Evidence of meeting #105 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 information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal John Aldag
Do we want to have any further conversation?
We'll call the question on G-3.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
An hon. member
Which chair?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal John Aldag
I asked the question. I was told Mr. Scarpaleggia will be able to present this in the House. The chair will be presenting it.
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal John Aldag
Finally, shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay. It's done.
Colleagues, that concludes my time with you. Well done.
I will now turn the chair back to Mr. Scarpaleggia.
Congratulations, Francis, on the passage of your bill at committee stage.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Aldag, for chairing with such aplomb and finesse on this historic day. I appreciate your chairing of this part of the meeting, and I want to thank colleagues for their support of the bill.
I'd also like to thank the officials for being here, offering their insights and answering questions.
Also, thank you to the legislative clerks. Your services are greatly appreciated.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Go ahead, Mr. Mazier, and then I have Mr. van Koeverden and Mr. Leslie.
April 30th, 2024 / 4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege.
Before I begin, I want to express my hope that the NDP and the Bloc will thoroughly consider what I'm about to say.
On Tuesday, April 9, 2024, the environment committee passed a motion ordering Minister Guilbeault's department to produce information on how much the carbon tax will reduce emissions. This was the third attempt by the committee to obtain this information. In fact, it was on November 30, 2023, over 150 days ago, that the committee first ordered the production of the government's detailed emissions model. The committee passed this initial motion because of the following statement made by the government: “carbon pollution pricing will contribute as much as one-third of Canada's emissions reductions”.
The first time the environment committee was made aware of this carbon tax emissions projection was when the director general of the economic analysis directorate for Environment and Climate Change Canada stated, “I think we're probably in a world where we could say, with some rough analysis, that up to one-third, potentially, of the emissions reductions that we're projecting to 2030 would come from carbon pricing.” “I think”, “probably”, “some rough analysis”, “up to” and “potentially” are not words associated with confidence by any means, and certainly not when they're all used together in the same sentence. It is clear why the Conservatives question this emissions reduction projection by the Liberal government. After all, it is our job as the opposition to hold the government accountable. Let's not forget that.
Earlier this year, Minister Guilbeault responded to a written question that asked what analysis the government used to produce this emissions reduction projection. Minister Guilbeault stated:
...to produce this projection, the government used the provincial-territorial computable general equilibrium model, EC-Pro, from Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC.
EC-Pro simulates the response of the main economic sectors in each province and territory, and their interactions with each other, including interprovincial trade. It captures characteristics of each [PT's] production and consumption patterns through a detailed input-output table....
The government referred to a very specific model in the statement, which is why on March 21, 2024, the committee specifically ordered the production of the model called EC-PRO. I will draw your attention to page 983 of Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states:
The Standing Orders state that standing committees have the power to order the production of papers and records, another privilege that is rooted in the Constitution and which is delegated by the House. In carrying out their responsibility to conduct studies and inquiries, standing committees often have to rely on a wide array of papers to aid them in their work.
The committee also ordered the production of all economic modelling associated with this model. Environment and Climate Change Canada failed to provide the complete information the committee ordered. Instead of providing the committee with the carbon tax emissions model, the government provided an 18-page draft paper that attempts to describe the model. The document provided to the committee was titled “Environment Canada's Provincial CGE (ECPRO) Model”, with a footnote at the end of the title. The footnote to the so-called model revealed that this paper is, in fact, not the carbon tax emissions model. The footnote states:
Please note that this is a draft in progress. Any comments will be appreciated. Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect those of Environment and Climate Change Canada or the Government of Canada
As a result of this blatant defiance from Minister Guilbeault, the committee provided him with a third chance to provide these documents. On April 9, 2024, the committee ordered the production of this carbon tax emissions model again. The committee specifically ordered the production of all parameters, assumptions, variables and economic modelling.
However, Minister Guilbeault failed to hand over the complete information. Instead, the committee received a nine-page report authored by a third party and a three-page document from ECCC. The only information provided by ECCC was a projection regarding how much emissions would be reduced by the government without any specific details on how that was calculated. In other words, the government said, “Here are the numbers. Just believe them.” There were no variables, no assumptions, no parameters and no economic modelling. In fact, Minister Guilbeault's department admitted that they had failed to provide the very information ordered by the committee.
When referring to the carbon tax emissions model EC-PRO in the response, ECCC admitted that the model “contains over 4,000 equations, roughly 280,000 variables, and generates hundreds of thousands of data points”. If anybody read the response, they would have noticed that none of these equations or data was provided. This admission alone displays the breach of privilege. The committee didn't receive any of the information mentioned by ECCC despite ordering it on three separate occasions. In fact, the Liberals are now claiming their carbon tax emissions data is protected under the Statistics Act. In other words, it's top secret and it must not be released.
This is another cover-up by the Liberals, and the Conservatives simply won't tolerate it. How can the Liberals force Canadians to pay a carbon tax if they refuse to release the results? Why should Canadians allow the Liberals to keep their so-called carbon tax emissions model locked in a vault? Is it because the so-called proof doesn't exist, or is it because they have something to hide? I will remind the committee that hiding behind the Statistics Act is not a valid excuse to hide this information from the committee. Ordering the production of documents is a privilege of parliamentarians to effectively represent Canadians.
In conducting due diligence, Conservatives contacted the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel on this matter. We provided the parliamentary counsel with the response from Minister Guilbeault's department and asked whether hiding behind the Statistics Act is a reason to restrict the committee from obtaining this information. Not surprisingly, our assumptions were correct. The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel stated that the right of the committee to obtain information is not restricted by the act.
I will draw your attention to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states that Parliament is not limited in its ability to order the production of documents. As page 984 of Bosc and Gagnon states:
The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested....
We were elected to serve Canadians. This committee has the power and the authority to obtain information and documents, and this government is deliberately preventing Parliament from seeing this information. The NDP and the Bloc may not want this information as much as the Conservatives do, but failing to uphold the privileges of Parliament is failing Canadians. It doesn't matter what the parliamentary committee orders; if the government refuses to release this information, they are breaching parliamentary privilege.
It is our duty as an opposition to, at the very least, uphold these privileges. If we don't want to pass this motion of privilege, then the NDP and the Bloc are letting this Liberal government avoid accountability again. Let's not forget that Canada's commissioner of the environment has stated that the Liberals are not on track to meeting their own 2030 emissions reduction targets. If a motion of privilege is not passed, Conservatives will use every tool at our disposal to obtain this information for Canadians.
We can either refer this matter to the House or we can use the committee's time to obtain this information. I therefore ask to move my motion of privilege so we can obtain the government's carbon tax emissions information.
Thank you, Chair.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's a very complex matter. I have a speaking list for it, but we can't go to a speaking list right now. I'm told the chair has to rule on whether it's related to privilege.
I find it a little difficult to rule at this point without more information. I wouldn't mind seeing the document that has the original ask.
Do we have that?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
It was one of the Laurel Collins ones from April 9—the latest one.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
It's one of three, so you would have to see all three.
The latest says:
That the committee order the production of the model and data from ECCC that demonstrate that “carbon pollution pricing will contribute as much as one-third of Canada's emissions reductions” including all (i) parameters, (ii) assumptions, and (iii) variables, (iv) economic modelling, and (v) emissions reduction modelling and that these documents be provided to the committee within two weeks of the adoption of the motion.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal