Evidence of meeting #108 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was price.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I would like to offer Elizabeth the opportunity to finish her sentence.
5:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thanks so much, Ms. Collins.
To any of the officials, do you know if any branch of the Government of Canada examined the impact on our total greenhouse gas emissions of building the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion?
5:35 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
I can't speak personally to whether that was done, but that doesn't mean it's not the case.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Could you follow up with the committee and let us know about any modelling that specifically includes the Trans Mountain pipeline, as well as Bay du Nord? It would be interesting to know, and it would be surprising if the government isn't tracking the emissions increases from the projects that are being approved.
To Mr. Moffet, I just wanted to follow up on some of what you were saying.
When it comes to the 20% we're talking about in particular, I'm just going to read a quote here:
The federal government significantly lowered its expectations for the direct emissions cuts it will demand from the oil and gas sector by 2030, but will require the industry to pay for reductions in other areas of the Canadian economy to make up the difference.
In a policy framework for the long-awaited oil and gas emissions cap, released Thursday, the minority Liberals proposed a two-pronged approach to reduce the pollution from Canada's largest-emitting sector.
While Ottawa believes the fossil-fuel industry can reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 to 23 per cent through technological changes, it will impose additional payments for offsets and a new decarbonization fund in order to bring total emissions reductions to between 35 and 38 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030.
What the government is saying, that 20% to 23%, is about half of what we're asking, our overall target, which is 40% to 45%. Is that correct?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Time is almost up. You have 30 seconds.
I have the Liberals on my right here holding me to account.
5:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I think you're quoting The Globe and Mail, which is interpreting the regulatory framework. We'd be happy to share the regulatory framework. There are some proposed numbers in it. With respect to the final numbers, we're going to provide some updated numbers this fall when we publish the draft regulations for the oil and gas cap.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Hermanutz, has the department ever conducted an emissions projection using a scenario in which the carbon tax was higher than $170 a tonne?
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
It has not to my knowledge, no.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Okay. Does the department emissions model show that the government can meet their 2050 emission targets without raising the carbon tax over $170 a tonne?
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
What year did you say...2050?
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
Our net-zero commitment is for 2050.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Does the price go over $170 a tonne to get to that target?
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
I think the minister answered questions about the future of the carbon price post-2030.
Perhaps I can turn it over to John.
5:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
That's correct. Neither the department nor the government has had any formal discussion about possible increases to the carbon price. The 2050 target is a formal target. The government's emissions reduction plan doesn't have a prescriptive pathway to achieving all of those reductions. It very clearly says that the current plan is a plan to move the economy in that direction and to start taking some of the early actions needed to get to 2050. It doesn't include all of the measures needed.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Does it not include a carbon price? Those projections need to be based on a carbon price.
5:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
We don't have any projections out to 2050. We have a target out to 2050.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
You have a projection to hit net zero by 2050.
5:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
We don't have a projection. We have a target.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Did Environment Canada ever provide Navius Research access to their emissions model EC-PRO?
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
We work closely with the Canadian Climate Institute, which uses the Navius model. The modelling community in Canada is small. As I said, we've started up a multimodelling forum to share models and data, but most of the data Navius would get for their modelling would be from sources that we would use, such as the national inventory report or Statistics Canada data.