Environment Committee on April 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could you maybe wrap it up, Mr. van Koeverden, and help me out here?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I'll wrap it up.

What I suspect is actually happening here is that the Conservatives are running this cover-up campaign because on the same day, on April 1, Premier Danielle Smith increased the price of gas in Alberta by more than what the carbon price did. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation freaked out about it. Again, that's the Conservative base, so they're upset by that. But the thing about the carbon price going up a little bit is that the Canada carbon rebates do as well. Canadians continue to get more back through the price on pollution as a carbon rebate than they pay at the pumps. That's not true of a 4¢ increase to the price of gas in Alberta.

These four members are not from Alberta, so perhaps they don't necessarily care as much about a non-rebatable increase that's more than the increase that you have just blown out of proportion, talked about ad nauseam, and called a 23% increase. The price on gas increased more in Alberta by that, and you haven't mentioned it once. If it's such an enormous concern, the price of gas affecting our constituents, then why not bring up the fact that it was also increased by Premier Danielle Smith? You haven't mentioned that once.

Mr. Chair, it would be great if we were discussing in this committee how we fight climate—not refuting the facts and evidence from hundreds of Canadian scholars, researchers and economists who do this for a living; not calling into question a Nobel Prize in economics for William Nordhaus, who proved that carbon pricing lowers emissions; and not refuting the very fact that our emissions have dropped in the last eight years by over 8% now, much of that directly attributable to the price on pollution.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Just prove it. Just prove it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will move now to Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

In terms of the motion of privilege, I think I saw come into my email yesterday morning, at about 10:41, some documents that showed some formulas and things that were being asked to show how the forecasts were being done. The document came from a different organization, which kind of surprised me a bit, but then, given the amount of time the department had to prepare this and get it into translation and try to get it to our committee before our meeting, I thought, well, okay, we see where the formulas are and we see the process they are following.

In terms of a motion of privilege, I think the information was received before the meeting, as requested. The information may have been incomplete in terms of some of the members. I was satisfied with what I saw, so I didn't feel like my privilege was being violated. I think the information was good enough for what I saw. We might want more information, and of course the committee can ask for that if some of the members don't like the information, but it's not that privilege was violated. We did get the information that was requested in the short amount of time they were given to get it to translation and get it to us.

We do have some information. Maybe we could ask for more information. That could be done without having to invoke privilege. I think that's getting a little dramatic. I wouldn't support this as a privilege motion, but I would like to see more information coming forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think it's important for us to have this discussion. When I received the documents, I was definitely wondering if the officials or the government had intentionally misunderstood the request that had been made. We want the data showing how the government came to the conclusion about one-third of Canada's emissions.

Especially when it comes to the industrial carbon price, this is a critical policy. I am someone who wants a robust climate policy. This committee deserves to have the data off of which the government is working.

In the spirit of collaboration, and to bring everyone around this table together, I have a motion 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, and that these documents be provided to the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion.

I'm not sure if I can move this right now, but I'm hopeful that we can have this discussion. I will move that motion afterwards, so that we can get the information we need, and that committee members deserve to have.

There is a very valid complaint that the Conservatives are raising today. I don't know if it's a question of privilege, yet, but I would potentially support a question of privilege if the government, yet again, refuses to give us the information we need.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Collins, thank you for informing us that you intend to introduce an additional motion once this discussion has concluded.

Go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, please don't feel personally attacked because we voted against your decision, but I really wanted to have this discussion.

What Mr. Longfield said earlier suits me fine. Ms. Collins' motion is somewhat similar to what I proposed to Mr. Deltell earlier during the break. If we don’t have enough data, let's ask for it and set a deadline. The information is important for our debates, discussions and thought process on what constitutes a climate crisis and climate emergency.

So that suits me just fine. However, somewhat like Mr. Longfield, I wouldn't go so far as to say my parliamentary privilege has been violated, but we should have more information and another timeline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Leslie, go ahead.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate my esteemed colleague across the way highlighting that I did not, in fact, run on a carbon tax and never would.

One of the things that I think back on was one of those early promises of the Prime Minister that in 2015 his government would become open by default. That was something that everybody could get behind. This seems to be a prime example of an opportunity to be open by default, to request information of it as to the economic and environmental modelling of what emissions would be reduced from the consumer carbon tax.

We've seen delays, and fair enough, because these are complicated matters to hand in, but to be handed a document that says this is made by Environment and Climate Change Canada, but doesn't reflect ECCC, and then just told that this is what our model is, how is that believable?

You're telling me that ECCC doesn't have any better data than four people. They're not even doctors. They're just people. I don't even know who these people are. They put together this paper, and maybe it was hastily put together over the last two weeks. It would be either very worrisome or extremely surprising that there's been no homework done over the last eight years of this carbon tax being developed and put in place.

