Evidence of meeting #3 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parks.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Operations , Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
We haven't established a threshold for when we would determine whether something is significant or not significant.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. The question then is, if we don't know what the threshold is and we don't know what the test is, what is its meaning?
12:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Operations , Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Well, you can still talk about the volume of GHG emissions in terms of percentage of total provincial emissions and total Canadian emissions.
12:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Operations , Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
As I mentioned earlier, in the assessment process the decision is ultimately a political call—
12:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Operations , Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
—on whether that volume of emissions is acceptable or not acceptable.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We noted your budget as well. You assess projects in the multiple tens of billions of dollars, and have just $14 million in base funding?
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's insufficient.
Mr. McDougall, I'm looking at the graph you provided. I'm noticing that in four years' time, there's a more than 120-megatonne gap, depending on those scenarios.
Are those increased scenarios? Are they including the prospect of future oil sands development and future pipeline construction?
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
Those scenarios are based on the National Energy Board's expectations for oil and gas development that were just released in November. It's the most current information from the industry.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No, I understand, but we're wondering what's included in that, because these are a couple of crossroads moments. I can imagine a scenario in which you include Energy East and one in which you don't, and one in which you include Kinder Morgan and one in which you don't. Is that the way the department looks at this?
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
There are a couple of things. On the specific projects, I'll have to get back to you on whether any individual project is included in that. I'm not sure if the—
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Ms. Smith is saying that CEAA is looking at the analysis of, say, one liquid natural gas facility adding so many tonnes. That's a scenario on the minister's desk and says, “If you approve this, this is what it does to your curve.”
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
Right, and potential LNG is included in those scenarios.
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
As to which line it's in, I'd have to get back to you—
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It would be very helpful for the committee to even just understand what that means. The concern I have, in looking through these estimates, is that in four years' time we'd be missing the target by the equivalent of what the entire oil and gas industry contributes to greenhouse gases. In 14 years' time, we're missing the target by as much as what all of Ontario and Quebec contribute to greenhouse gases. Even more than that, if we miss it by your worst-case scenario, we're missing it by what the entire oil and gas industry and the entire transport sector put into greenhouse gases for Canada's contribution, so in order to bend that curve....
We've seen this movie before, by the way. I've seen this movie before. I sat at the environment committee 10 years ago, and there was the gap. If the curve doesn't bend, we end up with those scenarios. Then the options for the government become very limited. You can buy credits or just miss your target. We've done both, yet I wouldn't see either of them being deemed a raging success.
I'm wondering how you're going to bend that curve down, given what we're missing our targets by right now.
By the way, that's the 2020 target, correct?
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
Correct.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
Correct.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The current government has set that as the floor, not the ceiling. We imagine a more ambitious target being presented.
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
For the 2030 target, that's what they said—that it is the floor, not the ceiling.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So that gap of 350 megatonnes is a bare minimum, in the present-case scenario, as to what target the government will put in.
Ms. Gelfand, in your 2014 report you mentioned that the government hasn't got a coherent plan to reach its climate change targets. That's floor target from the previous government.
Have you seen a new version yet, a coherent plan, towards meeting those targets that would have Canada achieve its goals?
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
We haven't seen it yet.