Evidence of meeting #32 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ipcc.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John Stone  Adjunct Research Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, As an Individual
Francis Zwiers  Director, Climate Research Division, Department of the Environment
Louis Fortier  Scientific Director, Network of Centres of Excellence ArcticNet, Laval University, As an Individual
David Sauchyn  Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Order. We're ready to go.

We're going to kick off our meeting, which is meeting number 32, resuming the study of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. This is pursuant to the order of reference that was given on Wednesday, April 1, 2009.

I want to welcome those who are joining us today at committee.

John Stone is an adjunct research professor in the department of geography and environmental studies at Carleton University.

We also have Francis Zwiers. He is with the climate research division at the Department of the Environment.

We have Louis Fortier, who is scientific director with the Network of Centres of Excellence ArcticNet at Laval University.

Joining us by video conference from Regina is David Sauchyn, research professor at Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina.

Welcome, all. It's great having all of you here.

I ask that all of you keep your opening presentations to under ten minutes. I will signal to you when we're getting close to ten minutes, if you're pushing it. But to be fair to the committee, we want to have a fulsome discussion in the two hours we have slated.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Stone.

Please go ahead.

11:05 a.m.

Professor John Stone Adjunct Research Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, As an Individual

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. Much of what I have to say is based on the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, although I will provide some updated information where it suggests that the need to act is becoming more urgent. My remarks focus on the long term and the immediate future.

Emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise and are now growing at 3.5% per year. In fact, emissions for the last few years have been larger than the worst-case scenario developed by the IPCC in their Special Report on Emissions Scenarios in 2000. This worst-case scenario projects carbon dioxide concentrations in 2100 of almost four times pre-industrial levels with global temperatures around 4°C. We certainly don't want to go there. The impacts could be catastrophic.

Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are indeed continuing to grow. Currently, the concentration of carbon dioxide—the most important greenhouse gas—is almost 390 parts per million, which is a 38% increase since pre-industrial times and the highest it has been in almost one million years. The annual rate in increase in the 1990s was about 1.5% per year; it is now close to 2.5%. This carbon dioxide will stay in the atmosphere for many centuries. As it does, it will continue to trap heat and warm the planet.

As a result of these changes, global average temperatures have risen. Global average temperatures are now outside the range observed over the last 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than at present for an extended period, there was little ice at the poles, and sea levels were four to six metres higher. What is more troubling is that the linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. In other words, the closer one comes to the present, the more the rate of increase of global temperatures increases.

There are other indications that climate change may be accelerating. Closer to home—I'm sure Louis Fortier will elaborate—the Arctic sea ice is declining faster than any of our models has been projecting. The reduction in 2007 was unprecedented in the period for which we have reliable, comprehensive measurements. In some estimations, late summer Arctic sea ice could disappear almost entirely within the next few decades rather than by the end of the century, as was previously thought. The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than we have seen before, and we have been forced to entirely rethink our understanding of glacier physics. As a result, current projections of sea level rise are as much as twice that reported in the IPCC's fourth assessment report.

All of this suggests to me that we have to act, and act urgently, to address the threat of climate change. Time is not on our side. An explicit long-term goal is regarded as being absolutely essential. Without such a goal, none of us—individuals, businesses, and other levels of government—will have a clear direction for policy and action. Such a goal must be strong enough to stimulate the necessary ambition.

But this is not enough. We also need short- and medium-term objectives. Once each short-term objective is achieved, decisions on subsequent steps can be made in the light of new knowledge and reduced uncertainties.

Ideally, the choice of a long-term goal is the product of solid science and wise political decision-making. Science can inform the process, but in the end it depends on what we value, and this is best determined through a political process.

It is estimated that if we stabilized concentrations of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at roughly the equivalent of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide, we could limit global mean temperature increases to about 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Such a stabilization level, however, implies concentrations of carbon dioxide alone of 350 to 400 parts per million, which has to be compared with today's level of 390 parts per million. Clearly it's going to be difficult now to meet this goal without some overshoot from which we will have to recover.

There is a growing consensus that indeed we should try to avoid such an increase of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, in order to avoid what the framework convention refers to as “dangerous interference with the climate”. We have already seen an increase of 0.7°C, and in order to achieve this goal it is estimated that global greenhouse gas emissions will have to peak before 2015 and be at least at 50% of current levels by 2050.

