SPEAKING POINTS FOR

THE HONOURABLE JIM PRENTICE, PC, QC, MP
MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY AND THE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS


CALGARY, ALBERTA
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

 

Thank you for the invitation to speak with you today.

One of the things about an aggressive travel schedule is that in addition to testing the durability of your patience and your luggage. It also tends to test your assumptions and to provide some fresh perspective on some of the more familiar icons in your own backyard.

For me, one of those icons is the University of Calgary.

Wherever I go across the country, I come back impressed by the reputation and the respect commanded by this school. The turnout today is further testament to the reach of University of Calgary: it may not be Canada’s oldest university, but it’s one of the most dynamic.
As a Calgarian, I am proud of the Haskayne School of Business, named – as it is- after my friend, and mentor, Dick Haskayne.  And we all look forward to great things from the new School of Public Policy, under the leadership of Jack Mintz.  I often tell people that, as a Minister, I believe passionately that ”you cannot achieve excellence in public policy, unless you talk with people.”  My participation here today is in that spirit.

Certainly the most challenging item on my 2009 political and travel schedule was my trip in December to the climate change summit in Copenhagen.  And that’s where I’d like to begin my remarks.

The complexity of the climate change file cannot be overstated. It cuts across every sector of the economy; it affects every Canadian—rural or urban dweller—on pretty much every level of their daily lives. It’s an issue that is at once local, regional, national, continental and global. It is, simultaneously, an issue of science, business, public policy and politics.

The Government of Canada understood the importance—as well as the complexity—of the Copenhagen Summit and the process leading up to it.  We were well-organized and well‑prepared, and the results were preceded by a year of hard work at the 17-member Major Economies Forum.

What was achieved at Copenhagen, frankly, is not well understood.  Neither is the fundamental importance of the outcome.  That’s partly because climate change has become such an ideological issue that media reports were often confusing, and sensationalized.  And that made an already challenging process, even more challenging.





L’accord élaboré durant ces deux semaines de travail intense en décembre dernier représente un tournant majeur, pour le Canada et pour tous les autres pays qui l’ont signé. 

The agreement forged during that intense two-week period in December, represents a major turning point. For Canada and for each of the other nations that signed it.

The Copenhagen Accord is what the federal government has advocated for more than three years and what we negotiated to accomplish for a year. And we firmly support it.  It accords with the principles that we have enunciated, sometimes unpopularily, at the climate change table.

For one thing, this Accord has the support of the United States which means that our stated objective of aligning our policy with theirs, now has a reinforced framework.

For another, it creates a functional, international community, with one shared goal: addressing climate change in a principled, comprehensive fashion. As a respected, fully-engaged member of that community, Canada is not alone in facing that challenge.

This is an agreement that acknowledges climate change as a global issue requiring a global response.

It provides for specific mitigation commitments by major emitters;

It provides for international reporting and review of the progress all Parties’ are making towards their commitments;

It provides for predictable, ramped‑up flows of support to help mitigation and adaptation efforts globally.

Going forward, the Copenhagen Accord will be the foundation for the international and domestic policies of Canada and all other signatories. It’s the first time that there’s been a comprehensive, global agreement that deals with climate change and includes commitments from all major industrial nations like the United States, China and India.



Getting that many countries and that many agendas even close to the same page is a remarkable accomplishment. But for all the attention that was focused on the two-week summit in Copenhagen, the reality is that much of the work was done over the preceding year during a lengthy series of multilateral negotiations.

A great deal of that was done through the Major Economies Forum and the Clean Energy Dialogue between Canada and the United States. Canada will continue to work extensively at both those levels.

Ultimately, however, the Copenhagen Accord will be successful not only because it moves us all forward, but because of how it moves us all forward.

It is based on the efforts of national governments, on the inclusion of all major players and on practical solutions. That’s a pretty stark contrast to the old approach which was enshrined in the Kyoto Accord.
Above all else- and this is perhaps the most singular difference of all- It is our intent to respect the Copenhagen Accord, and to work together with the other signatories to translate it into a full, binding, international treaty.  That’s something that the previous government- by the public admission of at least one senior Liberal policy advisor- never intended to do with the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, it was apparently interpreted as a mechanism to generally galvanize Canadian public opinion around the issue of climate change.




This Government will act on the Copenhagen Accord because it is consistent with Canada’s stated position on climate change and because it moves us closer to our ultimate goal of becoming a Clean Energy Super Power.

It is also a practical document, one that acknowledges that there can be more than one way to proceed in addressing climate change. It accommodates the specific constraints of certain countries while allowing them to capitalize on their strengths.

The Accord’s attempt to building a sustainable bridge between developed and developing countries is one of the reasons why Canada was so willing to agree to contribute to the $30‑billion “quick-start” fund. This money will assist the poorest and most vulnerable countries with mitigation, adaptation, capacity building, and technology transfer. It’s the first step towards establishing a new Green Climate Fund.




