Evidence of meeting #124 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was countries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Climate Change International and Chief Negotiator for Climate Change, Department of the Environment
Absolutely. They co-host this ministerial on climate action with us, as an example.
Director General, Bilateral Affairs and Trade Directorate, Department of the Environment
I was going to add that China is planning and developing their own emission trading scheme as we speak, so they're certainly seized.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
You talked about another collaboration among Canada, Mexico and interested states or like-minded states. I'm interested in what those states are, and was there a drive for the entire group of the United States to participate in that?
Director General, Climate Change International and Chief Negotiator for Climate Change, Department of the Environment
We are wondering about a couple things. In Isabelle's introductory remarks she mentioned the North American leaders' dialogue, and we can get you the names.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
You mentioned Mexico and you mentioned Canada and you said “like-minded or interested states”.
Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, Department of the Environment
There are 16 states, but I don't know the list.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
That's good to know.
Was there a drive or was there any pressure from the other countries to try to get either more of the states or the entire country as a partner?
Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, Department of the Environment
It was meant from the beginning to be trilateral: Canada, Mexico and the United States, and then—
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Did the trilateral aspect fall apart and then some states came in and said they'd be part of it or did it—
Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, Department of the Environment
No, it started at COP23 with...
Director General, Climate Change International and Chief Negotiator for Climate Change, Department of the Environment
Governor Brown.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I'm happy to share the remaining two and a half minutes with my pal Joe.
Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.
Mr. Fisher, thank you.
Mr. Chair, someone mentioned the North American dialogue earlier. Can you elaborate on that and how it ties in with the pan-Canadian framework? Can you also comment on the changing political dynamics, with Conservative politicians like Premier Ford denying the need for a price on pollution and with a conservative approach in the United States with the new administration under President Trump?
Those are two things. Can you explain a little about the process and then talk about how our position changes with the changing positions in other governments within the dialogue?
October 16th, 2018 / 4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, Department of the Environment
You want to speak to the dialogue a little? I did mention the dialogue and I said 16 states, but it's 17, now that I'm looking at my notes.
Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, Department of the Environment
It's increasing by the minute.
This, as I said, was launched at COP23 in Bonn, and I mentioned that it started with Governor Brown. It's very much focused on clean transportation, vehicle efficiency, clean technology and carbon pricing initiatives.
The idea was very much to bring together those who are interested in pursuing meeting the Paris targets and have a conversation about those issues. That's how it started.
In San Francisco it did get lots of interest. There were further discussions on this.
Maybe, Lucie, you can add a bit more on that.
Director General, Bilateral Affairs and Trade Directorate, Department of the Environment
I would simply add—to talk about the elephant in the room—that this is largely driven by the U.S.'s announcement to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. There are multiple states out there that are willing and able and that are showing a lot of leadership. Now it's Canada, Mexico and these 17 states, and we add a few every other month or so. It's a growing coalition. We partner together to make sure that we advance climate in North America.
Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, Department of the Environment
Earlier in my remarks I talked about powering past coal. Again, we have this alliance that brings together a number of countries and municipalities as well as states.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
For the last five minutes with this panel, we'll go to Mr. Stetski.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Thank you.
I hope I'm not misrepresenting any of my colleagues around the table in terms of their interest in reaching these climate targets and the concern about not reaching them, but earlier on, Mr. Jones, you talked about some of the countries around the world that are actually moving forward very well at meeting these targets. You talked about the suite of different initiatives, such as the policy initiatives, etc., that are required and that are all put together to potentially reach the targets. You also said that the countries that have the price on pollution were doing better than many of the other countries.
Could you elaborate a bit on that? How important is having a price on pollution in meeting reduction targets?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment
I mean, every country is unique, so different countries have different distributions of emissions in terms of where their emissions come from—some very focused on electricity, others more on transportation, others more on industrial, and so on. As a broad principle, however, because pricing of pollution is a very efficient tool that allows you to achieve emission reductions across the country, across the economy, generally speaking it's difficult to envision a comprehensive approach to reducing emissions that doesn't include it. The European Union is a good example. They have a system they put in place many years ago. That system applies more to their heavy emitters, but it's allowed for efficient emission reductions and continued reductions over time.
Our approach has generally been that you do not want to shock the system. You want to move gradually. You want to avoid a situation where you go too fast and have unintended consequences. That's why it has been beneficial to set a number, set a target, and lay out a schedule for the price. The Europeans have ratcheted down their cap very steadily over the years for quite a prolonged period without economic consequences.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
From your observations, there's a direct relationship between having a price on pollution and meeting the targets to reduce.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment
Yes, absolutely. The European countries I think have universally met their Kyoto targets and other targets in the past, and have had trading as a key tool to get them there. That's one example, but there are others.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Just to be fair to my colleagues here, are you aware of any countries meeting their targets that don't have a price on pollution?