These are global numbers, and achieving these low-emission scenarios requires a comprehensive global mitigation effort. The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report contains some estimates of what this would possibly mean for industrialized countries. Countries like Canada will need to reduce their emissions in 2020 by 25% to 40% below 1990 levels and in 2050 by approximately 80% to 95%. These ranges cover the levels suggested in Bill C-311. Emissions in developing countries, on the other hand, would need to start to be below their current business-as-usual emissions pathways by 2020 and be substantially below these pathways by 2050. Such a commitment was made recently by the Chinese premier, at the United Nations meeting on climate change in New York.

Now let me switch briefly to the other end of the spectrum and talk about what we have to do now.

Very simply, time is running out. What we do in the next decade or so will be critical to tackling the long-term threat of climate change. Decisions to delay emission reductions will likely be more costly and riskier. Delaying decisions will seriously constrain opportunities to achieve future low stabilization levels and raise the risk of progressively more severe climate change impacts.

It's been estimated that each 10-year delay in mitigation implies an additional 0.2°C to 0.3°C of warming over the next 100 to 400 years. Because of the inertia of the climate system, there is at present already approximately 0.6°C of additional warming, as it were, in the bank. Together with the warming we've already experienced of 0.7°C, this gets us perilously close already to the 2°C target.

As the IPCC has stated, evidence of climate change is unequivocal. The scientific community has issued a warning, a warning that may now be underestimated. Addressing climate change will be a long-term challenge, but one we must start addressing now. There is no excuse for inaction. The climate has a memory, and it will not let us forget.

To conclude, let me quote from the World Development Report 2010 issued recently by the World Bank, which says we need to “act now, act together, and act differently”.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Dr. Stone. We appreciate your opening comments.

With that, we will go to Mr. Zwiers for comments.

11:10 a.m.

Dr. Francis Zwiers Director, Climate Research Division, Department of the Environment

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to be a witness.

I'll start by describing a little bit about the IPCC assessment process. I have a heavy involvement in the IPCC. I'm a vice-chair of the IPCC bureau, as Professor Stone has been in the past.

The principal products of the IPCC are sets of comprehensive reports, issued roughly every six years, on the science of climate change, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and the mitigation of climate change, together with a synthesis report.

The process is one that engages governments and in which governments take ownership. The scientific community, together with input from the governments, develops a proposed outline for the report and that outline is then approved by the member countries. There are currently 194 member countries of the IPCC.

The governments commission a particular type of report. The world's top scientists then assess the available literature. The IPCC does not do research, but produces draft reports that are reviewed extensively.

In the case of Working Group 1, in which I was involved, there were more than 30,000 comments from scientists and government analysts of all stripes. Authors are required to respond to each and every one of those comments. There are review editors who track how those responses are produced to ensure that responses are provided in a fulsome manner.

Ultimately, the governments accept the reports that are produced and give line-by-line approval of the summaries for policy-makers, again making the reports theirs. These are 194 governments of all stripes, from all over the world.

Canada makes important contributions to the IPCC, providing both leadership and expertise for the assessment process. As I mentioned, Canada sits on the IPCC bureau. We provide expertise from government labs, universities, and the private sector and we undertake substantial amounts of science in this country.

On the key findings from the IPCC, there are two, in essence. The first is that the IPCC concluded in its fourth assessment report that the world is warming, that human activities are largely responsible for this warming, and that additional warming is inevitable.

That means, of course, that there is warming that will take place, as Dr. Stone has already mentioned, to which we will have to adapt. But IPCC findings also show that the choice of emissions path over this century will ultimately determine the climate that our grandchildren experience at the end of this century.

IPCC has reported on a number of observed changes. It reports that a warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is evident from observations of increases in global air temperature and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of ice and snow, and so on. The total temperature increase from the late 19th century to the beginning of the 21st century is about three-quarters of a degree.

There are many other aspects of the climate system that are changing, and changing in a sense that is consistent with the warming that is taking place. There are changes in wind patterns, in the hydrological cycle, including precipitation and some aspects of extremes, and so on.

We have a great deal of information about the causes of these changes, and the IPCC has been making increasingly strong assessments in that regard. Each of those assessments is very conservative relative to the science that was available at the time.

For the second assessment report, the assessment was that there were slightly better than even odds of a human influence on climate.

