Please log in with your Liberal ID.
Your Liberal Extranet credentials can be used.
Have an Extranet Account?Login here!.
One step! Just fill these fields in.
Your password was changed successfully.
Please check your email for a link to finish the account creation process.
You must click that link to be able to comment.
The website was not able to match you to your membership.
If you have just filled in your renewal or membership application form please wait 2-5 business days while your Provincial-Territorial Association processes your application.
If after waiting 5 business days you are still having troubles or you are a current member, please fill out this form and we will assist you shortly.
Thank you for activating your account. We have automatically logged you in.
Sorry, this activation link does not work. Your account may already be activated. Please try to login or contact email@example.com for assistance.>
Please log in with your Liberal ID.
Your Liberal Extranet credentials can be used.
Thank you for visiting my website. I hope you can take a moment to look around, learn more about me and the work I am doing for the people of St-Laurent-Cartierville. I look forward to listening to your concerns and suggestions on how to build a better Canada — a Canada that leads the world by example.
On October 20, 2014, I once again called for a reorientation of international climate negotiations to establish a global carbon price, an essential measure to protect us against dangerous global warming. I delivered this speech at Harvard University, as part of the Canada Seminar organized by the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
Please find the text of the speech below.
Enjoy your read!
Are the Negotiations for a Global Climate Change Agreement Stalled? If so, What Can Be Done?
Notes for an Address by the Honourable Stéphane Dion at the Harvard Canada Seminar, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
October 20, 2014
Things are not going well on the human activity-induced climate change battlefront. And we cannot pretend we are not aware: the warnings are coming in from every quarter.
In the summer of 2014, the US National Climatic Data Center announced that the combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–July 2014 period “was tying with 2002 as the third warmest such period on record”. 
On September 9, 2014, the World Meteorological Organization published its 2014 Annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud declared: “The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board. We are running out of time”.
A few days later, the Global Carbon Project released its annual report card on the global and national trends in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It showed that global emissions from burning fossil fuels and cement production reached a new record in 2013, and are predicted to grow by a further 2.5 percent in 2014, raising the total CO2 emissions to 65 percent over its 1990 level – the year international negotiations to reduce anthropogenic climate change began.
On September 23, 2014, the United Nations hosted a climate change summit in New York. “The race is on, said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and now is the time for leaders to step up and steer the world toward a safer future”.
Well, it didn’t happen: the leaders did not step up in New York. To be fair, a wide range of pledges were made by governments and businesses; but few countries announced real, new commitments regarding greenhouse gas (GHGs) reduction targets. Several key Heads of State did not even show up, including those from China, India, Russia, Australia, and… Canada.
Global warming is threatening to reach dangerous levels and humankind is losing the battle against it. At the same time, we have been unable to conclude an international agreement to help correct the situation. Why is that? And what can be done?
The consensus among climate scientists is that it would be imprudent to allow global warming to exceed 2 degrees Celsius (2ºC = 3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels. Beyond this tipping point, climate science warns that our planet will become much less hospitable for virtually all forms of life, including humans. That is what the UN-mandated scientists grouped under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are telling us. In fact, the IPCC 2007 report stated that even 2ºC above pre-industrial levels is likely to have serious impacts.
Unless we act quickly, the 2ºC threshold will be crossed. The IPCC foresees that under current policies, global warming could well exceed 4ºC by the end of the current century: “Baseline scenarios, those without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7°C to 4.8°C compared to pre-industrial levels”. Such a temperature rise would increase climate disruption, the severity of extreme weather events, sea level rise and ocean acidification, animal and plant extinctions, food production and water supply disruptions, damage to infrastructure and settlements, etc.
To get back on track and maintain a 50/50 chance to limit global warming to 2ºC, the IPCC’s recommendation is to reduce global GHG emissions by 40 to 70 percent by 2050, relative to 2010 emissions. And according to the International Energy Agency, we must do it right now if we are to succeed: we would have to reduce energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by 31.4 percent between 2012 and 2035, whereas if nothing is done, post-haste, to correct the current trend, these emissions will increase by 36.1 percent. In other words, in the absence of new measures, emissions will increase by one-third by 2035, whereas they would really need to decrease by one-third!
It should be noted that this anticipated growth of global GHG emissions – plus one-third by 2035 – marks a decoupling from the evolution of the world economy, which the IEA expects to more than double by 2035. This decoupling is in itself an accomplishment in which the countries can take pride; however, it is not good enough. To avoid a climate debacle, it is not enough that the growth of GHG emissions is slower than economic growth. What is needed is a significant reduction in emissions.
What must we do to counter this climate change hazard? Much more than what we are doing now.
