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.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Mazier, you have the last word. Then I'll make a ruling on your question related to privilege.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you, colleagues, for all the valuable input. It gave us some time to think about a lot of what's gone on here, especially since November, when we first put the motion forward. The bottom line is that we're simply asking for information, for a model to prove that this is actually working. That's all we're asking for.
The government refers to the points. They refer to everything. They dance around the information, and then they say that it's secret. They can see it as a government, but the rest of us MPs can't see it. That's the travesty of this whole thing.
I don't know how we can move forward as a committee if we keep getting stonewalled by different government departments and different ministers. If they just decide not to answer a question, there goes our parliamentary privilege right out the door.
I'd implore you to please support us on this motion. At least we'll get the answers and life will go on. However, I don't know how we can work forward if we don't get this information and our privilege is breached today.
Thank you.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, go ahead, but the bells are going to ring in a couple of minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Okay, I'll be very brief.
It seems odd to me that the Liberal whip's staffer has been standing behind you talking as you are about to make a decision on a motion of privilege. Maybe it's just optics. I don't know what was said because the tables are very far away.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Optically, it's a bit odd. It's a bit of a weird look.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I want to clarify something with the clerk. Hold on for a second.
This is how I see it, and you can agree or disagree. This document here was provided by ECCC in response to the request for a document that included assumptions, variables and a few other things, which I don't have right in front of me. There are models in it. I took econometrics in graduate school. I wasn't a whiz at it, but these would be called models.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Apparently, anytime somebody submits a technical paper, they always put that because it can be revised or it can be a work in progress. I don't know. However, it doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate document.
There are equations here. I'll read you an equation. It says:
Capital stock k, in period t+1 in sector i, in region r is given by
kt+1,r,i= (1-δt,r,i)...
The point I'm trying to make is that it's extremely complex. My question would be, has any expert, econometrician or statistician, looked at this document and said that this is not sufficient? Nobody has said in any of this debate that this is not sufficient. I don't think anybody here in this room is qualified to tell us if this is sufficient. We need to get in expert witnesses.
The other thing is that this document does have variables. It has 44 sectors. It subdivides the sector. It has assumptions. I'll read you an assumption: “New vintage capital is assumed to be a fraction of the aggregate capital stock by sector, year, and region.” That's one assumption. Then there are a few other assumptions sprinkled throughout. I underscored a couple of them before.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are variables, assumptions and everything else. Here's another one: “Similarly, the electricity sector was disaggregated into 11 categories of generation using similar information to the E3MC database.” I don't know what this means.
We're going to have the minister come, and I hope the minister brings lots of econometricians and experts. I suggest that maybe Mr. Mazier have his party bring in an econometrician or consult one and list arguments as to why this model is not sufficient, or is not indicative of what's going on with the price on carbon. This really is a debate of econometricians on whether this document is sufficient enough to answer the request by Mr. Mazier through his motion, which was adopted by the committee.
To keep the debate going, I'm going to say that this is not related to privilege. It would be nice if we could get the four individuals who wrote this document to come with the minister. However, I'll leave it to the department to decide who should come to explain to us what this document means, whether or not it is a model and whether or not it includes variables and assumptions, because quite frankly, I think it's extremely complex and we need some expert input on it.
I will rule for now that this is not related to privilege—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Wait a minute.
This document is a sufficient document for now, until one hears differently.
Who has a point of order?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
I'm sorry that you were not listening when they deemed my motion—
5:10 p.m.
An hon. member
I was listening.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I have a point of order, and I will be brief, Mr. Chair, because I know we're going to run into bells.
I know I am going to lose this, but I would like to challenge your ruling. I'm going to tell you why. You read out, eloquently and accurately, a number of pieces of equations that were in that first document. The—