For the third assessment report, the assessment was that it was “likely”--a term that has a specific IPCC meaning, which is that it has at least two chances in three of being correct--that most of the observed warming during the past 50 years at that time was due to human influence on the climate system.

For the fourth assessment report, that assessment is now very likely, so there is less than one chance in ten of the statement being incorrect, and likely substantially fewer chances than one in ten that most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to human influence on the climate system.

Also, there are assessments of many other changes in the climate system that have similarly been quantified, including changes in extremes, ocean interior temperatures, sea level, glaciers, atmospheric circulation, wind patterns, precipitation extremes, and droughts.

Projections for the next few decades are continued warming at about two-tenths of a degree Centigrade per decade, with about one-tenth of a degree Centigrade per decade already built into the system--committed warming. If we manage to stabilize atmospheric compositions at today's level, the climate would continue to warm and sea level would continue to rise for long periods of time.

The IPCC shows that there are substantial impacts from this warming. Some sectors and regions may initially benefit from warming that is taking place, but ultimately almost everybody suffers impacts, with increasing severity in number. Some sectors and regions that are likely to be impacted--again, more than two chances out of three--are the tundra, boreal forest, and mountain regions; snow and ice biomes, with sea ice biomes involving seals, polar bears, and so on; water resources in dry regions; low-lying coastal systems; and so on.

There are many implications for Canada. We have observed in Canada a rise in average temperature of 1.2°C since 1950. That's about twice the global rate. Warming that has been observed in Canada is attributable to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. There have been changes in precipitation over this period. Stream flow in rivers flowing into the Arctic has increased. The hydrological regime on many river systems has changed, with earlier peak flows and changes in the magnitude of peak flows.

Projections indicate that there will be continued warming over Canada at roughly double the global rate, with amplified changes in the north and greater vulnerability to drought despite increased precipitation over our land mass. Water levels in the Great Lakes and in the St. Lawrence River are likely to decline. There will be a continued loss of sea ice, permafrost, snow cover, and so on.

Professor Stone discussed the mitigation pathways that were assessed in the IPCC, indicating that emissions should peak by 2050 and be reduced by 20% to 85% below year 2000 levels to limit warming to somewhere below 2.4°C, or in the range of 2°C to 2.4°C. The risk of exceeding 2.4°C is substantial nonetheless, because the IPCC assessments do not account for uncertainties due to climate sensitivity--the amount that climate responds to the release of a fixed amount of greenhouse gas--or carbon cycle feedbacks, the possibility that carbon that is currently stored in soils, in ecosystems, and in oceans may be released to the climate system as the climate system warms, further driving the climate system to additional warming.

This has been an area of very active research recently. This research indicates that the key determinant of future stabilized warming is the total amount of global emissions of carbon dioxide accumulated over time--that is, the total amount ever to be released from pre-industrial to the present and on into the future.

This research indicates that warming can likely--meaning a 66% probability or more--be kept below 2°C if the post-2000 cumulative emissions do not exceed a number of about 560 petagrams of carbon. We're currently emitting about 10 petagrams of carbon per year. At current rates, that means 59 years of emissions.

Warming can very likely--meaning with greater than 90% certainty--be kept below 2°C if post-2000 cumulative emissions do not exceed 170 petagrams of carbon. But note that we're already 44% along the road to using up that 90%, since 74 petagrams of carbon were emitted between 2001 and 2008, cumulative.

Emissions pathways that peak earlier may allow more gradual subsequent emissions reductions, although there is also research that indicates that the probability of exceeding 2°C increases if mid-21st century, or 2050, emission rates remain high.

A further uncertainty that needs to be taken into account is that as emissions are reduced, the cooling effects of aerosols that currently offset the warming of non-CO2 greenhouse gases begin to diminish, and therefore the effects of those non-CO2 greenhouse gases start to become more apparent.

Ultimately, the degree of risk that is tolerable is a societal choice. It's not one that scientists can inform. We can only help to provide the factual information with which you will make those decisions.

So it's a societal choice as to whether we want to risk a warming in excess of 2°C at a level of 66%, a one-third chance of exceeding that level of warming, or a level with greater certainty, allowing ourselves perhaps only one chance in ten of exceeding that level. If the choice is to take a conservative approach and to minimize the risk, then we need to begin to curtail emissions very rapidly on a global scale.

Thank you.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Dr. Zwiers.