Le gouvernement contribuera par d’autres moyens et de façon active aux initiatives multilatérales visant à convertir le nouvel accord de principe en un traité international exhaustif ayant force exécutoire.  

There are other ways that the Government will actively contribute to any and all multilateral efforts to convert the new agreement in principle into a full, binding international treaty.




We took the first step down that road this weekend by formally inscribing our target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the United Nations: A 17 per cent reduction, by 2020 from the base year of 2005.

We’ve adjusted our previous target to ensure that it matches exactly with those just inscribed by the United States. We have consistently said from the outset that we must harmonize our climate change strategy with that of our greatest trade partner because of the degree of economic integration between our two countries. And this is an important part of making that happen.
Let’s be clear: It’s absolutely counter‑productive and utterly pointless for Canada and Canadian businesses to strike out on their own, to set and to pursue target that will ultimately create barriers to trade and put us at a competitive disadvantage.
One of the most glaring examples of the folly of attempting to go it alone in an integrated North American economy is the new, and unique, vehicle regulations introduced by Quebec.  These ensure that consumers will basically have to leave that province to buy their vehicles, to avoid levies of up to five thousand dollars, because seventy-five percent of the latest car and truck models don’t conform to the new rules.
We have, furthermore, an exceptional record of accomplishment where – as with the Acid Rain Treaty- we’ve closely aligned with the U.S.


If the issue of climate change is complicated by its ideological overlay, as I stated earlier, targets are at the very heart of ideology. It is important to understand just how far removed all Opposition parties are from the Copenhagen process.

The NDP’s Bill C-311 proposed a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels. That works out to a 66 per cent reduction from 2006 levels and, if you use some of the United Nations’ own methodology, the impact of pine beetles and forest fires would make it more like an 85 per cent reduction. Obviously, that’s just not feasible.

Make no mistake about it: By adopting that 17 per cent target from a base year of 2005, we are embarking on a very ambitious journey.

The shared targets may be identical but they are not equivalent in their impact. They are, in fact, much more onerous for Canada than for the United States because we already burn less coal to generate electricity here and the equipment in our industrial sector is generally newer and, consequently, more energy efficient.

By the way, it’s also important to note that this country’s cold climate and sprawling geography typically mean significantly higher operating costs for Canadian companies.

That means the United States can reach its target by doing things that we have already done, giving them a menu of much easier choices. Canada will have to dig deeper to achieve that same end, something we’re nevertheless committed to doing.

Our determination to harmonize our climate change policy with that of the United States also extends beyond greenhouse gas emission targets: we need to proceed even further in aligning our regulations.



To date, we’ve made some excellent progress working closely together in the automotive, marine, aviation and bio‑fuels sectors, but we need to do even more. And we will.

That said, we will only adopt a cap‑and-trade regime if the United States signals that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to regulation. We’ve already completed much of the extensive analysis and consultation work required to prepare us for both of those options. Canada can go down either road—cap‑and-trade or regulation—but we will go down neither road alone.
That reality—and the fact that the United States has committed to the Copenhagen Accord—will also see us work even more closely with our American colleagues to further enhance the Clean Energy Dialogue, which was established almost a year ago to optimize cooperation on such areas as emerging technology—such as carbon capture and storage, smart grids and clean energy research and development.

I’m on my way to Washington in the next few days to meet with my counterparts in the Obama Administration on these and other related issues.
We will also be working more closely than ever with the 17-member Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, a group that includes the United States, United Kingdom, China, India, Brazil, Japan and the European Union. As the 2010 chair of the G-20 and G-8, Canada is uniquely positioned this year to shape the international dialogue around the Accord and its evolution.

Not all the work on climate change, however, is going to be on the international or even the continental stage. There is plenty we can and will do here at home.

Since 2007, the Government of Canada has invested in a range of ecoAction programs, many of which promote the use of new technologies. In 2009, Canada’s Economic Action Plan included billions of dollars in spending on initiatives like the Clean Energy Fund and the Green Infrastructure Fund. They provide close to $2 billion for the development of promising clean energy technologies and green infrastructure projects.

That focus on technology and innovation related to climate change will be sustained.

On another front, although it may not necessarily be apparent to the naked eye, the federal Government has made some great strides in building a climate change consensus most of our provinces and territories.





As part of our preparation for Copenhagen, I personally engaged in a comprehensive consultation process, meeting with every provincial and territorial leader to discuss Canada’s policy and position. Those Premiers who were not able to accept our invitation to travel to Copenhagen as part of our official delegation—and several of them did make the trip—sent Cabinet members or other senior officials to observe and participate.

By finding common ground, building on it and working together effectively around Copenhagen, we laid down some tracks for future co-operation on climate change strategy.

