MINISTER PRENTICE HIGHLIGHTS
PROGRESS MADE AT POLAR BEAR ROUNDTABLE

WINNIPEG, M.B -- January 16, 2009 -- Canada's Environment Minister, the Honourable Jim Prentice, today issued the following statement at the conclusion of the Polar Bear Roundtable in Winnipeg:

"I am pleased with the progress we made today. It was a very constructive and positive dialogue with representatives from the territories and provinces, the wildlife management boards, Inuit and First Nations representatives, scientists and others. We all have a vested interest to protect polar bear, and these discussions gave us a great opportunity to work together to make that happen.

"There were many different views expressed today and I am confident that there is a broader understanding of the polar bear situation in Canada. This meeting was an important first step towards achieving a path forward for the protection of polar bears.

"The wealth of knowledge and advice shared during the roundtable will help define what we need to do to protect this majestic animal. It will assist me in making recommendations to our government and it will inform other decisions related to the conservation and management of the polar bear."

A key outcome was the strong commitment to integrate Inuit traditional knowledge and science to build a better understanding about the changing environment and polar bear.

The purpose of the Polar Bear Roundtable was to increase awareness of the many conservation actions underway by various parties, to hear views regarding priority areas for action from a broad cross-section of knowledgeable opinion leaders and to set the scene for consultations related to listing the polar bear under the federal Species at Risk Act.
Fréderic Baril
Press Secretary
Office of the Minister of the Environment

+ More

Notes for an address by
The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of the Environment
to the
Canadian Council of Chief Executives
January 20, 2009
Thank you very much, Annette, for that kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. It's a pleasure always to be here in Toronto. Annette referred to my father. I should say my daughter actually now goes to law school here so that's an added benefit of coming to Toronto. But my father did play briefly for the Toronto Maple Leafs. He liked to say he was there for a cup of coffee. He had a good sense of humour about it. He also insisted that he stepped on Babe Pratt's toe in the dressing room with his skates on and that put Babe Pratt out for about a month and sent dad down to the minors permanently. So there's a lesson in that.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be here. There are many, many good friends in the room and it's wonderful to have a chance to be here with you. I will be here for the course of the entire morning so we'll have a chance to talk.

The comments that I'm going to make really build upon I think the excellent work of the Council of Chief Executives, Tom, and some of the very fine work that's been done and so I think you'll find it quite fascinating.

So today is of course the day of the inauguration and January of 2009 is a time I think of hope and change as Barack Obama takes the oath of office. It's I think for all of us a time to turn the page, to start anew and to look forward with anticipation and I think we all marvel at the sense of renewal and excitement that we are seeing in the great democracy to the south.

But this month is also a time when I think on occasion I think we should look back for inspiration, look back in time. Occasions like celebrating the centennial of the Boundary Waters Treaty-the January 1909 treaty-the agreement that established the International Joint Commission that to this very day, to this very day oversees the rivers and lakes that bisect and define the Canada-U.S. border.

And in the century since 1909, the two North American neighbours have partnered in all manners of activity whether you're speaking of NORAD and NAFTA or the Binational North American Electricity Reliability Council, to the Air Quality Agreement that we sometimes describe as the Acid Rain Accord. And so the subject matter of these various agreements have always been different but the underlying principle has always been the same. The simple truth is that advancing our respective national interests is invariably best accomplished through binational cooperation.

And, as we all know, Mr. Obama will take the office of today with his country facing multiple and daunting challenges both at home and abroad. And amongst these many challenges is the one that preoccupies me as your Minister of Environment with also responsibilities for northern pipelines and that is the intertwined challenge of maintaining environmental integrity while enhancing our North American energy security.

In 2009, the Government of Canada has resolved:

firstly, to make our national environmental policies positive instruments of economic renewal and of national development during this period of economic uncertainty;
secondly, to help achieve an effective-and I emphasize the word effective-multilateral climate change agreement for the years ahead; and
thirdly, to engage the United States of America in pursuing a coordinated approach to the energy and environmental challenges that we both face. And to make the case that the two countries should work together to bring new energy and economic renewal to North America by taking actions that not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also that produce a larger and cleaner supply of both fuel and of power.
Now achieving these objectives in I guess what I would describe as a nonlinear world is not going to be easy. We will need to make progress really on three concurrent tracks with different timetables, different actors and different interests. Nevertheless, let me speak to each one of these objectives in order starting with progress right here at home.

In 2007, after a decade of inaction following the signing of the Kyoto Accord, the Government of Canada introduced a comprehensive Climate Change Policy, a strategy that was entitled "Turning the Corner". Now in that strategy we set a target to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada in 2020 by 20 percent from a 2006 starting point, the so-called minus 20 by 2020 approach.

Now we see this, we have always seen this as an ambitious but also an achievable target, a promise really to the global community that we think Canada will be able to keep, a commitment that in fact requires of Canadians, requires of us as Canadians a greater effort going forward than the one that has been proposed by the so-called EU-27, more so than anything that has been proposed by anyone in the U.S. Senate and in fact a greater effort than has been proposed to this point by President-elect Obama himself.