Dr. Fortier, the floor is yours.

October 20th, 2009 / 11:25 a.m.

Professor Louis Fortier Scientific Director, Network of Centres of Excellence ArcticNet, Laval University, As an Individual

Mr. Chairman, committee members,

thank you for hearing me on Bill C-311.

I would like to raise three points which, I hope, will demonstrate the political and socio-economic importance of the bill, as well as its excellent timing given what is happening in the world today.

For the first point, allow me to be somewhat blunt. In recent years, Canada's abysmal record in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions has had terrible impacts on our international stature as a country. We plummeted from the enviable position of world leader on environmental issues in the early 1990s to a reputation of a foot-dragging crony of the U.S.A.

Now that the U.S.A. and Australia have made a clear about-face, Canada is left in the cold, collecting fossil prizes at each international meeting.

Based on many conferences presented to the general public, let me assure you that this resistance and the resulting international disapproval are insufferable to many Canadians who are genuinely concerned with climate change. Bill C-311 would certainly help rebuild Canada's international stature in the stewardship of the global environment.

Second and perhaps more important, the 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which would be imposed by Bill C-311, would necessarily require a complete and crucial transformation of the Canadian economy. We will have to either buy at great cost or develop ourselves the technology and the infrastructure to shift from an economy rooted in cheap petrol and the gas engine to an economy based on renewable energies and the electric car.

This is the direction that the modern world is taking now. Canada is already losing ground to several countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, which are taking aggressive measures to wean themselves off fossil fuels. These are countries that will soon dominate the world's economy, thanks to immensely more efficient and competitive industries. For example, it is forecasted that 30% of the one billion vehicles that will roam the planet by 2030 will be hybrid or fully electric cars and will be charged from electric grids powered primarily by solar energy.

Based on the fact that it took about 10 years to replace the horse with the automobile, I personally think and hope that this transformation will take place even faster. How will Canada position itself in this new electro-solar economy? We have the engineering skills and the industrial basis to take some leadership.

For example, researchers at the Institut de recherches en électricité du Québec have just developed a lithium battery that can be recharged at unprecedented rates, thus making possible a wide-autonomy all-electric car.

Are we going to wait for the Americans and the Japanese to develop these new technologies for us, or are we going to encourage the development of our own capacity to wean our society from fossil fuels, thereby fulfilling at the same time our climate responsibilities and making Canada an exporter rather than an importer of this new technology?

The alternative of fossilizing Canada in the fossil fuel-based economy will be suicidal as the era of cheap oil comes to an end. It would lead to the degradation of the Canadian economy that would parallel the decline of the Soviet economies in the second half of the last century. Bill C-311 would certainly force Canada to make the right choice between competitiveness and fossilization.

Third, I would like to stress that the fate of Bill C-311 will hinge to some extent on whether or not at the time of the vote MPs are convinced of the reality of dangerous climate change. Now, like the severed heads of the mythological Hydra, the unbalanced debate on the reality of climate change is perpetually growing back in the media.

For example, just last Friday in his very popular editorial, Mr. Rex Murphy again steered the debate by referring to a BBC report that pointed out that despite rising carbon dioxide levels, global temperatures have not risen over the past 10 years. Mr. Murphy's prose smacked of contempt when assimilating scientists to the zealots of some climate change religion.

It is important to point out that for scientists, the reality of climate warming is not an issue of fate. It's an issue of hard data, hard fact. Like any other citizens, scientists all wish climate change would go away and would no longer threaten our future and that of our children. However, the hard scientific facts are that despite some expected decadal fluctuations, global temperatures are definitely on the rise.

Decadal interludes in rising global temperatures and in the declining trend in Arctic sea ice cover have occurred before, but except for those who crave to disillusion themselves, there is absolutely no basis in the recent data to feel confident that global warming is over with.

While Mr. Murphy puts much confidence in the BBC report written by a journalist, what does he make of the recent warning by U.K. climate scientists that the 2°C warming over the next 40 years—on which the Copenhagen discussions will be based—is overly optimistic and that a 4°C increase must be envisaged instead?

This is what I mean by an unbalanced debate, in which a journalist has more weight than several dozen climate specialists.