For 22 years now, beginning with the Convention on Climate Change resulting from the 1992 Rio Conference, the international community has worked hard to build a global strategy against the threat of human activity-induced climate change. To achieve this, the United Nations brings the representatives of virtually all Nations together each year. The meeting is called the Annual United Nations Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP. The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, at the Third Conference (COP 3) held in Kyoto, Japan. The Kyoto Protocol did go into effect worldwide eight years later, at COP 11, the UN Montreal Conference on Climate Change, which I had the honour to chair in 2005 as Canada’s Environment Minister.
Today, the Kyoto Protocol is in disarray and the world faces huge difficulties as it tries to conclude a new global agreement on climate change. Kyoto was concluded through a “politics-precedes-science” approach: following long and hard discussions and negotiations, governments announced national GHG reduction targets and only then did the scientists compute what the sum of these targets would mean for overall GHG reductions and climate change mitigation. But over time, COP after COP, the parties implicitly accepted to work through a “science-informs-politics” approach whereby GHG reduction targets are first established by climate scientists (the 2º C limit), after which national governments try, together, to determine how they are to be reached.
Countries accepted this 2ºC limit at the 2009 Copenhagen international climate Conference (COP 15), and more officially at the 2010 Cancún Conference (COP 16). But there is a problem: with all the commitments already made, countries will not reach this target. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change foresees that even if all countries were to meet, by the agreed date of 2020, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets to which they committed at the Copenhagen and Cancún Conferences, we would still fall short of what is needed: “The Cancún Pledges are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that are likely to keep temperature change below 3°C relative to preindustrial levels” rather than the targeted 2°C.
At the 2011 Durban Conference (COP 17), the countries admitted to this gap between their commitments and achieving the 2º C objective. And they went even further in the preamble of their joint statement, expressing their “grave concern” and promising to “raise the level of ambition” to bridge this gap. Yet countries did not announce stricter GHG reduction targets at Durban. They only managed to agree on a plan to reach an agreement, no later than 2015, for action to assemble all countries under the same legal system – beginning only in 2020. The very terms of this agreement are disquietingly vague: “a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties.” Even Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, regretfully agreed that “What [the agreement] means has yet to be decided.”
This 2015 Conference (COP 21) will be held in Paris. As the MIT pointed out, this international venue is of tremendous importance, since it will heavily influence global GHG emissions reductions strategies “as far out as 2045 or 2050″. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the Paris Conference will secure the global treaty that the world needs, unless we significantly change our approach.
When on September 23, 2014, UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon hosted his climate change summit at the New York headquarters, during the UN General Assembly session, it was in the hope of creating some political momentum in preparation of this Paris 2015 Conference. He hoped that every Member State would come up with strong and bold new commitments on climate change.
But from this point of view, the Ban Ki-moon summit was yet another disappointment. Despite positive signals and a wide range of pledges and non-binding initiatives made by governments and businesses, including a new commitment to end tropical deforestation by 2030, no country really strengthened its GHG reduction commitments for 2020, and only a handful of them announced the post-2020 carbon reduction targets that will be required for the Paris summit. Even Christina Figueres recognized that these partial and piecemeal responses will not be enough to keep global warming below 2°C.
Developing countries showed no sign that they would be willing to adopt legally binding GHGs emission control commitments by 2020. The four BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) stuck to the long-held stand of developing nations, linking their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) to “the extent of financial, technological and capacity-building support provided by the developed countries”.
In other words, the blame game goes on. That doesn’t bode well for the 2015 Paris conference, and it is hard to believe that representatives of all the world’s countries will be able to reach a new deal to cut GHG emissions and prevent the planet from overheating dangerously.
This deadlock on reduction targets impacts all aspects of negotiations, including the funding promised to developing countries to help them deal with climate change. While we do have an agreement on a collective objective (100 Billion dollars per year beginning in 2020), nobody knows how much each developed country needs to contribute.
What we do know is that several countries – including Canada– will not meet their GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020. So while we all express our “serious concern” that we might be heading toward a 3ºC+ warming scenario, nobody strengthens their commitments in order to keep us closer to the 2ºC track.
We can see that the United Nations climate negotiations are stalled. That is the inescapable conclusion of a cool, lucid mind. Collectively, we are facing what can be called a “great climate inconsistency”: an increasingly untenable gap between the urgency of taking action and the inertia of international negotiations. Why this gap? Why is it so difficult to do what must be done?
The Theory of Collective Action teaches us that it is easier to develop public policy when the goods are divisible – when those who work to achieve the results are the ones to benefit from them. Unfortunately, climate change doesn’t work this way. The climate is a global public good: one tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in New York has exactly the same effect on global warming as one tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in Montreal, Paris or Beijing. In effect, those who do something to decrease their GHG emissions are working for those who reap the benefits of that action while doing nothing. And the negative impacts of climate change on those who are particularly affected by them have no direct link with the latter’s level of GHG emissions.