Those who desire deeper and faster greenhouse gas emission reductions, at any and all cost, criticized our target and our decision to commence our regulatory regime with an intensity-based performance standard, rather than a so-called hard cap and trade regime. I emphasize commence because it has been our stated intent, from the outset, to eventually move to a hard cap and trade regime as we gained more experience, and in light of international developments.

And so it has always been our intention to evolve from intensity-based targets to a cap and trade system and this is stated in the 2007 policy itself.

Now why did we as Canadians choose to start with an intensity-based system? Among the many reasons, let me just list two for you today. We wanted firstly to encourage investment and innovation and we did not want, we did not want to reward firms for moving operations to jurisdictions who still did not have climate change regulation and that included China, Mexico, and the United States. For unlike a so-called hard cap system, an intensity-based system rewards only improvements in efficiencies. It does not provide any credit for reduced emissions which are caused solely by reduction in production levels.

And so the federal regulations for major industrial emitters of greenhouse gases that were first conceived in 2007 are scheduled to come into effect in January next, January of 2010. And the proposed targets for the periods from 2007 to 2010 are stringent and, ladies and gentlemen, they are much more stringent than is generally understood and has been portrayed in the media.

Unlike in many other systems, they are not, they are not phased in gently but they are tough even in the short term and they are particularly stringent given the dramatically different conditions and circumstances in 2009 and 2010 which you all face compared to what was envisioned back in 2007.

So amongst the unforeseen circumstances that we face today, firstly obviously Canadian industry is struggling through a period of severe financial and economic uncertainty and also fragility. That, the reduced economic activity including what has really become in effect a de facto moratorium on oil sands expansion given current market circumstances has meant a slower increase in future levels of greenhouse gas emissions relative to previous projects. And this is already evident if you look at the most recent reportings that have been filed by the Government of Canada. This trend is already quite clear.

Thirdly, in the United States under the leadership of President Obama who has spoken, I would suggest to you, with great clarity and determination about his commitment on the environmental file, the United States is re-engaging on multilateral climate change negotiations, creating the opportunity really for a North American regulatory regime and a level playing field that will alleviate past concerns about Canadian competitiveness.

Now I cannot tell you today precisely how we will proceed. I can tell you that the matter is currently under review and that we are keeping the following three ideas foremost in our minds.

Firstly, whatever we do, we will endeavour to "do no harm". Many Canadian firms in many sectors are struggling in the current market conditions and I imagine that you'll be talking about that over the next day. We want to avoid measures that would cause them to be not just down but also out.

Secondly, we will seek to ensure that federal policies are coordinated. We want federal climate change regulation to work in tandem with tax policy, with tariff policy, with technology policy and all of the other policies that promote timely domestic investment and offset weakened United States consumer demand.

And, thirdly, we will also seek coordination and harmonization between federal and provincial governments and policies. We recognize that this is no time for duelling regulatory regimes or for needless strife or for uncertainty. Rather, it is a time for all Canadian governments at all levels to be pulling together in the same direction.

Concurrent with such measured movement here at home, we hope to make progress abroad. We will be working hard, and constructively, in 2009 to negotiate an effective multilateral climate change accord for the years ahead. Key meetings will be taking place in Bonn, in early April and June, as well as at the June G-8 meeting in Italy. Finally, all roads will be leading to the Copenhagen Conference in December of 2009.

Now let me just for a moment stress the word "effective". By an effective multilateral climate change agreement we mean this. Given the projections that aging OECD countries will contain only 14 percent, 14 percent of the world's nine billion population by 2050 and that the large majority of future manmade greenhouse gas emissions will be generated in the fast-growing and increasingly-populated developing countries, basic math, basic math tells us that the international community will be unable to stabilize the level of manmade greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere by 2050 without comparable efforts from all of the developed nations and meaningful efforts as well from at least all of the major emitters and if not all of the nations in the so-called developing world. That, my friends, is the reality and in looking at international agreements they will need to be effective because they will need to deal with all major emitters, developing and developed.

Developed nations, to be sure, must be prepared to lead from the front provided that at least all of the major emitters are prepared to follow because if developing countries-if developed countries exercise leadership without developing countries exercising followership it will be nothing more or less than well-intentioned folly on our part.

And so we need to ensure comparable efforts going forward from all of the developed nations. We also need to secure meaningful participation from all of the developing world led by the Big Five, the so-called Big Five of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and our NAFTA partner Mexico. We need to focus as well on the development and the deployment of transformative clean technology and a concerted effort to produce and transmit more and cleaner base load power.

And, ladies and gentlemen, we must never lose sight of the ultimate long-term objective of this exercise: stabilizing the level of manmade greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere at non-dangerous levels not in 2020, not even in 2040 but four decades hence in 2050, recognizing always that we are running a marathon, not a sprint and we must act accordingly.

Now what I've described to you are the principles that really underlie Canada's position on the ongoing multilateral climate change discussions. And they are principles that I think could and should form the basis of one shared commitment from the Canada and the U.S. akin to the collective commitment of the European Union.

Ideally, in my view, one shared target between Canada and the United States is good for two good reasons: nature and also human nature-nature in the sense that greenhouse gases are accumulated in one common atmosphere, surely the ultimate form of transboundary pollution and of interdependence in the world today. And human nature, secondly, since keeping score on the basis of artificial national boundaries and multiple territories is bound to lead to some gaming of the system for short-term and for illusory gains. And a good example of that is we'd be shutting down coal-fired power plants in your own jurisdiction only to import coal-fired electricity from a neighbouring jurisdiction.

Now as we all know, President-elect Obama will be visiting Canada and meeting with the Prime Minister in the very near future. And, to say the least, there's lots to discuss and then later there will be much to take action on. And hopefully one of the many points of agreement for action will be commencing a cooperative, a bilateral approach to the environment and to energy in ways that spur economic recovery and renewal.

As a practical matter, there are many ways to achieve this result, if there is the political will to do so. For example, before "going bilateral", the two country representatives could first come together within a multilateral approach to Copenhagen Conference which will be held in March.

Now whichever way forward is selected, it is our view that a key objective should be a common cap and trade system that would allay competitiveness concerns in both countries. And this is particularly so if the system eventually includes Mexico. But we also believe that a cap and trade system will be insufficient alone in and of itself to get the job done. Common sense tells us that we will need some other common instruments like a shared target for low carbon power generation, a common biofuel mandate, a common fuel efficiency standard and a potentially common low carbon transportation fuel standard for all of North America, a standard that would seek to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels into the future but based on emissions measured over the complete life cycle of various fuels from the production site through to the tailpipe.

This is where we think a bilateral agreement should begin, with shared targets and shared timetables, a common carbon market and a price and standards and mandates that are based on science and upon common sense. But we submit, ladies and gentlemen, it is not where a Canada-U.S. accord should end. We think that the two countries need to go further.

We need to go beyond targets and talk in terms of concrete action plans. Actions that will reduce not just greenhouse gas emission levels but North America's dependence on foreign oil. Forty years ago, imported oil accounted for about 10 percent of the American market with Americans producing some 90 percent of their own consumption. Today, that 10/90 ratio has become 60/40 and by 2020 it will likely be at least 80/20 because at current rates of production proven U.S. oil reserves like those of Mexico are on course to be depleted just one decade from now leaving the United States in 2020 as dependent on imported oil as the nations of the EU.

As we all know, energy insecurity is the large and growing gorilla in the room. Smart grids and conservation, renewable fuels and renewable power are all extremely important but in an 80/20 world they will represent only the 20 percent at least until 2020. It's the other 80 percent that we need to worry about. In Europe, the 80 percent of energy insecurity means oil and natural gas and here in North America with our substantial natural gas reserves that is important.

Canada already plays a major role in the American energy equation. We are the current largest supplier to the American market of oil, natural gas, electricity. I would add hydroelectricity, uranium and coal as well. And we are an indispensable supplier to the northern tier states, places such as Chicago. But we're not just a supplier, we are a partner. We co-manage a vast trans-border network of oil and gas pipelines as well as two huge transnational power grids. And, unlike Mexico, Canada and the United States are committed to sharing oil in times of energy insecurity, in times of short supply through the IEP of 1974 and through NAFTA. And we are committed to maintaining a reliable source of North American power through the NERC.

Canada plays a pretty big role today; but we have the capacity to play an even larger role in the North American energy solution. We're the only nation in the world outside the Persian Gulf region with substantial proven oil reserves; we're the best way to get Alaskan gas to southern markets; and we're a country with substantial untapped natural gas deposits and clean hydropower potential - an obvious way for many border states to reduce their reliance on coal-fired power plants.

And in that context, ladies and gentlemen, hydroelectricity is extraordinarily important.

But Canada not only can, I say we should play a larger role in the North American energy security solution because when you consider the implications of oil scarcity and the situations by comparison in Russia, Venezuela or the troubled Middle East, Canada's status as the world's most reliable supplier of energy becomes not just an economic opportunity for us but also an obligation to others, perhaps the single best way that we can contribute much-needed stability in an uncertain world.

Opportunity and obligation are why we need to work with the Americans on developing cooperative bilateral action plans such as a joint strategy to bring northern gas to southern customers, clean technology roadmaps that would optimize the considerable expertise of both countries in areas such as carbon capture and storage, plans to expand clean power generation and transmission capacity here in North America or to interconnect the eastern and western regional power grids in North America, actions that will help North America and the world to make the transition from a high carbon present to a low carbon future while avoiding a disruptive and dislocative period involving no carbon en route.

Now gaining traction here at home as we begin to pull together in the same direction, making a credible commitment to the international community that Canada can and will keep as part of an effective global effort to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and I submit working with the United States to devise and execute a coordinated plan of action that will advance our environmental and our energy objectives and renew at the same time the North American economy.

Ambitious? Perhaps it is. Achievable? We think so. But only time will tell, ladies and gentlemen. But of this I am certain: this is an agenda that is worth our very best efforts as North Americans in the days ahead.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.