Environment Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Prof. John Stone]

I think what's most significant in Washington is that science has been returned to its rightful position. The administration has appointed top-rate, internationally recognized scientists to its administration. This has been an enormous encouragement to scientists, not just in the U.S. but also in Canada and elsewhere.

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

What we're hearing in Washington is exactly what the scientists would like to hear. It's a discussion based on scientific facts. There is no more systematic rejection of the scientific facts. The scientific consensus is recognized by the politicians. The situation is much healthier than it used to be, and things will move extremely fast in the United States. Already, the Obama administration sees all the difficulties of imposing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but it also sees the solutions.

I believe that Mr. Obama will soon be able to convince the coal unions to change their position. Instead of burning coal, if they use solar energy and develop new technologies and everything, they can bring richness to the United States. The day he is able to convince those constituencies, things will move extremely fast. The problem is that in Canada we're going to be waiting to do the same thing.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Dr. Sauchyn.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

I have nothing to add.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Have we seen the concomitant or corollary investment, and perhaps respect, in Canada in the past several years in terms of placing scientific evidence over ideology?

Dr. Stone.

[Prof. John Stone]

That's a pretty leading question.

My sense is that we have been ignoring the scientific evidence on climate change for too long.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Do we feel in Canada that there is the same sort of respect now being accorded scientists; senior scientists are in senior positions in the administration; the government is listening to science; the government is calling on scientists; the government is asking scientists to help inform a non-existing plan?

I mean, as scientists, you're completely capable of commenting on that, I presume.

Mr. Zwiers, have you seen an uptake in respect accorded to scientific work in terms of formulating a plan somewhere, sometime?

[Dr. Francis Zwiers]

I can relate to you that the kinds of requests that come to me from up the management stream are requests that are designed to inform our negotiating position, for example. Within Environment Canada, we have a science working group that briefs up to our international negotiating team, our COP 15 negotiating team, on current developments in science, at the request of that negotiating team. Certainly we receive a fair number of requests from them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. McGuinty. Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plaît, sept minutes.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to thank our witnesses for their presentations. As regards Bill C-311, it is important to have a good scientific basis before we begin our in-depth study of the measures contained in the bill.

I have two questions. The first is for Mr. Fortier. It seems that nobody answered Mr. McGuinty's question.

In an environmental magazine of the spring of 2008, you stated, and I quote:

Under the Liberals, there were lots of good intentions but very little action. The Conservatives have valid arguments for not endorsing the Kyoto Protocol because Kyoto is not THE solution. It is a step in the right direction, but we must go further. The Conservatives could develop a plan which goes further than Kyoto. If they don't, it will be up to voters to let them know...”

Given that Kyoto is indeed part of the solution—you may not have a plan for us today—would you concede that we may not have a plan before us, but we do have a bill whose aim is to find a solution in light of the scientific evidence you presented to us today?

If you want to go further than Kyoto, as you said you did in the spring of 2008, would the quick adoption of Bill C-311 not be a step in that direction?

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

Absolutely, Mr. Bigras. I did not realize I was engaging in politics when I wrote that magazine piece. That's the point: Kyoto does not go far enough. This is what scientists have been saying from the outset. We have to do much more.

Bill C-31 is music to my ears, no doubt about it. I feel great when I read it. The bill points us in exactly the right direction. It is ambitious, given the numbers and values which it contains, but it is completely realistic.

Further, a little earlier, I wanted to explain that if Canada does not embark on this transformation, this metamorphosis of its economy towards an economy which is based on alternative energy, we will be lagging far behind other countries in 20 years. We will end up riding on the coattails of the United States and Europe. We must act now and as quickly as possible.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Excellent.

My second question is for Mr. Stone.

A few weeks ago, I was reading an article in The National Post's October 2, 2009 issue about a man named Ross McKitrick, whom you probably know and who is a professor of environmental economy at the University of Guelph. I believe he is one of those scientists who call themselves negationists—I don't know if that is the correct term—and who are trying to invalidate the work of the IPCC, and who question the theory developed by Professor Mann, the one which uses a hockey stick as an analogy, and which you are probably familiar with.

I was reading his article last week. He said that the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to hide the problem. In his opinion, there is a significant gap between climate models and what has been observed, and the controversy grows year after year.

I cannot lend Mr. McKitrick's piece any credibility. However, what do you say to scientists who question the work of the IPCC?

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Please allow me to respond in English.

