Environment Committee on April 30th, 2024

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

Perhaps you can forgive me. I'm still a relatively new member.

In the House, in my experience, members have the opportunity to speak before the Speaker makes a ruling, whether he or she does it on the spot or goes elsewhere and comes back to make it. I'm curious about whether committees are different.

Mr. van Koeverden is on the list; then it's me. Do you have to make a ruling immediately?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll double-check this.

I can ask for more input, which is what I'm doing, but that's different from a speaking list.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

You have a speaking list, so you can start with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Excuse me. I'm going to pause for a second.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Basically, I don't have enough information to make much of a ruling at this point. That's why I'm asking questions.

I'm asking for the original request for the model. Do we have that on paper? It was a motion. It's the one you claim is not being respected. I'd like to have it, if you don't mind. This is the motion calling for information that you say was not provided. The motion called for, “Preparation of a scenario that includes legislated federal, provincial, and territorial emission reduction policies.”

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

It's at the very top.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The motion is at the top. I'm sorry.

It 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....

I will go down this speaking list, because I want to see whether, in the members' opinions, the documents that were originally produced in response to this motion answered the requirements of the motion. I'm interested in people's opinions on this.

I'll start with Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on your bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

First, I would just like to correct the record. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development has said recently and repeatedly that we are on track to meeting our 2026 emissions reduction targets, and we would certainly not be on track without carbon pricing, which includes output-based mechanisms, market-based mechanisms and regulatory changes that have changed the trajectory of Canada's emissions profile quite dramatically.

Over the break, I had the privilege of listening to Dr. Sarah Burch. I'm hoping that Dr. Burch can appear at this committee when we start to discuss climate finance and governance, because we are on that topic right now. It's the topic that has been in the background of our water study the whole time.

If I could offer an olive branch across the way, it seems like we're most interested in talking about carbon pricing. It seems like a fascination that we would all like to learn a bit more about. I welcome the next study from the Bloc Québécois because we have the opportunity to discuss, in further detail, climate finance and how to achieve what we all want to achieve, which is lower emissions.

Some want to do that with different technologies. I've heard “technology, not taxes” a couple of times. We are using a lot of technologies to drive down emissions, and we're also using market-based instruments. I don't think any single technology or any single instrument is going to get us to where we need to go because, as we've seen, the targets are actually challenging. We had a lot of emissions in the 1990s, and the oil and gas sector has increased both its output and emissions. I welcome the next study because I think we'll be able to talk about this in more detail and listen to experts like Sarah Burch.

Speaking of experts, over 300 Canadian economists are now urging Conservative politicians to read their report on how carbon pricing in Canada impacts household finances. I'm going to print it off again. I've shared a couple of things with my colleagues before in an effort for us to try to get on the same page, or at least invite.... Mr. Leslie, you and I sat down before the Christmas break, before you welcomed your new child to planet earth, and we discussed how important it is for planet earth to be a place where your kid has a viable future, has a healthy place to live and can grow food. That's something we all share.

Honestly, guys, today was a really good example of why we need to come together and work together a bit more, and just occasionally ditch the partisanship. I'm willing to do that, and I hope that you guys are willing to do that. We can work together.

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

You didn't accept our amendment.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

That's funny, Dan.

The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development says we're on track. Three hundred top economists from across Canada say that not only is carbon pricing effective, but it's also not impacting family finances to the degree being claimed by a lot of politicians. We should also look back and forward with respect to who's talking about carbon pricing in the world, who's leading the way and what type of country we want to be. The Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus, who has been the leading economist on how to reduce emissions, says that Canada has been getting it right. Frankly, I would welcome feedback or criticism from economists, paleoclimatologists or anybody who would like to suggest that Canada's carbon pricing system with the Canada carbon rebate isn't both driving down emissions—coupled with the other pricing mechanisms, like the output-based mechanism—and supporting Canadians in need.

Over the course of the break, I visited a food bank and did a bit of work with some vulnerable community members. I considered what life is like if you're earning less than $40,000 a year and have to put food on the table for a family. In that context, $1,000 tax-free from the government represents 2.5% of your take-home pay. It's a significant amount of money. The Canada carbon rebate is a significant support for people who take public transit, have to heat smaller homes and have a smaller carbon footprint.

I'll go back to the 2021 election. I know I bring this up a lot. Many Conservative members still have the Conservative plan “Secure the Environment” up on their websites and Facebook. It's still there. Anybody can find that information online. I will remind my colleagues opposite that they ran on a very similar plan to price carbon, up to $50 a tonne. They planned to use an output-based system. In an alternate universe where the Conservatives won the 2021 election, we would be in a country that is pricing carbon and lowering emissions with market-based instruments.

I want to say again that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, contrary to what my colleague said, says we are on track to reaching our emissions reduction targets. It's also worth noting that emissions were on the way up in 2015 and lately have been on the way down. We can continue this momentum together. It doesn't need to be a partisan thing. It doesn't need to be the Liberal plan or the Conservative plan. It can be Canada's carbon emissions reduction plan. It's something we all want to do. We all want to achieve that.

I think we should get to the next phase collectively. Hopefully, in the next study looking at climate finance, we can ask some more experts what their views and opinions are. We can ditch the partisanship at the door a bit.

We were asked as a government to provide modelling and some details on how carbon pricing works. We did that. People are satisfied. I'll be honest: I know university math and a lot of it is over my head. I—

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

Have you seen this model?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Did I see what we were provided with? Of course. We all received the same email.

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

You've seen this model.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Excuse me. Mr. van Koeverden has the floor.

We did see a document. There was a document provided.

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

Was it the requested document?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a matter for debate.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

It was.

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

It was not.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

It satisfies—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Excuse me. I have the floor.

What I'm trying to say is that there was a document. On the Conservative side, the contention is that it was not sufficient. The Liberal side and perhaps the other parties contend that it was what was asked for and what could be provided.

There was a document. I just want to clear that up.

Mr. van Koeverden, continue, but focus on what was provided and whether you feel that, practically, it's all that could be provided in the short period of time the department had. We can talk about that. If you could focus on that, it would be appreciated.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The question was whether the government could provide some insight into how the modelling for carbon pricing works in its current shape and form. I saw that email and read the document, and I will offer that even with university math and a pretty decent grasp of environmental science—I'm not bragging; I took some of those classes in university—I don't understand all of it. That doesn't make it untrue; it just makes it complicated, and I'm as interested as anybody in learning more about the systems that are currently driving down our emissions in Canada.

I dispute the allegation that the document was not sufficient. It was challenging. It was hard to understand. Math is tough, and the work that we do doesn't rely on complex modelling. I'll commit to learning more about it, and I would welcome a motion from the Conservatives to get more information if that's what they want. However, at the same time, I'd also encourage them to consider reading the 300 economists' document with the five rationales for why carbon pricing works in Canada and how the Canada carbon rebate is supporting families in need.

The Liberal side will be voting against this motion while at the same time welcoming a request for more information if that's what you'd like, but I hope that it's more—

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

It is. We would like more information.