Consequently, each country, each economic agent, each GHG emitter, big or small, may well expect others to do the job in their stead, expect to benefit from the efforts of others while doing as little as they can get away with, and lamely say: “I will not act until my neighbour does”. This perverse freeriding effect is the fundamental reason why negotiations are stalled: COP after COP, we wait for every country to increase its target significantly, only to see that they all decline to do it, waiting for the others to move. As long as countries keep acting as climate freeriders, they are unlikely to increase their GHG emissions reduction targets and our efforts will fall well short of the mark.
In other words, governments and businesses are very unlikely to step up their greening efforts if they have no assurance that their competitors will play by the same climate rules. What we need is an international agreement that gives them that assurance, one that changes the rules of the game for every player. What we need to do is to create a world where every decision maker, public or private, must and can take the true cost of global warming into account, secure in the knowledge that his/her partners and competitors have to pay for this cost as well.
As more and more experts agree, putting a price on carbon is essential to the success of any serious, comprehensive climate plan. Even the International Monetary Fund now recommends it. So does the OECD. And just ahead of the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit, the World Bank was able to convince 73 countries, 22 subnational jurisdictions and over 1,000 companies and investors to express their support for a price on carbon.
In a report released just before the Ban Ki-moon summit, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate made the point that a carbon price may be beneficial for the economy: “The Commission recommends that governments introduce a strong, predictable and rising carbon price as part of fiscal reform strategies, prioritizing the use of the revenues to offset impacts on low-income households or to finance reductions in other distortionary taxes”.
In fact, the Ban Ki-moon summit made more progress on the carbon pricing front than on the adoption of more stringent, binding GHG reduction targets. That progress on carbon pricing is a positive development. It shows there are opportunities to explore linkages between carbon pricing and the new international climate change agreement to be reached in Paris. But the main challenge facing us now is how to evolve from a hodge-podge of local or national carbon prices to a global, harmonized carbon pricing system. That is exactly what the IPCC recommends: adopting a “single global carbon price”.
A global, harmonized carbon price would provide the world with an excellent sustainable development instrument. The price should be high enough to create the necessary incentives to limit global warming to about 2ºC. The International Energy Agency (IEA) recommends that the price of a tonne of CO2 be gradually raised, by 2035, to $125 for developed countries and $100 for China, Russia, Brazil and South Africa. According to the IEA, this can be done without jeopardizing economic growth: “Carbon pricing is not necessarily detrimental to industrial competitiveness: it all depends on how it is implemented and whether similar action is taken in competing economies. (…) In addition, part of all the revenue from carbon pricing may be recycled back to energy users in the form of investments towards improved energy efficiency, or through other, broader supportive policies for industry; hence, this may actually increase industrial and energy competitiveness”.
This cost of about $125 per tonne of CO2 may seem high. Yet it is small compared to the social, environmental and financial cost of doing nothing to mitigate climate change: the Stockholm Environment Institute estimates the latter cost could reach $1,500 per tonne of CO2 in 2050. But the main problem is that it is impossible for the world price of carbon to reach $100 or $120 per tonne of CO2 without first having negotiated an international agreement that can assure all economic agents that their partners and competitors will play according to the same climate rules. Carbon pricing will not reach the desired level as long as individual countries fear that carbon price-setting within their respective jurisdictions will scare businesses and investments away and send them off to countries where carbon dioxide emissions are still free of charge.
For some years now, I and others have been arguing that international climate negotiations must be readjusted. The idea is to refocus these international efforts on negotiating a global harmonized carbon price signal, instead of doggedly spending the next years attempting to convince countries to accept stricter national quantitative targets to reduce their GHG emissions.
The mixed results achieved by the Ban-Ki Moon summit proved, once again, that the “to-each-their-own-target” approach does not work. Instead, we must adopt a “one-price-signal-for-all” strategy, a world carbon price – not as a stand-alone policy but as a cost-effective, universal anchor. This is essential to the success of any serious, comprehensive climate plan.
Let us see how such a strategy could work.
The Dion-Laurent plan would call for all countries to make a commitment to introduce, in their respective jurisdictions, a gradually evolving carbon price signal based on a scientifically-validated international standard, in order for the world to keep global warming to as close as possible to 2ºC over pre-industrial levels. Countries may levy this price through carbon taxes or emission quotas. Governments would be free to invest, as they see fit, any revenues accruing from carbon emission levies and the corresponding – and necessary – gradual elimination of fossil energy subsidies.
Under the principle of “Common But Differentiated Responsibility”, developed countries would be required to set aside part of their carbon pricing revenues to help developing countries introduce policies to lower their emissions, adapt to climate change impacts and create carbon sinks (through reforestation, for example). This requirement would help fund the yet unsourced $100 billion annual injection into the Green Climate Fund, which developed countries agreed to provide beginning in 2020. That amount could even be increased. The contributions of individual developed countries would be set according to the proportion of total developed country emissions that their respective GHG emissions represent. The lower a country’s emission level, the lower its share of the financial effort: that is sure to be another incentive for further emission reductions.
This international carbon pricing agreement would allow countries to levy border taxes on products from countries that do not establish a carbon price signal in accordance with the international standard. Of course, this solution would be a last resort, to be applied after the usual warnings have been issued. Hence, the message would be clear to all large GHG emitters: if you do not levy a carbon price on your products before exporting them, other countries will do it for you – and will keep the resulting revenue. In this way, it will be in each country’s interest to comply with the international agreement, to levy a carbon price on its own emissions, and to use the resulting revenue as it sees fit.
This international agreement would provide the world with an excellent instrument for sustainable development. At long last, carbon emitters would have to pay the social and environmental cost of pollution. Consumers and manufacturers would have an incentive to choose lower-carbon-content goods and services and to invest in new energy-saving and emission-reducing technologies. And governments and legislators would have the tool to achieve the scientific climate targets they have rightly endorsed.
Conclusion: Is this plan realistic?
Negotiating a global harmonized carbon price will be a very difficult task. I am not one to underestimate the political obstacles any government will face when trying to implement an economy-wide price on GHG emissions. As Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons of Canada between 2006 and 2008, I developed such a carbon-pricing plan; but during the 2008 federal electoral campaign, I was unable to convince Canadians to accept that approach. Today, I am well aware that here in the US, part of Congress, backed by a majority of the population, is opposed to President Obama’s initiatives to regulate GHG emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency. And yet, we all know that a global carbon price will never be negotiated successfully if North American countries, notably the United States, fail to assume leadership in the matter.
So I understand why some will call this plan unrealistic. Yet I maintain that it would be easier to reach a negotiated global harmonized carbon price than to convince national governments to raise their respective GHG emissions reduction targets significantly. In particular, emerging economies – those with an annual growth of 6 to 10 percent – are likely to consider absolute reduction targets as an impediment to economic dynamism. But a harmonised carbon price, applying equally to their partners and competitors and yielding revenues that everybody could use as they see fit, would open much more interesting perspectives.
In any case, if anybody has a better idea to avoid the astronomical economic, human, political and environmental costs of a 3ºC (or more) global warming scenario, let them speak up! True realism – and plain common sense – dictate that as long as we are allowed to pollute for free, we will be unable to curb our GHG emissions sufficiently, and that we must therefore act now.
We need worldwide carbon pricing in order to do what must be done to make the world’s economy truly sustainable. We need harmonized carbon pricing as an incentive to replace coal with cleaner and renewable energy sources (or at least equip coal power plants with effective carbon capture and storage technology); to enhance energy efficiency; to develop affordable alternatives to petroleum-based fuels; to implement a major retooling of transportation industries and a massive conversion of on-road vehicle refueling infrastructures; to reduce high risk oil imports and increase energy security.
So to protect humankind against the threat of a 3ºC – or more – global warming sequence, what choice do we have? Pursue our current initiatives? Not without merit but definitively not good enough. My opinion is that our best and soundest choice is to champion the simple and useful instrument, much needed for a comprehensive and effective climate/energy policy, that a worldwide, harmonized carbon price would be.
 US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center Global Analysis – July 2014: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/7. Also: Michael Slezak, «The world is warming faster than we thought », NewScientist, October 2014: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26317-the-world-is-warming-faster-than-we-thought.html#.VDmyKdhAQ2y.
 World Meteorological Organization, 2014 Annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/1002_GHG_Bulletin.pdf.
 Michel Jarraud, WMO Secretary-General: http://mashable.com/2014/09/09/carbon-dioxide-increase-30-years/.
 Ban Ki-moon, “Climate change affects us all. So what’s stopping us joining forces to act on it?”, theguardian.com, May 6, 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/climate-change-affects-all-solutions-new-york-summit.
 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, IPCC WGII AR5 Summary for Policymakers, WGII AR5, March 31, 2014:
 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Final Draft Summary for Policymakers, IPCC WGIII AR5, December 17, 2013, p.15.
 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Final Draft Summary for Policymakers, IPCC WGIII AR5, December 17, 2013, p. 15. PricewaterhouseCoopers comes to the same conclusion: “On our current trajectory we are headed for four degrees, with policy pledges that currently steer us only towards three.” The 2014 Low Carbon Economy Index, “Two degrees of
separation: ambition and reality”: http://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/low-carbon-economy-index-2014.pdf
 Henry D. Jacoby and Y.-H Henry Chen, Expectations for a New Climate Agreement, The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 264, August 2014: http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt264.pdf.
 Text of the Joint Statement issued at the18th BASIC Ministerial Meeting on Climate Change, Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, August 8, 2014: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=108305.
 2014 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter 1- Mitigating Climate Change:
 IMF Survey Magazine: Fiscal Policy to Address Energy’s Environmental Impacts, July 31, 2014: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/POL073114A.htm; also: Ian Parry, Dirk Heine, Eliza Lis, Shanjun Li, Getting Energy Prices Right: From Principle to Practice, IMF, 2014.
