Climate Change Accountability Act

An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change

This bill was last introduced in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in September 2008.

This bill was previously introduced in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session.

Sponsor

Jack Layton  NDP

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Second reading (Senate), as of June 10, 2008
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that
Canada meets its global climate change obligations
under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change by committing to a long-term
target to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions
to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by
the year 2050, and by establishing interim targets for the
period 2015 to 2045. It creates an obligation on
the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development to review proposed measures to meet the
targets and submit a report to Parliament.
It also sets out the duties of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 4, 2008 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
June 4, 2008 Passed That Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
June 4, 2008 Passed That Bill C-377 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 9 the following new clause: “NATIONAL ROUND TABLE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY 13.2 (1) Within 180 days after the Minister prepares the target plan under subsection 6(1) or prepares a revised target plan under subsection 6(2), the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy established by section 3 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act shall perform the following with respect to the target plan or revised target plan: ( a) undertake research and gather information and analyses on the target plan or revised target plan in the context of sustainable development; and ( b) advise the Minister on issues that are within its purpose, as set out in section 4 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, including the following, to the extent that they are within that purpose: (i) the quality and completeness of the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analyses used to establish each target in the target plan or revised target plan, and (ii) any other matters that the National Round Table considers relevant. (2) The Minister shall ( a) within three days after receiving the advice referred to in paragraph (1)(b): (i) publish it in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate, and (ii) submit it to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons and the Speakers shall table it in their respective Houses on any of the first three days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Speaker receives the advice; and ( b) within 10 days after receiving the advice, publish a notice in the Canada Gazette setting out how the advice was published and how a copy of the publication may be obtained.”
June 4, 2008 Passed That Bill C-377 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 9 the following new clause: “13.1 (1) At least once every two years after this Act comes into force, the Commissioner shall prepare a report that includes ( a) an analysis of Canada’s progress in implementing the measures proposed in the statement referred to in subsection 10(2); ( b) an analysis of Canada’s progress in meeting its commitment under section 5 and the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6; and ( c) any observations and recommendations on any matter that the Commissioner considers relevant. (2) The Commissioner shall publish the report in any manner the Commissioner considers appropriate within the period referred to in subsection (1). (3) The Commissioner shall submit the report to the Speaker of the House of Commons on or before the day it is published, and the Speaker shall table the report in the House on any of the first three days on which that House is sitting after the Speaker receives it.”
June 4, 2008 Passed That Bill C-377, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43 on page 8 and lines 1 to 12 on page 9 with the following: “the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy established by section 3 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act shall perform the following with respect to the statement: ( a) undertake research and gather information and analyses on the statement in the context of sustainable development; and ( b) advise the Minister on issues that are within its purpose, as set out in section 4 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, including the following, to the extent that they are within that purpose: (i) the likelihood that each of the proposed measures will achieve the emission reductions projected in the statement, (ii) the likelihood that the proposed measures will enable Canada to meet its commitment under section 5 and meet the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6, and (iii) any other matters that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy considers relevant. (2) The Minister shall ( a) within three days after receiving the advice referred to in paragraph (1)(b): (i) publish it in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate, and (ii) submit it to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons and the Speakers shall table it in their respective Houses on any of the first three days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Speaker receives the advice; and ( b) within 10 days after receiving the advice, publish a notice in the Canada Gazette setting out how the advice was published and how a copy of the publication may be obtained.”
June 4, 2008 Passed That Bill C-377, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following: ““greenhouse gases” means the following substances, as they appear on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999: ( a) carbon dioxide, which has the molecular formula CO2; ( b) methane, which has the molecular formula CH4; ( c) nitrous oxide, which has the molecular formula N2O; ( d) hydrofluorocarbons that have the molecular formula CnHxF(2n+2-x) in which 0<n<6; ( e) the following perfluorocarbons: (i) those that have the molecular formula CnF2n+2 in which 0<n<7, and (ii) octafluorocyclobutane, which has the molecular formula C4F8; and ( f) sulphur hexafluoride, which has the molecular formula SF6.”
April 25, 2007 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

January 30th, 2008 / 5:25 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Wonderful words, “non-partisan”, about an issue like this.... I like those words too. I think if we take this subamendment, if it's accepted by you, then that adds.... We can work on that list, as we did with Bill C-377, rather than discuss this ad nauseam.

January 30th, 2008 / 5:20 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

No, I don't.

I'm not saying that at some point I wouldn't like to visit the oil sands, but I honestly do not understand how viewing the oil sands in person would add important information. I'm looking for technical information from people like David Schindler, who spent a long time studying the impact of the oil sands on the water. These people can bring the information to us.

Maybe in the future we could visit the oil sands, but I'd really like to get on with this study after we've dealt with Bill C-377. I don't think we need to incur those expenses to get the kind of information I'm seeking out of this process.

January 30th, 2008 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Prof. John Stone

Just very briefly, I don't see that Bill C-377 is necessarily inconsistent with where our present government is going, nor indeed with the aspirational statements I've heard from other parties.

My sense is that slowly--and I emphasize slowly--we seem to be coming to a consensus amongst parties in Canada that in fact this is an issue we cannot afford not to tackle.

January 30th, 2008 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Dr. Andrew Weaver

I think Bill C-377 is consistent with the moves that are being made internationally. I think what is interesting is that it sets, specifically, the two-degree target in the policy; it sets a framework to get there. I'm not going to argue for the 80% versus 70% versus 90% because, frankly, we need to move to zero emissions. It's the right framework, and it is consistent with international efforts in this area.

January 30th, 2008 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

I guess my next question would then be, if we don't find that the current government's targets, based on a 2006 baseline, are amongst the toughest in the world and may not get us to where we need to go, do you feel a greater level of comfort with Bill C-377, at least in terms of the kinds of mechanisms it sets out to help us get to a more stringent target? Do you think this is a helpful addition to the policy arsenal or the legal framework for moving ahead?

January 30th, 2008 / 4:40 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here. We've heard from each other on numerous occasions, so it's good to see each of you again.

To be able to move forward you need to look at where you are and at a bit of your past, but keep your focus on moving forward and on the goal. We're well past the debate on the science of climate change. Globally there is an agreement that we have a problem, and a big problem.

This government became government two years ago, and I'm not going to dwell on the past, but we found ourselves in a situation where we were going in a direction we didn't want to go in. So we've set some targets in Canada that are some of the toughest targets in the world. Each country is unique in its own situation, where it is beginning. When you have a government that's actually serious about doing something.... In Canada this government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions: absolute reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% absolute reductions by 2050.

What we are dealing with today is providing the science on Bill C-377. Bill C-377, I'm sure you're aware, is a post-2012, post-Kyoto Protocol bill. Over the next two years there will be negotiations ongoing as to what that post-2012 agreement is going to look like.

The presenter of Bill C-377 is the leader of the NDP, Mr. Jack Layton, and he was here a week ago and shared his vision for the bill with us. I'd like to share that in a minute, but with your focus as scientists, I'd like your critique on Bill C-377.

I'd also like your critique on adaptation. Many of you said in your presentations that we are already experiencing impacts from climate change, and will continue to, and they will increase; that's going to happen. What we need to do as citizens of this world is together reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have to do that. We agree with that, but in Canada what do we need to do in preparation for adaptation?

We have all just come back from a break, and I've had numerous discussions with numerous constituents. One of the comments stuck out in my mind. It sounded like a comment that I read before Christmas break from Rex Murphy. This constituent said how important it was and agreed with the message that Canada was taking to all these international conferences and meetings of the mind that everybody has to participate in. You can't have 30% of the people trying to solve the problem; everybody needs to participate and do their part. Canada has a unique situation, as does every country, and everybody needs to do their part.

Mr. Rutherford, I heard your same comments, and I asked those same questions of myself. Should somebody in India be able to have electricity? Absolutely. Your comment was “I've had my cake and you can't have yours”. I agree, that is a moral question, and people in India, China, or Africa need to be able to improve themselves and have a quality of life, yet protect the environment. This constituent said, “Mark, the way I see it, it is like a big pail of water with hundreds of holes in it and water is squirting out in every direction, and you as a government are plugging one of those holes. And it's lofty, it's good, it needs to happen, but we need everybody plugging their hole so that we can save that pail of water or save this globe.”

I thought it was a somewhat interesting analogy. That did remind me of what Rex Murphy said. He said:

...there can be no serious argument for Canada to make mandatory commitments, while exempting the giant emitters of the world such as China and India. This is like plugging a leak while ignoring the flood.

That's a very similar analogy.

When Mr. Layton came and spoke on Bill C-377—I want to get specifically to the bill now—he made his presentation. The targets, the objectives, he set out in Bill C-377 would be an 80% reduction by 2050. We've identified some benchmarks along the way: a 25% reduction in 2020 and interim targets at five-year intervals.

He then went on to say those targets are based on The Case for Deep Reductions, a report by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation. He also said, “I know that Matthew Bramley will be your next witness...and he will be describing his research and this report”.

When I had an opportunity to—

January 30th, 2008 / 3:55 p.m.
See context

Dr. David Sauchyn Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual

In fact, it was minus 37 degrees Celsius this morning when I called for a cab and minus 52 degrees Celsius with the wind chill. So I'm enjoying the balmy weather in Ottawa; therefore I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to visit Ottawa again and to have some other meetings at the same time.

I represent an organization called the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, which was created to inform decision-makers in the prairie provinces about the consequences of climate change.

The previous speakers have provided the strong scientific arguments for stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. I will speak to the other scientific underpinnings of Bill C-377; that is, the statements in the preamble that refer to the scientific evidence for the impacts of increased levels of greenhouse gases and for the threats to the economic well-being, public health, and natural resources and environment of Canada.

A large number of facts and figures are available in the fourth assessment report of Working Group II of the IPCC in support of these scientific underpinnings. However, this IPCC report defines the scope and severity of the global problem; for a Canadian perspective, Natural Resources Canada has led, for the past two to three years, a major national scientific assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation. Within weeks, the Government of Canada will release this major scientific report that presents the synthesis and interpretation of more than 3,000 studies by more than 110 authors.

As the lead author of this report, and with the knowledge of the secretariat in Natural Resources Canada, I am able to report today that this assessment report makes it clear that significant impacts are occurring in all regions of Canada and that the number and severity of the impacts will continue to increase.

In addition to the urgent action required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow the rate of climate change, the national assessment notes the critical importance of adaptation.

Allow me to give just two examples, from the prairie provinces, of the consequences of climate change for two fundamental Canadian natural resources: trees and water.

With the recent and inevitable warming, Canada's boreal forest will change dramatically as a result of increased disturbance and moisture stress. In fact, as a result of global warming, the boreal forest has begun to change, impacting the communities and economies that depend upon it.

It's likely that the institutions of Canada have enough capacity to manage a forest that has undergone moderate change; however, without deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, scientific studies indicate that we will entirely lose the southern boreal forest. It will disappear, along with the economies that depend on it.

But the major concern for western Canadians is the threat of global warming to water supplies. With recent warming, water supplies in the summertime have begun to decline as runoff from snow melt has declined and shifted earlier into the spring and as summers have become longer and warmer.

Once again, some change is manageable. In fact, in some parts of western Canada where there are reliable water supplies, farmers have begun to capitalize on the longer, warmer summers. However, rising greenhouse gas emissions will cause regional warming and impacts on water resources that quickly create major challenges for sustaining the economies and communities of western Canada.

With the projected and recent increase in population and industry, especially in Alberta, the demand for water will soon exceed supplies from the conventional source of water, which is snow melt runoff from the eastern slopes of the Alberta Rockies.

The tipping point is very close. Climate change is closing the gap between water supply and water demand. In fact, in some river basins in southern Alberta, the water supplies are now fully allocated.

The most costly natural hazard in Canada is prairie drought. Of the five most damaging climate events in Canadian history, four are prairie droughts. The other is the ice storm of 1998. The most threatening scenario for people, especially on the prairies, is a prolonged drought, and as the climate warms, this scenario becomes increasingly probable.

Some government and industry leaders believe or have stated that taking strong action to reduce greenhouse gases will devastate economies. In fact, we heard just a couple of days ago from Premier Stelmach that reducing emissions in Alberta will shut down the oil sands. I would like for once to see the scientific evidence of this. I would like to see the factual support for this argument. It seems to be lacking.

In fact, careful studies have derived estimates of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Credible studies estimate the cost of stabilizing greenhouse gases is something on the order of one half to one and a half per cent of global GDP per year. I can refer you to one such study entitled A cost curve for greenhouse gas reduction, a global study of the size and cost of measures to reduce greenhouse gases by some consultants from Norway whose clients include 70% of Fortune magazine's most admired companies.