This is not open by default and also seems to be, as my colleague, Ms. Collins, alluded to, maybe an attempt to hide this. This is why we're continuously asking for more money. Perhaps the motion that has been brought forward is almost too specific, but upon hearing my colleague's motion, I will happily support Ms. Collins' motion, because it's an opportunity to see if the government is truly trying to hide behind this by offering a very clear and open invitation to share both the data and the modelling.

I will support my colleague's motion, but there is clearly something here. I expect better out of ECCC. I expect better out of a government that claimed to be open by default, and also from all parliamentarians of all political stripes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

Go ahead, Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would remind people who follow our proceedings that the purpose of our discussion isn't to determine whether a carbon tax is good or bad but rather to access all available information on measures for evaluating such a tax. There are people on this side of the House whose views on the carbon tax are completely different, but who nevertheless want to gather the most neutral and objective information possible.

I have a great deal of esteem for my Bloc Québécois colleague, even though, generally, we really don't share the same ideas. It's called democracy, and let's be happy we live in a country where democracy is celebrated every day, as it is in the House. That means we have to get to the bottom of things, and my NDP colleague feels the same way. I'm going to yield the floor to my colleagues from English Canada, where, with all due respect to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, we know the NDP is slightly better represented.

The reason for this discussion is that we want to know if the government has produced the relevant documents that were called for, as the committee requested. The least we can say is that the committee's motion was clear: We wanted to get information directly from the department concerned, Environment and Climate Change Canada.

However, what do we see in the document that was submitted to us? Allow me to cite it in English:

“Please note that this is a draft in progress.”

So this is a document that's in the process of being written; it's a draft. That's already somewhat disturbing, but the following sentence is even more so:

“Any comments will be appreciated.” Oh yes, for sure.

As my colleague Mr. Mazier so clearly said, we will definitely have something to say about that, and before all Canadians have had a chance to express their views on the suitability of the carbon tax. The next federal election will definitely turn on that issue, and Canadians will have a chance to decide.

Now listen to what's written in the document that the government has submitted and presents as a reply to all our questions:

“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.”

That's the problem. It's quite simple, as my ever-polite colleague from Repentigny said. It wasn't personal when we doubted you and challenged your judgment, Mr. Chair. What we had requested, with the support of the other opposition parties, was very clear: We wanted accurate, objective, quantified and calibrated information on which we politicians could rely to do our work, since I'm not someone who's inclined to disparage the opposing position. That's what's involved in a public debate, and it goes to the very core of democracy.

We are members of Parliament. We represent our people, and we are important because here around this table there are four different parties. Hey, this is what democracy's all about. Yes, we will fight about our ideas, we will fight for or against, but we'll address them, and we will challenge the opposition on our point of view. Well, this is what democracy, the House of Commons and this committee are all about. We all recognize that climate change is real and that we have to address it. There are good ways to address it and there are bad ways to address it, and this is what people will decide in the next election, which way they want to address it.

This is why, Mr. Chair, to have a clear debate, to have an honest debate and to know exactly where we want to go, we need to have all the data. Who can provide this data? There are plenty of people who can do it. This is why, Mr. Chair, our motion is addressed directly to the government.

By the way, we're not the government. This is not a Conservative government; this is the Government of Canada. Technically speaking, there is no party in this government, there is no colour of this government.

This is the government of this country, of all the people. This is why we are asking them to give us the data.

Give us all the information we need to conduct an informed debate on the situation.

I have considerable respect and esteem for my colleague the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who is the member for Laurier—Ste-Marie. That's a place that Ms. Pauzé knows well, but I admit I'm a bit confused. I know that all the colours of the political spectrum are here: We have the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party and the NDP; everyone's here. Perhaps the Conservative Party will also be here one day, we hope, but the people will decide.

So I was saying that I have considerable respect and esteem for my colleague. I've known him for years, having been a journalist in another life. I always appreciated his candour and his arguments when I interviewed him. Even when I didn't always agree with him, he was there.

How many times has he said in the House, here in this committee and everywhere in interviews in his public political life that the carbon tax was actually effective and that he had all the data he needed to prove that it would help us reduce greenhouse gases? I don't share that view, but our motion gave him a chance to explain and prove it based on government documents that would prove to us, beyond a reasonable doubt and backed by numbers, that we can solve this problem.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. This is why we're utterly disappointed to see that the truth is unable to come out.

We need to have the truth, and the only group that can do that is—and I say this very politely—the Government of Canada. It is the Environment and Climate Change Canada department that can provide it.

What we're unfortunately seeing right now is that a very clear and specific request was made: We needed that information. In the document that was produced, however, the department clearly and pointedly acknowledged, in black and white, that it's ultimately a draft that will be altered as it moves forward and that any possible comments are welcome—which is good—but that the views expressed in the document are those of its authors and do not reflect those of the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada or the Government of Canada.