 OECD, Acting now to put a price on carbon, OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: the Consequences of Inaction, 2012, p. 111: https://community.oecd.org/servlet/JiveServlet/previewBody/40641-102-1-76036/OECD.
 World Bank Statement, Putting a Price on Carbon, June 3, 2014: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Carbon-Pricing-Statement-060314.pdf; also: We Support Putting a Price on Carbon: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSDNET/Resources/carbon-pricing-supporters-list-092114.pdf.
 Better Growth, Better Climate, the New Climate Economy Report. The Synthesis Report, Washington, September 2014, p. 42: http://static.newclimateeconomy.report/TheNewClimateEconomyReport.pdf.
 Daniel Bodansky, Seth Hoedl, Gilbert Metcalf and Robert Stavins, Facilitating Linkage of Heterogeneous Regional, National, and Sub-National Climate Policies Through a Future International Agreement, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, with the support of The International Emissions Trading Association, September 2014: http://theenergycollective.com/robertstavins/1199961/un-climate-summit-and-key-issue-2015-paris-agreement.
 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, p. 17.
 IEA, World Energy Outlook 2013, p. 282. More recently, the IEA developed a plan to make solar energy the main source of electrical power, which plan would depend on a significant global carbon price: “The vision in this roadmap is consistent with global CO2 prices of USD 46/tCO2 in 2020, USD 115/tCO2 in 2030, and USD 152/tCO2 in 2040″. IEA, How solar energy could be the largest source of electricity by mid-century, 29 September 2014: http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2014/september/name-125873-en.html.
 Franck Ackerman and Elizabeth A. Stanton, Climate Risks and Carbon Prices: Revising the Social Cost of Carbon, Economics, 6, 2012-10, April 4, 2012: http://www.e3network.org/papers/Climate_Risks_and_Carbon_Prices_executive-summary_full-report_comments.pdf.
 Stéphane Dion and Éloi Laurent, From Rio to Rio: A Global Carbon Price Signal to Escape the Great Climate Inconsistency, OFCE, Paris, May 2012: http://www.ofce.sciences-po.fr/pdf/dtravail/WP2012-16.pdf; www.carbon-price.com. )
 Stéphane Dion and Éloi Laurent, From Rio to Rio: A Global Carbon Price Signal to Escape the Great Climate Inconsistency, op. cit.
 Stéphane Dion, Carbon Taxes; Can a Good Policy Become Good politics?, in: Alex Himelfarb and Jordan Himelfarb, Tax Is Not a Four-Letter Word: A Different Take on Taxes in Canada. Wilfrid Laurier university Press, 2013: http://books.google.ca/books?id=BrNlAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=st%C3%A9phane+dion+carbon+tax:+good+policy,+bad+politics?&source=bl&ots=Mx3dGUcJJZ&sig=J9s0b1Q19hgkTYMEHenzDIoGMq0&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=dJkUVJeuLM-dyATqnIHwBA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=st%C3%A9phane%20dion%20carbon%20tax%3A%20good%20policy%2C%20bad%20politics%3F&f=false.
 United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, July 2013.
Is it possible that even in as crucial an area as rail safety and security, the Harper government is unable to come clean with Canadians?
In any case, my colleague Ralph Goodale and I tried unsuccessfully to determine whether or not the Minister of Transport has removed the most dangerous tank cars from Canada’s rail system, as she promised to do.
You can find this exchange, which took place during the October 10, 2014 Question Period., below.
Enjoy your read!
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, when the member for Wascana asked whether the latest train derailment in Saskatchewan involved DOT-111 cars—the same kind of cars that exploded in Lac-Mégantic and are not shock resistant enough—the Minister of Transport refused to answer.
Yesterday we learned that many of those tanker cars were indeed DOT-111. Can the minister assure us that none of those cars was one of the 5,000 most dangerous DOT-111 cars that she promised, on April 23, to pull out of service within one month?
Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said, and we share that, we are relieved to learn there were no injuries involved in this particular incident. Transport Canada, of course, will co-operate fully with the Transportation Safety Board, which is responsible for investigating the causes of this accident. What is clear is that our government has taken very strong action in response to the Transportation Safety Board’s recommendations on DOT-111s to remove the least crash-resistant and also to have an aggressive, more aggressive than the United States, three-year phase-out on the DOT-111s. We are taking action to ensure the safety of Canadians, workers and our communities.
Mr. Speaker, again there was no precise answer. To repeat, last April, the minister said the most dangerous DOT-111 cars would be gone within one month. Were they or were they not involved in the train wreck this week in Saskatchewan? The railway is saying these particular DOT-111s were not their cars, indeed they were supplied by the shipper of the highly flammable distillate. I am sure that is a great comfort to the people of Clair, Saskatchewan, and Lac-Mégantic. How is the government requiring shippers, not just railways but shippers too, to get these dangerous cars out of service?