Although deep emission cuts will have economic, social, and perhaps political costs, the actions proposed in Bill C-377 are critical in terms of preventing a possibly devastating degree of climate change. Climate change and its consequences will almost certainly accelerate through the coming decades. We urgently need your leadership and federal policy to enable individuals, institutions, and communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change because already we are locked in to increasingly serious impacts in the immediate future.

A comprehensive climate change strategy is required to avoid the adverse consequences of climate change and to address the influence of human activities on the climate of Canada, the impacts, the risks and opportunities, and the necessary adjustments to public policy, resource management, engineering practices, and infrastructure design.

Public policies must be developed to enable adaptation, to discourage maladaptation, and to build adaptive capacity. Already the provinces are developing and releasing climate change plans and announcing targets. Yesterday in Vancouver, I read today, the western premiers signed an agreement for collective action to deal with climate change impacts on Canada's water and forests.

Also, some local governments, and industry and communities, are taking aggressive action. The federal government must play a crucial coordinating and enabling role. Without decisive national action and policy, there is the risk that federal politicians will lag far behind. Federal policy-makers are at risk of failing us at every level, regional, national, and on the world stage, and in the meantime the provincial governments are taking action.

I speak for many scientists when I conclude that Canada can and must take action now on climate change. Thank you.

January 30th, 2008 / 3:50 p.m.
See context

Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Dr. Andrew Weaver

Wonderful.

Thank you very much for inviting me to provide some testimony here. What I would like to do is provide a bit of background with respect to a declaration that was put forward by scientists to Bali at the meeting that was held between December 3 and 14, 2007. This is a 2007 Bali climate declaration by scientists. I'll read it to you. It says:

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction.

The next round of focused negotiations for a new global climate treaty--within the 1992 UNFCCC process--needs to begin in December 2007 and be completed by 2009. The prime goal of this new regime must be to limit global warming to no more than 2ºC above the pre-industrial temperature, a limit that has already been formally adopted by the European Union and a number of other countries.

Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilized at a level well below 450 parts per million, measured in CO2-equivalent concentration. In order to stay below 2ºC, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years, so there is no time to lose.

As scientists, we urge the negotiators to reach an agreement that takes these targets as a minimum requirement for a fair and effective global climate agreement.

In my years as a climate scientist, since the 1980s, I have never before witnessed such a spontaneous coming together of scientists around the world. This declaration was put forward by a number of scientists at the University of New South Wales in Australia and was signed by between 200 and 250 of the world's top climate scientists. This is not something that was driven politically. It was not something that was driven by special interest groups. It was driven by the scientific community to try to feed into the Bali process--a process that seems to be ignoring what the scientific community is telling the world's leaders, including those leaders in Canada.

I'm speaking to you as the lead author of the IPCC's second, third, and fourth assessments, back in 1995, 2001, and more lately 2007. I'm also the chief editor of the Journal of Climate, which is the premier journal for publishing new scientific research in all aspects of climate science.

When we talk about Bill C-377, one of the key things you'll ask is whether 80% is the right number or whether 70% is the right number. I'm not going to speak to a particular number. What I can say is that any stabilization of greenhouse gases at any level requires global emissions to go to zero. There is no other option. To stabilize the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at any concentration that is relevant to human existence on the planet, we must go to zero emissions. The reason is that the only natural mechanisms for the draw-down of carbon dioxide on longer time scales occur through weathering of rocks, which happens on hundreds of thousands of year time scales, and the dissolution of carbon carbonates from the sediment of the ocean, which happens on tens of thousands of year time scales.

Things like the terrestrial biosphere saturate out this century and can no longer take up any more carbon dioxide. The ocean, as it warms, also begins to lose its effectiveness at taking out carbon dioxide.

So in order to stabilize, we must have global emissions go to zero. That's a big task, and it requires leadership. I'm hoping, as a Canadian, that we in Canada can show such leadership.

Another way of looking at this is that there has been a lot of focus in terms of emissions and a lot of focus in terms of stabilizing at a level of greenhouse gases. The climate system doesn't care about the emissions today or yesterday; what it cares about is accumulative emissions of carbon dioxide since pre-industrial times. We've put out about 458 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere since that time, and it turns out if you want to not break the two-degree threshold with a 66% probability, we only have another 484 billion tonnes we can put out, and that's from now until eternity. We're putting it out at more than 10 billion tonnes a year, so you can see the challenge is large.

