Environment Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay, that's good.

Let me ask you this, in another vein—and I'm not asking you to comment on specifics, but I'd like to get your reaction as Canada's chief negotiator. Recently in the Calgary Herald editorial meeting, our minister, your minister, stated the following for Copenhagen: “it's more likely we'll be working toward some agreed principles. There's probably too much work to be done in the time left to achieve that”, meaning--and here's the quote--“that it's hard to see a full and complete agreement being arrived at” in Copenhagen.

As chief negotiator for this G20 country, how is it possible for you to go forward and negotiate a successful agreement when our minister—your minister and my minister—is saying to the world that there will be no agreement?

[Michael Martin]

The general sense in the negotiations—and this was reiterated yesterday by the executive secretary of the secretariat, Yvo de Boer—is that it does not seem likely that we will have a treaty to sign in Copenhagen, but rather that we are more likely to have an agreement that draws out the key essentials of agreement, which could then be potentially cast into a treaty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So we hope to get an agreement to have an agreement.

[Michael Martin]

No, I think we hope to have a political agreement on the most challenging questions that can then be successfully translated into legal text. And that, I think, is essentially where we are at in the negotiations.

I don't think that's a uniquely Canadian view. I think it has been expressed by a number of countries.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

President Obama is pursuing aggressive alternative bilateral agreements with China and India. What are we doing?

[Michael Martin]

We have ongoing dialogues with those countries. I don't know the full details of what the United States has done with its other partners. We also have an important bilateral ongoing discussion on climate change and clean energy with the United States. All these actions contribute to global momentum, global action. Global action is, of course, what we're seeking to drive, so it's a welcome thing. China and India yesterday signed a new MOU, which you may have seen.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So when our minister—your minister and my minister—says, in New York city, that the Chinese government's first and tenuous and unprecedented steps towards taking on even intensity targets are not good enough, does that strengthen your hand as a negotiator?

[Michael Martin]

There's an important discussion going on in the negotiations about developing country action. The fact is that 97% of future growth in global emissions will come from developing countries. So we cannot have a successful global climate change regime without the broad participation of developing countries. The debate that's going on is about how those commitments will be expressed. Will they bound or not in an agreement? How will they be measured, reported, and verified? I think that speaks to some of the debate that's continuing.

The minister and I were in London on the weekend at the most recent meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, where this continued to be discussed. I think our general sense is that countries are seeking to deal with these issues constructively, but there are some significant questions that remain to be resolved, including what kinds of commitments major developing countries will assume, and under what conditions, in a new global agreement.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin and delegates, for being here today and for the important work you do on this critically important file.

I want to start with a question about the Kyoto Protocol. I want to ask if you could you describe the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol and how these flaws are shaping or influencing current international negotiations? In other words, what mistakes do we not want to repeat?

[Michael Martin]

The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated to implement specific provisions of the framework convention. The framework convention has universal participation; the Kyoto Protocol has almost universal participation. The major weakness, I guess, of the Kyoto Protocol—and I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as a flaw—and why we're engaged in these negotiations now is that it currently provides emission reduction obligations on countries representing less than 30% of global emissions. Clearly we need broader action if we're going to achieve a peak in global emissions and then the deep reductions that will be required going forward. It is for that reason we have these broader negotiations under way to build a more environmentally effective agreement that mobilizes action broadly, brings in the United States, and also includes significant actions from major developing countries.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

The Canadian government clearly has a negotiating plan going into Copenhagen, which you're very directly involved with. We have targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, using 2006 as the base year. Would you describe those targets as ambitious?

[Michael Martin]

I would describe them as reflecting a comparable effort to those being proposed by other developed countries.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

On the whole then, regarding our targets and the others you're comparing us to, would you describe them as ambitious?

[Michael Martin]

I think, from everything I know about the challenges we face in reducing emissions, that I would describe Canada's targets as ambitious. Yes, sir.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Is one of the reasons the targets are ambitious that under the previous Liberal government, greenhouse gas emissions rose by 30%?

[Michael Martin]

I'm sure committee members have access to the data on Canada's emissions growth. I would simply refer you to those numbers, sir.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I have a specific question on Bill C-311. Does it contain an integrated North American approach, and is that important?

[Michael Martin]

I'm sorry, sir, I have read the bill, but I don't recall those specifics. I would have to refer to the bill to clarify that.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

To the last segment of my question, is an integrated North American approach to tackling climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions important for Canada, and why?

[Michael Martin]

In policy terms, even if we look at the experience in Europe, I think we've seen that countries that are economically integrated are likely to be more successful in taking coordinated and harmonized action going forward. So I certainly think that effective North American action can play a very important role in driving the change needed here.

North American leaders, at their summit this August, articulated an agenda of action for the three main countries of North America: Mexico, the United States, and Canada. We're pursuing that, and I believe it will make an important contribution to Canada's efforts going forward.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, thank you.

Monsieur Ouellet, s’il vous plaît.

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

Thank you for coming here today to discuss your role in the negotiations.

As you know, Mr. Martin, the government has recognized that Quebec is a nation. It has also given Quebec a voice at the United Nations.

Once you are there, how do you plan to negotiate with Quebec, which has been recognized as a nation and which does not have the same objectives as Canada? Since 1990, Quebec has been working to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and it would like these efforts to be acknowledged in so far as the objectives are concerned. What approach do you plan to take?