Mr. Speaker, this from a member whose government was lax when it came to railway safety. We instead have been taking very strong actions. We are talking about prohibiting the least crash-resistant DOT-111s and a three-year phase-out or retrofit with respect to the remaining to bring them up to standard. We are also in discussions with American partners in terms of a new, tougher standard for these cars.
What did the Transportation Safety Board say about that? Ms. Tadros said, “I am encouraged by the Minister of Transport‘s strong response to the Board’s recommendations”.
On October 9, 2014 in the House of Commons, I delivered a speech in which I demonstrate, item by item, how the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refused to work with her department’s scientists to determine the health risks facing bélugas as a result of the exploratory drilling operations linked to the Cacouna oil terminal project.
Please find my speech below.
As always, I will be very pleased to read any comments you might have.
Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by our NDP colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, calls on this House to speak out against the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal project. This motion is premature since a comprehensive environmental assessment of the project has not been done yet.
However, what is troubling is that the Conservative government is not showing any signs that it is interested in moving ahead with a comprehensive environmental assessment. That is unacceptable and must be condemned. That is what I hope to do on behalf of the Liberal caucus in the 20 minutes I have been given. First, what is this project?
TransCanada’s energy east pipeline project is a planned 4,600-kilometre crude oil pipeline, which would run west to east from Alberta to existing refineries in new terminals in Quebec and New Brunswick. The marine terminals would be used to export oil to international markets. The Cacouna terminal area near Rivière-du-Loup on the St. Lawrence River is one of the project’s potential marine terminals.
TransCanada has not yet submitted the energy east project to the National Energy Board for review and approval, and thus the project has yet to receive an environmental assessment. That is why we cannot rule on this project now. We do not yet have the environmental assessment.
However, as part of an eventual National Energy Board application, TransCanada is conducting exploratory work around the feasibility of developing a port in Cacouna. To do this, TransCanada filed an application with the federal government and with the Quebec environment ministry, which issued a permit allowing the company to drill into the seabed in order to decide where to place the terminal.
On September 23, 2014, Quebec’s Superior Court granted a temporary injunction to stop seismic surveys in Cacouna until October 15. The court found that the province never had the information required to assess whether or not the belugas would be put at risk, because the environmental science division of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans withheld scientific information.
Those are the facts.
The first observation is that Canada needs new infrastructure to move our energy resources to domestic and global markets. The second observation is that these projects must earn the trust of local communities and cannot ignore the implications for coastal economies and for the environment.
That is why we Liberals are deeply concerned that the Conservative government deliberately withheld the information needed to assess the impact of the explorations being conducted at Cacouna. This is yet another example of the Conservative government preventing scientists and evidence from informing decision-making on project development.
In that respect, the Quebec Superior Court ruling is damning for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I want to share with you the main thrust of the Quebec Superior Court ruling. Last spring, TransCanada began conducting geophysical surveys in Cacouna. Before the permit was granted, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans consulted with its beluga experts, including Ms. Lesage, Mr. Hammil, Mr. Cyr, Mr. Gosselin, Mr. McQuinn and Mr. Simard. There were at least six experts.
Their verdict was that the work could not be carried out after the spring, because summer and fall are critical to the birth and nursing of belugas. However, in May and July, Fisheries and Oceans Canada issued an opinion and a permit without consulting the previously mentioned scientists regarding the second phase of work, the drilling that was supposed to take place in the summer and fall during the critical period for the birth and nursing of belugas.
Why are they no longer experts all of a sudden? They are experts in the spring, but not in the summer and fall. No, the minister no longer consults with these experts. Perhaps she was afraid of their recommendations. Instead, the minister is satisfied to issue an opinion in favour of summer and fall drilling, drafted by Alain Kemp, who is not an expert on belugas. That is the sad truth. That is what is happening in the department, and we must denounce it today.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans then sent a letter in favour of drilling to the Quebec ministry of sustainable development, the environment and the fight against climate change. This letter was not signed by an expert, but by the director of sciences, Yves de Lafontaine, an administrator who knows nothing about belugas.
However, Robert Michaud, an independent scientist—and unquestionably one of the best experts on the St. Lawrence belugas in Canada, if not in the world—prepared an affidavit basically saying that the opinion of Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not meet the legislative requirements in terms of having the best scientific information available, and that the operations will certainly harm the belugas.
Has the minister seen the affidavit of one of our best experts, Robert Michaud? Has my colleague seen it? Why did he not talk about it in his speech?
Ms. Jean, who was responsible for the file at the Quebec ministry of sustainable development, the environment and the fight against climate change, was faced with conflicting advice. Knowing that under Quebec and Canadian law a permit can be issued only on the basis of the best scientific advice, she asked, virtually begged, for a scientific opinion from Fisheries and Oceans Canada several times. She has been unfairly judged in the last little while. However, this was not her fault as she did everything she could.