Another important part of our domestic strategy was to pull together a group of advisors, Canadian leaders from various sectors from across the country. Theirs was an extremely valuable contribution to the process: we met at the start of every day to discuss the issues on the table at Copenhagen and how their resolution might resonate within their areas of expertise. It gave them an opportunity to get a good look at the engine room of an international policy summit and to better understand some of the challenges that Canada—and other nations—face when dealing with climate change.

We were fortunate to count Canada’s Ambassador, Gary Doer, among the Advisors. He’s not only a political veteran having served as premier of Manitoba for a decade, but he’s Canada’s face in Washington and an important player in our ongoing, bi‑lateral relationship on climate change.









Le renforcement de ces liens sera essentiel à mesure que nous irons de l’avant. Parce que, parmi toutes les bonnes occasions qui se sont présentées pour le Canada à Copenhague, il y a aussi eu des défis qui ont attiré encore plus l’attention et auxquels nous devrons nous attaquer dans un avenir rapproché. 

The reinforcement of all these connections is important as we move forward. Because for all the opportunities that surfaced for Canada at Copenhagen, a brighter light was also cast on some of the challenges we need to confront sooner rather than later.

Let me deal then with an issue that concerns every Albertan, and indeed every Canadian—the oil sands.

Our Government supports the continued expansion of the oil sands of Alberta.  The Oil Sands are one of Canada's greatest resource endowments and developed responsibly, they hold the promise to be a driving engine of the Canadian economy, ensuring prosperity and a high quality of life for our children and our grandchildren.





We want to see that happen and we are pleased by the recent announcements of Conoco Phillips and Total to quadruple production at their Surmount project. Husky and BP have also pledged to spent $2.5 billion to boost output from their Sunrise project. This is all good.

But let me be perfectly clear. The oils sands must be developed in an environmentally responsible manner and the Government of Canada will ensure that oil sands development lives up to our stated objective to be a ”clean energy superpower”. We aspire to be a respected and environmentally responsible producer of all forms of energy, whether renewables such as hydro, or non-renewables such as the oil sands.

The development of the oil sands and the environmental footprint of these industrial activities have become an international issue and as such, they now transcend the interests of any single corporation. What is at issue on the international stage is our reputation as a country.







Accordingly, we need to up our game, in terms of both environmental vigilance and in terms of our communication efforts. The Canadian and Alberta governments are essential to this effort and I look forward to a continuing positive working relationship with the Alberta Government and the new Energy Minister, my colleague Ron Liepert. But, our two governments cannot do this without the concerted co‑operation of industry, in terms of both environmental efforts and communications.

We do not intend to stand still. This is not an international battle that Canada intends to lose. We staked out important ground at Copenhagen but this challenge has only just begun and we will need, and expect, the cooperation of industry in the Government of Canada’s future plans. This challenge has, however, only just begun and we will expect the co-operation of industry in the Government of Canada's future plans.

As I said earlier, climate change is a complex issue. And that means that there are a number of stakeholder with legitimate interests in how the oil sands are developed. They also have a right to transparency and accountability in that process.

We have a lot of work to do. It is no secret, and should be no surprise that the general perception of the oil sands is profoundly negative. That is true both within Canada and internationally.

We need to continue the positive work of industry, with investments in environmental technologies that will show the world how environmental responsibility and excellence can be taken to new levels. Absent this kind of Canadian leadership, we will be cast as a global poster child for environmentally unsound resource development. Canadians expect and deserve more than that.



For those of you who doubt that the Government of Canada lacks either the willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a “clean energy superpower”, think again. We do and we will. And in our efforts we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian resources.

How we manage environmental issues post-Copenhagen will define Canada’s future and our reputation on the international stage.


We need to address the challenges of climate change, but not with excessive haste. We need to work more closely with all members of the global community within the auspices of the Copenhagen Accord and, in particular, to harmonize our policy with that of the United States. We need to invest in technology and innovation that is geared to Canada’s unique circumstances and strengths.

Il est également important, alors même que nous établissons de nouvelles normes et de nouvelles cibles, de célébrer nos nombreuses victoires. Dans cette visée, je considère 2009 comme une année remplie de succès sur le plan environnemental, mais encore j’attends avec impatience les sérieux défis qui se présenteront cette année.  

It’s also important, even as we set new standards and goals, to celebrate our many wins. And on that score, much as I look forward to the rigorous challenges ahead this year, I regard 2009 as a year of great environmental accomplishment.

We expanded the Nahanni National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories by 30,000 square kilometres. We gave our Environmental Enforcement Legislation some sharp teeth, increasing penalties and sentencing for individuals and groups. We signed an agreement with Greenland to protect polar bears. We worked closely with the nature Conservancy of Canada to protect environmentally-sensitive areas. We introduced new continental vehicle tailpipe emission regulations and we have laid the groundwork for the publication later this month, af Canada’s first national sewage wastewater regulations.

We launched the Clean Energy Dialogue with the United States.
And last but not least, 2009 was the year of the Copenhagen Accord and all the promise that represents for the future.