Evidence of meeting #103 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 study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll go to the vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Leslie.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Given that we're in committee business, it seems an appropriate time to—
Liberal
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
We are in committee business though, and I'm able to move—
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
That's okay.
Mr. Chair, I would like to move the following motion:
Given that:
a. On Thursday, November 9, 2023, Derek Hermanutz, Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, for Environment and Climate Change Canada, stated at committee: "I think we're probably in a world where we could say with some rough analysis that up to one-third, potentially, of the emission reductions that we're projecting to 2030 would come from carbon pricing";
b. On Monday, April 8, 2024, Environment and Climate Change Canada provided the committee with an 18-page document titled “Environment Canada's Provincial CGE (ECPRO) Model”, in response to a document production order; and
c) On Tuesday, April 9, 2024, the committee ordered “the production of the model and data from Environment and Climate Change Canada that demonstrate that carbon pollution pricing will contribute as much as one-third of Canada's emission reductions including all (i) parameters, (ii) assumptions, and (iii) variables, (iv) economic modelling, (v) and emissions reduction modelling”;
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a) the Committee requests Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada to testify on the Liberal government's carbon pricing emissions model(s) analyses, and economic modelling for no less than two hours by Friday, May 24, 2024.
I assume the minister would actually be quite happy to come before this committee to further explain by that period in time. Before May 24 we will have received—
Liberal
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Chair, again, I feel that the minister will have plenty of time. The committee will be fully briefed on the full modelling and analyses, which was requested and approved by this committee at Tuesday's meeting. I don't know whether or not, by that period, there will be agreement from the Prime Minister to hold a meeting with all of the premiers regarding their views on the carbon taxes, as agreed to by the House of Commons just last night. Perhaps we could even have it on the same day and have a fulsome understanding from the minister and departmental officials of exactly what the modelling indicates. We have seen contrary numbers come recently from independent organizations saying it could be, likely, under 10% of emissions reductions that could be stemming from the carbon tax. We have a lot of potentials and maybes coming from the department of it being one-third.
Again, to go back to the original information that was provided by ECCC—a document that was not written by ECCC and is not supposed to speak on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada or the minister about the modelling and the economic and emissions assumptions that have been used—I assume that members of all parties are willing to have the minister here. I know he's supposed to be coming on the main estimates. Obviously, that is on a much broader topic, but I think it's important to have the minister and his supporting officials here to speak directly to the data we will have received by then; to show us the numbers and economic considerations that have been taken by the department in terms of what this tax could be doing and is doing to Canadian businesses, families and farmers; and to put that against what emissions reductions we have seen over recent years and what is anticipated to be seen.
Ultimately, let Canadians decide transparently whether or not they think that paying the carbon tax on everything they buy in their day-to-day life is ultimately worth it and that the emissions that are supposed to be coming down are coming down. I encourage all my colleagues to quickly pass this motion and have the minister rightfully join this committee to help us understand where the 30% came from.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to my colleague for bringing up this important issue.
I actually welcome an opportunity to hear from more experts. Our minister has worked in environmental activism, but I don't believe he's ever claimed to be a paleoclimatologist or an economist. However, there is a letter signed by over 200 Canadian economists indicating that our carbon pricing system is effective. It's effective for two reasons: one, because it drives down emissions, and two, because it supports affordability with the Canada carbon rebate, so I actually support a much broader look at this. To date I haven't heard one Canadian economist suggest that carbon pricing doesn't work. It's a very well-proven market-based instrument.
Stephen Harper supported a $65 price on pollution when he was the prime minister. Preston Manning suggested that pricing pollution is the best way to drive down emissions. Only in Canada do Conservatives oppose pricing pollution, and it's because, quite frankly, as was just demonstrated with your—
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but I can't hear.
If the member would like to get on the list—
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thanks.
It would be great if the Conservatives could provide a witness, perhaps, who would like to come to the committee and testify that carbon pricing is not an effective way to drive down emissions. It would be great to hear if there were any sort of economic rationale to their slogans and their policy recommendations, which are pretty much just three-word slogans.
It also bears consideration that, just five minutes ago, the Conservatives voted down a motion to have oil executives come here and talk about their profit margins. It also bears recognizing that, on the day when they held rallies across this country to axe the tax on April 1, the Premier of Alberta increased the price of gas by more than the price on pollution did, without a rebate.
It also bears recognizing that, in Saskatchewan, Premier Moe has been asked repeatedly to reconsider his exorbitant non-rebatable provincial excise tax on gasoline. He's one of the only premiers to have not reduced it. When Premier Smith did reduce it, she brought it back up by four cents in April. The premiers are talking out of both sides of their mouth saying that the rebatable price on pollution should be axed but the non-rebatable tax they collect should not be.
It's clear to me whom the Conservatives are working for. It's big oil and gas and Conservative premiers, but not Canadians.
I welcome a broader look into this with some economists who study this, some experts that Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre called “so-called experts”. They're not so-called experts. They're not Liberal experts. They're university professors, economists, paleoclimatologists and experts who study this and who know that carbon pricing works. They know how to do math—and basic math at that—and they know the difference between an economic impact and a fiscal impact, which is a challenging one for my colleagues opposite.
We've been talking about fresh water a lot, which is an important topic very close to my heart, but I entertain the opportunity to have a broader look at carbon pricing in Canada since it's something that my Conservative colleagues are completely obsessed with.
Liberal
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad to see that we're discussing this. I was really glad, first of all, that we did receive the modelling information that was requested by the Conservatives. When I read it, I saw the formulas being used in the modelling, and I had some flashbacks of studying economics and thinking that I'm glad I don't have to do that when I'm 67 years old.
When Ms. Collins asked us to consider getting not only modelling but also more information about this, I thought that was a really good motion that we passed on her behalf, so we are getting information that we can study. I'd love to hear from more experts. I think even Boris Johnson, in Canada today, said he wished the Conservatives in Canada would take climate change seriously.
I think we could get some real study on this. I would say that we could study this for a minimum of three meetings as an amendment to the motion.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
That includes the invitation to the minister, but I think I'd like to propose an amendment that we do a study on the information we received for three meetings and report the results to the House.