She was not satisfied with the advice from Mr. Kemp or the letter from Mr. Yves de Lafontaine, and rightly so, because he is not a beluga expert but an administrator. Ms. Jean never got what she asked for from the department. Why did the minister not facilitate the exchange of scientific information between governments, which is a good practice of federalism essential to the common good?
I will quote article 88 of the Quebec Superior Court ruling:
[The Department of Fisheries and Oceans] is withholding the requested scientific information.
Let us be honest, no scientific advice was provided. The ruling then says:
It did not respond to…questions asked by the [Quebec ministry]….It simply reiterated information that the [Quebec] minister already had and that was cause for concern, but provided no additional explanation.
Quebec already had the bundle of documents my colleague mentioned, and that was not what it was asking. The Fisheries and Oceans experts had the information, but the minister refused to let them talk. She muzzled them and did not consult them.
Too bad for the belugas and too bad for the project. That is how the Conservatives do things, and that is why we have to be very worried about their approach. That is not good federalism, good environmental policy or good economic policy.
In a last-ditch attempt, Ms. Jean called Dr. Véronique Lesage, an expert on marine mammals at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, directly and more than once. The record of their conversation is in the court documents. It shows that Ms. Lesage was not consulted by her department, even though she is an expert. It also shows that she referred Ms. Jean to her superiors and she said that Mr. Michaud’s affidavit was accurate. In other words, the best scientific information was consistent with Mr. Michaud’s opinion, which contradicted the opinion of Fisheries and Oceans Canada drafted by Mr. Kemp, who is not an expert on belugas. This opinion supported drilling in the fall.
Quebec then issued a permit, which the judge suspended by means of an injunction. The judge was of the opinion that the process was dubious, since Fisheries and Oceans Canada had not issued any scientific advice from which to proceed.
None of this would have happened if the federal minister had listened to her scientists and shared that information, in the spirit of federalism, with the Government of Quebec.
By doing what she did, she hurt the environment and showed how little she cares about the survival of the iconic beluga. The minister weakened the credibility of the assessment and consultation process, which is essential to moving forward with the project.
Does the minister at least realize that the St. Lawrence beluga has been a threatened species for more than 20 years, pursuant to the Species at Risk Act? According to this act, a scientific committee must be formed and a recovery strategy must be drafted. This strategy must identify the critical habitat to be fully protected.
Does the minister realize that all of this was done and that the revised strategy was completed nearly three years ago? The sector in which TransCanada/energy east wants to build its port is in a critical habitat, deemed to be essential to the survival of the beluga species.
For the recovery strategy and critical habitat to work, the Minister of the Environment has to acknowledge receipt of the strategy, recognize it and recognize the critical habitat defined in the strategy. For the past three years, however, the Minister of the Environment has not acknowledged receipt of a single document concerning any marine mammal species at risk in Canada forwarded by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Why?
Why has she not acknowledged receipt and recognized the importance of protecting belugas off the coast of Cacouna? What is going on? What is the government trying to protect at the expense of sustainable development here? Why all the secrets? Why refuse to take action? Why the lack of transparency that is having such a detrimental effect on sustainable development? Why refuse to listen to scientists?
It is not surprising that in her latest report released this week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development concluded that under the Conservatives, environmental assessments have lacked clarity and transparency.
To conclude, the Liberals have been consistent in calling for stronger environmental protections and in pushing for a more substantive project review process. That is what our leader, the MP for Papineau, is determined to deliver for the sake of our environment and our economy: sound, sustainable development for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. His analysis of the lamentable situation at Fisheries and Oceans is bang on.
However, there is a huge problem within the Liberal Party. Many members knew that none of the scientific opinions deserved to be called that in this government’s process. While many of the MPs on our side criticized what was going on and called for a moratorium on drilling, his leader came to eastern Quebec, to Rimouski, the moment the injunction was called for, to tell people that it was a wonderful project that should go ahead right away.
While we were fighting for justice in the case of Fisheries and Oceans Canada experts who were muzzled, his leader was in my region telling people there was no problem. That is the problem with the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to have sustainable development, we need a process and it must be followed.
Asking the House to vote against a project before we have any environmental assessments is like saying that we do not care about the process let alone following it. Our leader is not against this project, but he cannot say he supports it until he sees the environmental assessments, and this is what we are asking for.
Today, we must denounce the government’s refusal to work transparently or in partnership with the Government of Quebec and its refusal to rely on scientific advice. That is the issue here.
Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, I have been surprised when people in this place, who have no background or training on fisheries issues, make decisions and disagree with trained scientists in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These scientists have done due diligence on an issue.
Let me make a comment and then ask a quick question.
The member needs to understand that there were two proposals. One was to do seismic testing. In fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans knows less about the impacts of seismic testing on beluga whales. That is why it conducted a very robust scientific research project to get that information. At the end of that process, it decided it had the potential of causing harm and that a permit was required under the Species at Risk Act, and that was done.