So that's exactly the opposite of what we had requested. If you take a good look at the document, you'll definitely see, on page 3, quite an impressive mathematical formula, which I won't read. I'm approaching 60 years of age and I haven't done any chemistry or physics in a long time, but there are all kinds of interesting formulas in this document. That's good, all right, but is that really the government's position? We asked that Canada make its position known, but did we ask how it did that and what the actual impact was? The answer is no because, as it clearly states, this document doesn't represent the views of the Government of Canada.

Consequently, as a parliamentarian, I'm surprised to see that some colleagues are okay with that, despite this obvious fact. I don't think this is okay. In its proposal, the NDP goes a little further, clarifies more and says it wants more numbers, dates and timelines. I understand that my Bloc Québécois colleague shares that position, and we're open to that, of course. Our motion will ensure that the truth prevails. Our motion will ensure that the facts are known. It will ensure that we get to the bottom of things. Then everyone can express his or her point of view relying on arguments based on science and neutral, objective facts to which everyone will have access.

In debates, we often see people who say they agree on a particular point, citing this or that person or study. That's fine. Other people adopt a contrary opinion based on a particular study or analysis. That's fine too. The two positions balance each other out and each is basically sound. However, to conduct an objective discussion, there has to be a common ground, a single, specific information base that's equal for everyone.

In our review, the best way to do that is for the Canadian government to provide that information. We requested it, we demanded it, but we haven't received it. What's worse, the document provided to us clearly states that it's incomplete and doesn't speak for the Canadian government. Our request as parliamentarians was for access to documents, and our motion was supported by the majority of committee members. However, since we haven't been granted access to those documents, we feel this is a clear violation of our privileges.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I selfishly ask this because I have to move at 6:30 and I'm curious: Are we going to go past 6:30? Do we have the resources?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have resources for another four hours.

I may intervene here to provide some clarity.

Could you read your motion again, Mr. Mazier?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

It reads:

Whereas the Committee passed a motion on Thursday, March 21, 2024, which stated in part:

The committee order the production of “Environment and Climate Change Canada's provincial-territorial computable general equilibrium model - EC-Pro” including (i) the “statistical technique to isolate the carbon pricing contributions”, (ii) a list of all “Ref” parameters including the “Ref22” and “Ref22A” parameters used in EC-Pro, (iii) the EC-Pro model that projected that “carbon pollution pricing will contribute as much as one-third of Canada's emission reductions” including all (i) parameters, (ii) economic modelling, and (iii) assumptions; and that these documents be provided to the committee within one week of the adoption of the motion.

And whereas Environment and Climate Change Canada has failed to provide all information ordered by the committee within the adopted timeline.

Accordingly, the Committee views this failure to comply with this committee order as a violation of its privileges, and that this matter be reported to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is the choice we face. Either the committee supports Mr. Mazier's motion—I have a feeling we're not going to get to a vote on it for another four hours, so there's that—or there's a vote and the committee does not support Mr. Mazier. As I understand it, Ms. Collins intends to come back with a motion asking for more information of the sort that Mr. Mazier and his party would like to see.

That's the choice we're facing. Either we have a four-hour session—in which case we can order dinner—or we don't send this to the House. We could come back, Ms. Collins could give notice for her motion and we could discuss her motion at the next meeting. These are the choices.

Right now, all I can do is continue down the list until somebody asks for a vote to adjourn debate. Somebody could ask to adjourn debate on this. Then we would need to have a vote, or we can continue speaking.

Right now, I have Ms. Taylor Roy and Madame Chatel.

Ms. Taylor Roy, please go ahead.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering, in light of the fact that we received the information requested yesterday at 10:41.... We received 21 pages of information. It appears to me that everything requested by Mr. Mazier was in there.

Why are we proceeding with this conversation and motion, at this point?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Mazier does not believe his original motion was respected by the government. He does not believe the government satisfied his request. Therefore, he considers this a matter relating to privilege. He wants the committee to agree that this is the case and send the matter to the House.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

All the debate we heard from Mr. Deltell and others.... This is not about getting the information, since we now have the information. This is just because Mr. Mazier felt he was not respected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, it's an attempt to censure the government for not providing the full information requested.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

You mean quickly enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, yes, that too, but it goes beyond “quickly enough” to the substance of what was provided, which was deemed insufficient.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

So beyond the 21 pages we received yesterday morning at 10:41, with three or four attachments from the ministry, what is missing currently? What is it that Mr. Mazier still wants to see that is not included in that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

He contends that it does not show how the government arrived at its conclusion that the price on carbon will reduce emissions by one-third by, I think it was, 2030. Mr. Mazier is not satisfied with the information.