan. Yet the European Commission has said that if we will commit to meeting these targets, they'll step up to the plate and even go to 30%.

How do we reconcile the difference between your testimony that we are in parallel with other developed countries and the fact that they seem to be committing to the IPCC recommended targets when we are not?

[Michael Martin]

The IPCC, to my knowledge, has not made recommendations on targets. I don't believe that this is correct. What you, I think, are referring to is what we called in the negotiations the “Bali box”. This is table 13.7 in the fourth assessment report. The Bali box described the review of the literature, and it provided scenarios around which developed countries and developing countries would act.

The lead author of that, Dr. Dennis Tirpak, made a presentation at the second Bonn negotiations on that issue. He just tried to clarify exactly what they were saying. I have a copy of his presentation here, which I'm happy to share with the committee. I'm sorry, it's only in English, because it's not a Government of Canada document. It was prepared by Dr. Tirpak. He simply says, “The ‘25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020’ is not an IPCC conclusion or recommendation. It’s a summary of the findings of papers in the literature”.

The reality is that I don't think we can ask scientists to do our job, just as negotiators can't do your job as political leaders. Science can inform the decision-making. It falls to governments to decide what they will do and how they will do it, and that's very much the substance of the negotiations.