The other option was drilling. In fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has much more expertise and experience with the impacts on aquatic habitat. It determined that it did not require a permit and gave that advice to the proponent.
We have run out of time. We have a 10-minute spot, but we have to move along.
The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.
Mr. Speaker, I guess there will be another opportunity to hear the question.
The problem is that I did not receive answers to my questions. Does my colleague think that the proper process is being followed? Does he agree that he is contradicting the Superior Court ruling that made the case? I read it, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada never provided the scientific information that was requested by the Quebec government. The scientists in his department have that information. They were willing to provide it, but they were not asked by the minister to do so. That is what happened.
I do not have the time to read the two questions, but they are at the core of whether the project is dangerous for beluga. It is awful and should be condemned by everyone in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for laying the case out very clearly that the government has withheld crucial information. The whole idea is whether the public can accept that sustainable development can occur under the Conservative government. If the government hides crucial scientific information, how can the public ever have confidence that sustainable development will occur with this project?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is so right. It is a matter of trust. If we think the government is hiding something, then the process will become very cumbersome and difficult and, at the end of the day, cannot succeed, not in Canada. That is what is happening under the Conservatives, not only at the expense of the environment but also the economy.
Projects are blocked everywhere because the confidence in the government does not exist when we see it tries to muzzle its scientists and it does not consult them when it fears their recommendations will not be what it wants to hear. The Prime Minister is responsible for that pattern.
Mr. Speaker, I found one remark made by my colleague at the beginning of his speech a little strange. He said that the motion was somewhat premature. As my hon. colleague mentioned a little earlier, the leader of the Liberal Party outlined his position on the project a month ago. He did not say he was not against it; he said we should go ahead with it. That was very clear.
I have to wonder about the Liberals’ real position. I hope my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville will be able to convince his leader that he has some work to do to clarify his position.
Aside from that, I want to come back to another point. In British Columbia in October 2012, the leader of the Liberal Party spoke out against the Enbridge pipeline. He talked about the precautionary principle and lamented the fact that the pipeline was to go through one of the most vulnerable and most beautiful ecosystems in the world.
Does he not think that the same is true of the Gulf of St. Lawrence? This is a rich resource that belongs to all Quebeckers. It belongs to all of us. I do not understand why the Liberals are so reluctant when it comes time to stand up in the House and defend this project.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.
The answer is that we need to move forward with a science-based approach and a very rigorous auditing process, with ministers who want to work together.
The federal minister refused to co-operate with the provincial minister, and a Quebec public servant is being blamed. I find that entirely unfair. The guilty person in this process, the one who should be condemned by all of Canada is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The court’s ruling makes this very clear. I invite my colleague and everyone else to read it. That is what we are talking about today. We must move forward, but not using the approach that the minister imposed on Canadians, an approach that is anti-environment, anti-economy, anti-belugas, anti-people and anti-everyone.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for his speech. I have a clear and simple question for him.
I will put it in English to make it easier.
In Bill C-38, at section 165, and I think most members of the House did not notice it, that administration put the National Energy Board in charge of endangered species if they happened to be in the way of a pipeline. In other words, it has put the mandate for bitumen and diluent as a higher priority over endangered species, taken protection of species in the case of a pipeline, trumped the Species at Risk Act, and handed it to the National Energy Board.
That makes everything else we see in this one instance entirely consistent with a policy that puts bitumen first and belugas last.
Mr. Speaker, I share all the concerns my colleague has mentioned. What the Conservative government has done over the years to environmental assessment in Canada is a mess.
We have seen the report of the commissioner this week. It is awful, not only for the environment but for the economy. It is why all these projects go nowhere in Canada.
The Conservatives have tried to get rid of the environmental process and, at the end of the day, they cannot go ahead and build the trust they need to be sure that our economy will be able to export our resources around the world. That is bad for the environment and bad for the economy.
Dear all, On September 29, 2014, during Question Period, I once again blamed the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for refusing to share her department’s scientific […]
Dear friends, On 26 September, 2014, during Question Period, I asked the government why it keeps saying that the Canada-Europe free-trade agreement is a done deal, when it […]
Dear friends, On September 26, 2014, I rose in the House to highlight the 50th anniversary of Entraide Bois-de-Boulogne, an exemplary organization based in my riding […]
Dear friends, Politica Exterior, a Spanish magazine, just published their September 2014 issue on Catalonia and key challenges of a referendum for Spain and Europe. Included […]
Dear friends, On September 22, 2014, Le Devoir and The Globe & Mail published an article in which I argue that the referendum recently held in Scotland […]
Dear all, I would like to draw your attention to two interviews I partook in and which were published last week: the first one, in the […]
Dear friends, On September 18, 2014, during Question Period, I asked the government why, after all the ludicrous policies it has already foisted on Francophone minorities […]