Environment Committee on April 9th, 2024

[Larissa Holman]

While we work on the Ottawa River, we work throughout the entire watershed, and many of the tributaries flow through some of these remote areas. Again, it's that idea of having equal access to accurate flood or drought warning systems that is really critical.

Also, there is, of course, the impact of what's happening upstream or downstream. If there are changes that are happening that might affect rural populations, it's important that they be captured. We can't just concentrate on one area because more people live there; we really have to understand it at the watershed scale.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks so much.

Mr. Sandford, thanks again for your testimony and for really highlighting the existential threat we're facing.

We heard some of the testimony from the Citizens' Climate Lobby about the uninsurability of certain areas. There was an article published today of an interview with a woman in Kelowna who bought her home there and is now finding it impossible to insure it, because she is near wildfires. Many insurance companies have pulled out of California because of the severe drought conditions.

In your work, are you coming up against some of these insurance impacts of the climate crisis?

[Robert Sandford]

Yes, of course, we are because insurance issues are widespread.

The other thing is from a global perspective, in that there are many parts of the world that are being dramatically affected by extreme weather events for which insurance has never been available. Poor countries have to rely on their own governments to be able to help people as emergency crises pummel them one after another. These are places like Mozambique and parts of Pakistan.

One thing I find interesting about this question, however, is that it really is about growing uncertainty and how much it costs. I just came back from a series of conferences in the Okanagan. They're very afraid not just of the insurance issue, but of whether or not their economy might have to change as a result of how rapidly their climate is being altered.

What I find really interesting about this is that we're approaching urgency here. The emergency that we're talking about is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, Mr. Mazier.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege.

On Thursday, March 21, 2024, the environment committee passed a motion ordering Minister Guilbeault's department to produce information on how much the carbon tax will reduce emissions. The committee specifically ordered the production of the government's provincial-territorial computable equilibrium model called EC-PRO. This was a model that the government referenced when asked how it projected that its carbon tax would reduce emissions by 30%.

The committee also ordered the production of all economic modelling associated with this model.

Ordering the production of documents is a privilege of parliamentarians to effectively represent Canadians. 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 Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Mazier, can I interrupt for one second?

I just want to tell the witnesses that we've finished one round of questioning and, unfortunately, even before your intervention, we would not have had time for a second round. I'm sorry about that.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here, first of all, and for their answers to the questions. Thank you.

It's an open, public meeting. You can remain if you wish, but I'm sure you may have other things. Suit yourselves, but thank you for being here today.

Mr. Mazier, continue, please.

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

I will also draw your attention to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states that Parliament is not limited in its ability to order the production of documents. On page 984, Bosc and Gagnon state:

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;

Chair, the committee ordered the government to produce its carbon tax emission model within one week of the motion being adopted. Not only did Environment and Climate Change Canada fail to respond within the timeline ordered by the committee, but they failed to provide the complete information the committee ordered.

Instead of providing the committee with a carbon tax emission model, the government provided an 18-page draft paper that attempts to describe the model. In fact, each page of the document is covered with a watermark that states that it's simply a draft paper.

The document provided to the committee is titled, “Environment Canada's Provincial (ECPRO) CGE Model”, with a footnote at the end of the title. The footnote to the so-called model reveals that this paper is in fact not the carbon tax emission 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.”

I'll also draw the committee's attention to the draft document's inclusion on page 12, which states, “This document provides a work in progress draft description of ECCC's provincial CGE (D-level) CGE model used for carbon policy analysis.”

Once again, we have proof that the government has failed to provide its carbon tax emission analysis. In fact, no where in the documents does the government specifically state how it projected that its carbon tax would reduce emissions by 30%, nor does it mention how much emissions have been reduced by the carbon tax or the impact the carbon tax is having on the economy.

This is very concerning given Canada's—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Since we don't have questions of privilege very often, can I ask if this a dilatory motion? Is there a vote after it? Are we debating it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You'll correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk, but apparently I'll have to rule on whether it's a question of privilege. I'm sure that whatever I decide, there will be disagreement with what I decide. Therefore, there could be some kind of vote, as I understand it.

My decision could be challenged. That's how I understand it.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Are we to assume we're going to deal with this for the remainder of...until 6 p.m? What time will we...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a good question. We have the room until 6:00 because we're expecting to do future business.

In any event, I can't interrupt Mr. Mazier at this point, can I? No. The only thing that could stop Mr. Mazier would be the resources no longer being available. Is that correct? We have resources. Nobody has turned off the mics or the interpretation.

Therefore, go ahead, Mr. Mazier.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, it's proof the government has failed to provide the carbon tax emissions analysis. In fact, nowhere in the documents does the government specifically state in detail how they projected carbon tax would reduce emissions by 30%, nor do they mention how many emissions have been reduced through the carbon tax, or the impact the carbon tax is having on the economy. This is very concerning, given that Canada's commissioner of the environment has stated that the government is not on track to meet its own 2030 emissions reduction targets.

Chair, when the government fails to provide documents the committee ordered, it undermines the committee and limits our ability to serve Canadians. Failing to provide documents ordered by a committee is a breach of privilege. I therefore ask to move my motion of privilege so we can obtain the government's carbon tax emissions information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is the first time, I think, that we've encountered something like this. The way I see it, the documents have been provided.

I'll ask Mr. van Koeverden if they have been provided.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I thought they were great...a draft watermark.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Regardless, Mr. Mazier, let's say theoretically that you said you want the documents within half an hour—

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

I didn't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm just saying this hypothetically. Obviously, it wouldn't be possible within half an hour. Would that be a breach of privilege? My gut tells me no. You asked for them in a week. Mr. van Koeverden mentioned at the last meeting that it would be very difficult, and we got them not a week later, perhaps, but almost a week later. To me, it's not the end of the world that we got them a bit late. That's number one.

Number two, my understanding is that there are modelling estimates of how much the price on carbon will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My understanding—and maybe I'm wrong—is that there is no data specifically stating that the price on carbon resulted in X amount of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I don't even think that's possible, quite frankly. I think you can do modelling and an estimate, and there's good economic theory behind the price on carbon. In a sense, we're asking for something that's not possible to produce.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Chair, I'm curious.

Are you giving your ruling right now, or is there an opportunity for other members—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I'm ruling on whether it relates to privilege. I'm just trying to share with you my thinking on this. Either way, I'm going to be challenged. I know that. However, that's my thinking.

I don't personally think it's a breach of privilege, since the information as it exists has been provided. Obviously, you're free to challenge that.

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

Yes, we challenge that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

How do we proceed now? Is it a vote?

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

Is there any debate about the challenge?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't think so. I think it's dilatory.