My point here is that while the debate on climate change is certainly healthy, Bill C-311 is utterly crucial for Canada's international stature and our economic future—as I tried to explain in my first two points. Hence, MPs ought to base their work on the bill and vote on it based on verified scientific consensus rather than on the flavour of the day in the never-ending debate over climate warming.

Thank you.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Dr. Fortier.

That leaves us with Dr. Sauchyn.

The floor is yours. You have 10 minutes.

11:30 a.m.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak to you.

The preamble to Bill C-311 accurately describes climate change as a serious threat to Canada. In fact, it is also a threat to people in environments worldwide; and Canada, with its high per capita emissions, contributes to that threat.

My remarks today will be based largely on our work at the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative in Regina, where we study climate change and its impacts on western Canada and the adaptation that's required to avoid the most adverse impacts. This work makes a strong case for efforts to prevent further global warming, and thus supports the intent of Bill C-311.

Our work clearly demonstrates that current climate change and most of the impacts are largely caused by human activities, that the impacts in the near future are potentially serious and costly, and that the degree of adaptation required, and therefore its cost and feasibility, will depend on the amount of global warming that we allow to occur.

I have some information about the IPCC fourth assessment report, but given that you've heard from two experts who are involved in that process, I will skip that information and keep our remarks to well under 10 minutes. I will add only that the fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007, synthesized the state of knowledge of global climate change up to the year 2006. Since then, various updates of climate science have concluded that not only are the impacts of climate change occurring as predicted by the IPCC, but also that they are occurring at a faster rate than was forecast in 2007.

That's the extent of my remarks about the IPCC. I want to move instead to the Canadian assessment, to this big, thick report that you all should have read, or at least you should have read the thin synthesis for decision-makers. This is in both official languages...and this is only one language.

This report was released in March 2008. Over 3,000 studies that pertain to Canada were synthesized by 145 authors. Our chapters were reviewed by 110 scientific experts and government officials.

I will mention only four of our conclusions: first, that the impacts of a changing climate are already evident in every region of Canada; second, that climate change presents new risks and opportunities to Canada; third, that climate change impacts elsewhere in the world will affect Canadians; and fourth, that the impacts of recent extreme weather events highlight the vulnerability of Canadian communities and critical infrastructure.

Canada is a major contributor to the problem in terms of our per capita emissions, but we also have more capacity and incentive to respond to climate change than most nations, if not all. Our capacity is a function of our great natural, social, and intellectual wealth. The many incentives for responding include new economic and technological opportunities on the path to sustainable communities, sustainable ecosystems, and a sustainable economy.

Another major incentive is avoiding cost and risk. All of Canada is at risk.

The highest rates of observed and projected warming in the world are in the northern hemisphere at high latitudes, high altitudes, and in the continental interiors. Thus, Canada's north and the western interior are among the most vulnerable regions on earth. Of course, these regions have Canada's largest indigenous populations, and thus our most vulnerable communities.

By our very human nature, we would prefer a simple world that doesn't change. As Dr. Fortier said, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we would prefer a predictable and stable world. The climate change deniers capitalize on these basic human instincts by telling us what we'd like to believe--that things are fine and that we don't have to do anything. However, they tend to grossly oversimplify the science and diminish the problem, while exaggerating the costs of reducing our carbon footprint.

There are a few complexities to the science that are important to understand, so please bear with me. Dr. Zwiers has already mentioned the carbon cycle feedbacks whereby a warmer climate tends to release more carbon from natural sources, but I want to mention a couple of other feedbacks.

First of all, the extra greenhouse gases that we are producing are triggering global warming, but they account for only a part, and in some cases only a small part, of the projected warming. That's because a warmer atmosphere and warmer oceans trigger a web of interactions and feedbacks that mostly amplify the warming. Probably the best example anywhere is in the Arctic, where the so-called ice-albedo feedback can increase the rate of global warming up to threefold. That's the process by which permanent snow and ice cover are rapidly diminishing, so that less radiation is reflected back into space and more is absorbed to warm the land, the Arctic Ocean, and the overlying air.

When you consider that some climate change scenarios project global warming of up to 4.5°C, three times that, or 12.5°C, would be catastrophic for the Arctic.

The other major feedback I want to mention affects Canada's other vast vulnerable region, which is out here, the western interior, where we have more than 80% of Canada's agricultural land. With global warming, there is increased evaporation from the oceans and higher humidity in the atmosphere. As Dr. Zwiers mentions, this increase in water vapour accounts for more precipitation over land, but it also traps more heat. You just have to think about the difference in early morning temperatures between a cloudy and a clear night.

