Evidence of meeting #128 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 tax.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
You're out of time.
Our final questions go to Mr. Choquette, who has three minutes. That should take us right to the bells.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Three minutes, I don't have a lot of time but I just want to come back
to trade agreements. As you said at the beginning of the presentation, these agreements often include environmental side agreements. According to some criticisms, this wouldn't carry the same weight as it would if the environmental provisions were included in the agreements.
What do you think about this? Do you have any comments regarding the environmental side agreements?
5:10 p.m.
Deputy Director, International Environmental Law, Centre for International Governance Innovation
I think it's more the content that matters rather than where they're placed. As a matter of fact, when the agreements were brought into the trade agreements, the scope of the obligations was narrowed. When they were inside agreements, there was an obligation to seek to have high standards generally, but when you bring it into the trade agreements, you're talking about a failure not to enforce your environmental laws and so on as they affect trade. In fact, it's put in a trade perspective and is less broad than it would have been otherwise.
The thing about the agreements of the environmental provisions, which are found in chapters now, is that they are getting broader and more substantive. I think the more important question is whether we need dispute resolution on them to make parties take them more seriously. That's where I would see future work on the environmental chapters. Plus, we could have innovative provisions added that deal with co-operation on clean tech and that deal with increasing trade in environmental goods and services. There's more work that could be done there, and I think it would be worthwhile, although I think where it is matters less.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
I also want to ask you a question about Canada's commitment to international aid for the fight against climate change. At this time, its commitment up to 2020 stands at approximately $2.65 billion. A number of experts state that this contribution should be proportional to the GDP and should be close to $4 billion.
What are your comments on the matter? Mr. Drexhage, do you want to answer the question?
5:10 p.m.
Consultant, Drexhage Consulting, As an Individual
I believe you're referring to the deal that developed countries reached in providing developing countries.... I would say that, as is the case overall—and I'm just making a personal reflection here—I think it's made it more difficult for the Prime Minister to make the case for Canada to be represented on the Security Council, because their competitor is Norway.
Norway's ODA percentage on climate and overall development aid is 3.5%. It's astonishing. Ours is under 1%, and that is a real credibility gap. While Canada has made its contributions and has followed up and implemented those, I think there's room for a lot more to be provided, no question about that.
5:10 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
All right. We're out of time. That takes us through the full round of questions.
I'd like to thank our witnesses today. You've seen some interesting dialogue and procedural things that we don't always get to. Thank you for your patience as we worked through all of that.
Given that we're expecting the bells any moment, instead of dealing with anything else, we'll adjourn and head back to the House. On Thursday we currently have three witnesses confirmed and we are hoping for a fourth. I'm looking forward to some more good discussion on international leadership on Thursday.
Thanks, everybody. This meeting is adjourned.