I'll end there and urge you to take this bill seriously and move toward implementing policies in Canada that will show leadership internationally.

January 30th, 2008 / 3:35 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I call the meeting to order. We have a piece of business just before....

Mr. Regan, you'll be particularly interested in my first announcement. I have talked to members of the Liberal Party and Conservative members about getting our esteemed people who were at the Bali meeting to come here. Everyone wants them to come. I'm proposing that we ask our clerk to send a letter inviting them here. I would suggest this be right after our last scheduled meeting—I think it's on the 11th—and that they be asked to appear at the meeting following that. I trust that meets with everybody's approval. We will wait and see our response and if we need to do anything further, but I think this will certainly satisfy the requests I've had.

I've met with our speakers, and I certainly want to welcome you to this session on Bill C-377. The order we'll go will be: Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Stone, Mr. Weaver, and then Mr. Sauchyn. By their agreement, they've asked that that be the order we follow.

My intention is that at 5:15 p.m. we then deal with the motion of Mr. Scarpaleggia. That would give us 15 minutes, and then I think members are aware we have a vote when the bells start at 5:30.

That would be our procedure.

I would ask our guests to be as brief as possible. I do have a little grey box that most of you are certainly familiar with, so I will know how long you have been. Certainly I'd ask you to keep it to within five, seven, eight minutes, or thereabouts, so that we have maximum time for questions.

We'll start with Mr. Rutherford, please.

December 11th, 2007 / 5:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Exactly. So it's not really that responsible for Canada to be silent on the part it intends to play post-2012, I would suggest to you, and I do suggest as well that the Liberals, it would appear, seemed rather interested in your report subsequently, but during that time when they were at the helm or at the rudder, there was not a great deal of interest in your plan.

I guess this question is for both of you at this time. Your plan, and this plan here, which I guess is the mirror of that, Bill C-377, has no action in it. It gives the government no authority to spend money to meet the bill. So what's your understanding of exactly what this private member's bill is, and how do you expect the government to be able to achieve anything in it without spending a dime?

December 11th, 2007 / 5:20 p.m.
See context

Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute

Matthew Bramley

First of all, I think it's extremely misleading what you said in your preamble, because Bill C-377 says nothing about how the efforts would be distributed between provinces. So it is absolutely false.

December 11th, 2007 / 5:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the record here, my name is Maurice Vellacott. I'm a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, and in the words of Stéphane Dion, the Liberal leader, I think it's just not fair what Mr. Layton's Bill C-377 will do to Saskatchewan, as I look at the numbers here in Madam Donnelly's WDA Consulting brief, at ten times the burden of Ontario, twice Alberta's, twelve times Quebec's, and seven or eight times as much as Manitoba, and so on.

I don't know why Jack wants to get back at Saskatchewan, my fair province, whether it's because we've rejected the NDP in that province recently or what the deal is, why he would be trying to place a particularly unfair burden on my province of Saskatchewan.

I have a question first for Mr. Bramley in terms of his report, The Case for Deep Reductions, done along with the David Suzuki Foundation. Mr. Bramley, with respect to this report of yours, do you do any economic modelling that specifically focuses on Canada?

December 11th, 2007 / 5 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC

I will repeat my question to Ms. Donnelly.

Your table provides a breakdown by province of greenhouse gas and CO2 production, with 2005 as the reference year.

Why did you choose 2005, and not 1990, which is the base year for Bill C-377?

December 11th, 2007 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Donnelly and Mr. Bramley, welcome.

My first question is for Ms. Donnelly. Your table on page 2 shows a breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions by province for the year 2005.

What did you have in mind when you proposed the year 2005, given the fact that Bill C-377 consistently refers to 1990?

December 11th, 2007 / 4:55 p.m.
See context

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Bramley, have you seen any analysis or econometric modelling—anything done by the Department of Finance, anything contracted out to consulting firms—that would backstop the government's domestic plan, and of course the plan underlying our negotiating position in Bali? It is linked to Bill C-377, of course, because Bill C-377 speaks directly to the question of science. Have you seen a shred of analysis anywhere by the government, in any line department, that helps us understand how the government arrives at its purported cuts by 2020?