The climate skeptics, as I like to call them, have been remarkably effective in delaying action on climate change for almost 20 years. The tactic they have used is to emphasize uncertainty. Unfortunately, most of them are not scientists, certainly not climate scientists, and their approach is to attack rather than to resort to research, as other scientists do, and to published papers, papers in peer review journals. It surprises me that newspapers still give these people space on their sheets when the IPCC and many, many other scientific institutions have made it absolutely clear that climate change is real, it's happening now, it's caused by us, and if we don't get off the present track the consequences could be quite damaging.

I trust that provides at least some of the answer to your question.

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

To just add to what my colleague said, how could 1,200 scientists from around the world, who have 6,000 other scientists looking over their shoulders, possibly be part of a conspiracy to falsify data and to announce to politicians, and to the entire world for that matter, that a catastrophe is imminent? Scientists just aren’t like that, they just aren’t in the same category of human or animals as are the deniers, the skeptics. The skeptics are people who have to be part of a crusade, or part of a religion, or something, and who are governed by instinct, whereas scientists study data and have no choice in the answers they give.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I don't have much time left.

The Kyoto Protocol contained a provision relating to carbon sinks which would see the sinks, or forests, used to offset greenhouse gas emissions.

However, this type of measure is not included in Bill C-311. Based on scientific studies, do you think we should include this option, namely carbon sinks, in a Canadian plan to fight climate change? The Kyoto Protocol sets limits on the extent to which carbon sinks can be used to offset a country's greenhouse gas emissions. So what role should carbon sinks play in Bill C-311 and in a future Canadian plan?

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

To briefly respond, there are at least 15 proven technical ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Each country does not have to use all of these methods. If in Canada, from a technological point of view or because of our environment, it is better to focus on certain sectors, then we don't need all of the other methods. If Canada adopted carbon capture and storage as a way to mitigate the Athabasca oil sands refinery emissions, and if we made better use of existing types of energy, if we slowly but surely got rid of fossil fuels, we could reach our objectives, such as those contained in the bill, even if we did not use carbon sinks—our forests—or other types of sinks.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired. We have to keep on moving.

Ms. Duncan, it's your turn.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank all four gentlemen for testifying. I know that you're very busy scientists. I appreciate your taking time away from the important work you're doing on documenting and bringing forward the issues that are being attached to climate change to testify to us and try to influence our opinion. I consider your testimony extremely valuable.

My first question I would put to Dr. Fortier and Dr. Stone, but Dr. Sauchyn and Dr. Zwiers can feel free to elaborate as well.

I think it was you, Dr. Fortier, who mentioned that the failure of Canada to commit to the science-based targets as laid out in Bill C-311 and as put forward by the IPCC has impacted our international reputation and competitiveness. Based on what I've read and the international conferences I've appeared at, that opinion seems to be backed up by a wide range of groups, including the International Energy Agency, UNEP, and the Copenhagen Climate Council. So that certainly seems to be a growing common view.

If Canada committed to these targets in Bill C-311, would that help to begin to restore our international stature at those tables?

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

Absolutely, and very quickly.

In fact, not only the political but also the scientific international community is somewhat taken aback and surprised by the recent attitude of Canada toward those major global issues. Canada has always been seen as the country that can actually influence the U.S.A., having the high ground environmentally over the U.S.A., and having some clout, some impact, some effect on the U.S.A. We don't see that any more.

The comment that this is surprising comes from all horizons. I've had the King of Sweden ask me how come Canada is like that now; how come you cannot use what you see in the Arctic to convince the present government that it's important to move along with the rest of the international community in this domain?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Dr. Stone.

[Prof. John Stone]

In a word, absolutely. Absolutely it would do enormous good to Canada's credibility.

More than that, it could help immeasurably in the international process and getting a satisfactory outcome of the negotiations in Copenhagen.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Would either of the other two like to reply?

Dr. Sauchyn.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

I can add, Ms. Duncan, that not only does Canada's reputation suffer internationally, but there's a great deal of frustration with the federal government within industry, amongst your constituents.

We consult with these groups, and I can cite hundreds of examples of measures being taken by individual constituents, by farmers, by people in the forestry sector, by industry. They require some kind of leadership by the federal government, because right now they're making adjustments, mitigative and adaptation efforts, at their own cost and on their own behalf.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Gentlemen, there's been some suggestion from some quarters that we don't need to commit to the Canadian targets until after Copenhagen. I'd like your opinion on whether you think that there's any value in that suggestion, or does it make more sense, as I and others in my party have been suggesting, that in order to get a good agreement at Copenhagen, we should be committing—we should have already committed—now to the science-based targets leading into Copenhagen?

[Prof. John Stone]

The question I ask myself is what is Canada going to say in Copenhagen? It would seem to me that if we're going to be taken seriously, we're going to have to say something, and that has to be developed ahead of that conference in Copenhagen.

It seems to be a logical way of doing things.