This humidity feedback accounts for the forecast of more rain in the west, but in fact we also expect more drought. That's because most of the extra heat and water is occurring in winter, but we grow things during the warm, dry part of the year, in summer. So it's an important scientific detail to understand that the influence of this humidity feedback is to amplify the warming in western Canada in particular, but also to intensify the natural variability.

Canada already has one of the world's most variable climates, especially in the west. Therefore, the threat from climate change is not so much a change in the average climate but an increase in the variability.

About this new average and the more extreme weather--and in particular, in the west, drought--drought is Canada's most costly climate hazard. For example, the most recent drought of 2001-02 caused crop losses of $3.6 billion and a drop in GDP in western Canada of $4.5 billion. This kind of volatility can never be managed away. It challenges our capacity to adapt. Therefore, the best strategy is to simply avoid it, to simply prevent the global warming that is projected to cause an increase in the severity and frequency of drought.

I thank you for indulging in this simple science lesson. I think it's important, because I want you to appreciate how, by supporting policy that limits greenhouse gas emissions, you are taking your finger off the trigger of a cascade of processes and feedbacks that have some potentially unfortunate consequences.

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Doctor.

We're going to go into our seven-minute rounds.

To kick us off, Mr. McGuinty, you have the floor.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Hello, everybody. Thank you for being here today.

I'd like to begin by simply asking all four of you if you could quickly comment yes or no on this, and, if there a yes, whether you could share the documentation.

You're all research scientists, or, in the case of our colleague here, Mr. Zwiers, from the Department of the Environment.

Do any of you have in your possession A Climate Change Plan for Canada?

Have you seen A Climate Change Plan for Canada, the science-based Climate Change Plan for Canada?

Do you have a plan for domestic climate change action in Canada?

Do any of you, any four of you, have a plan? Have you seen a plan or can you share a plan, please?

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

We'll start with Dr. Zwiers.

11:40 a.m.

Director, Climate Research Division, Department of the Environment

Dr. Francis Zwiers

I think this is a policy question that's being posed as opposed to a scientific question, so I'll defer.

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Dr. Sauchyn in Regina.

11:40 a.m.

Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual

Dr. David Sauchyn

I think this is a rhetorical question, because, no, I haven't seen a plan, but I've seen the science. This assessment was done by scientists but not for the scientific community. It was done for decision-makers. So they have the scientific support for such a plan.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Dr. Fortier.

11:40 a.m.

Prof. Louis Fortier

Actually, you can find several plans in Canada. There is one for each of the provinces.

For example, in Quebec we have a plan to reduce emissions and try to mitigate the impacts that will have on society and everything. You can also consult the plans that each of the American states are producing.

So there are a lot of plans. The common denominator to all those plans is a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, like the one proposed in Bill C-311.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Dr. Stone.

11:40 a.m.

Prof. John Stone

I presume you're talking about a federal plan.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Correct.

11:40 a.m.

Prof. John Stone

No, I have not seen a complete federal plan. I have read about some elements of what it might contain, but this seems to be a continuous work-in-progress.

I shall stop there.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

So no one has seen a plan.

I appreciate Mr. Fortier's comments about provinces having to go it alone. That's what they're doing across the country. Quebec has gone it alone. Ontario has its own climate change secretariat—it is negotiating directly with Washington and bypassing the federal government. All kinds of provinces are doing it in the absence of a federal plan. Thank you for confirming that.

Are any of you tracking the work of your colleagues in science and the extent to which science is factoring into the debates on Capitol Hill in Washington? How is the science you are producing—IPCC and otherwise—being used in the Obama administration's efforts to get a bill from the Senate or the House of Representatives? The Obama administration announced 10 days ago that in the absence of a bill it was going to move to regulate greenhouse gases under the EPA. Can you please help Canadians understand where that is?

11:40 a.m.

Director, Climate Research Division, Department of the Environment

Dr. Francis Zwiers

I'm a scientist working for Environment Canada. I don't think I can comment on work that policy analysts in our department or in other departments might be doing.

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

To support Dr. Zwiers, public servants—

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

We don't need an explanation, Mr. Chair.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

—don't need to provide confidential advice that they give to their minister.

Dr. Stone.