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.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I have a couple of points of clarification on a couple of comments.
To my friend in the Bloc Québécois, that short, three-page response does indicate that the preparation of the scenario should include all “federal, provincial and territorial emissions reduction policies”, whether or not you're in the federal backstop. ECCC seems to indicate that they're using the B.C. and Quebec models as part of their overall analysis.
To my friend Ms. Collins, I can appreciate the delineation between the Climate Institute report saying 8% to 14% and higher for the output-based pricing system, but going back to the testimony of Mr. Hermanutz, I think we're giving the government too much credit. In the context of that conversation—and I do not have the testimony in front of me, so I will attempt to paraphrase—that was very much based on the consumer carbon tax. That was our line of questioning. It was not a combination of the consumer tax and the back-end, output-based pricing tax. Combining the two totals, I think, gives the government an out that they don't really deserve, given that this is the comment that started all of this, and we saw it in writing after.
Then last, as it relates to the motion of privilege, frankly, it's only the members on this side of the table who have addressed the motion. We've talked about politics and we've talked about carbon taxes, but when I look at page 2 of the most recent three-page submission from ECCC, it is interesting that they have three different scenarios. There's one with and one without carbon pricing—both excluding land use and land use change—and one estimating the impact of the carbon pricing. However, the motion that was most recently passed, I believe under the name of Ms. Collins, asked for a lot more. In the third motion of the three that endeavoured to get ECCC to honour the committee's wishes, we ordered the production of the Liberal government's complete carbon tax emissions model, including all parameters, variables and economic modelling.
This is a lovely chart, but I do not think it in any way covers off the carbon tax emissions model, including all parameters, variables and economic modelling. If this is how they're doing the modelling, I'm deeply concerned. As my colleague Mr. Kram said, whether it's a USB, a PDF or a bunch of paper.... There were 4,000 equations and 280,000 data points. There is a lot of information there, and that is what this motion is requesting.
That is why, in my view, this is a clear breach of privilege, not only for the first failure to respond with anything beyond a website link, but for the second failure to respond with just four random people putting their name on a document that says “draft” on it. Then, finally, with the third opportunity—three strikes, you're out—they came back with less.
Mr. Chair, this is a clear violation of our parliamentary privilege. I hope you see that and will rule in favour of this parliamentary privilege motion.
Thank you.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thankfully, everything that we say in this meeting is always on the record, and we could go—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you.
I'm sorry if I butted in line, Ms. Collins. This will be quick.
My exchange with both Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Hermanutz from, I think, November last year—I'm sorry; the date is not at the top of my screen—is the root of what we're talking about here. Those individuals confidently said that up to one-third of emissions reductions, they anticipate, will be attributed to carbon pricing. Mr. Leslie suggested that the question was somehow on just the consumer price on carbon. That wasn't my question. In my question back then, I said, “With respect to carbon pricing, it's difficult to quantify how many...reductions we've seen since 2005.” It's not as though anybody has a crystal ball or a dual-universe Star Trek: The Next Generation holodeck that you can ask, “Computer, can you please give us a dual-scenario situation?” However, we have seen a 6% reduction in emissions as a country since 2005 because there was a time at which we instituted a price on pollution. Also, the price on pollution goes up every year, so as you track it, you can see precisely how much the reduction can be attributed to the price.
Mr. Hermanutz agreed. He said, “You're right. It's very difficult”. There are more than 80 measures with respect to carbon pricing, so attributing “specific megatonnes to individual measures” when they are all applying to the same thing—what comes out of our gas-driven cars, when we heat our homes with fossil fuels, when we dry grain with fossil fuels—is a complicated scenario. However, if we can use a little bit less, then we know that we're getting somewhere.
He also said that “carbon pricing is a significant contributor to the expected reductions” and thought “the commissioner's report agrees with that statement.” To him, we're “in a world where...up to one-third...of the emissions reductions that we're projecting to 2030 would come from carbon pricing.”
I will note—
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Wait just a moment, Mr. van Koeverden. Mr. Mazier has a point of order.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
It's just on the relevance of this. This has nothing to do with the task at hand.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, we should really stay on the topic of whether what ECCC has provided is a model.
5 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I think discussing whether the original question was referring to the consumer price or the industrial price is very relevant to whether or not the responses we got are adequate. Mr. van Koeverden is bringing up a point, really, about the genesis of this question, and the initial motion the Conservatives tabled directly referenced the response.
I think it's important that we know—especially given that the Conservatives just mentioned that context matters—whether they were talking about consumer carbon pricing, industrial carbon pricing or a combination. I think this context matters.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
That was a point of order after Mr. Mazier's point of order on my intervention, which I haven't completely finished yet.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Continue with your intervention, and then we'll go to Mr. Mazier. Then I'm going to close this off.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Okay.
I don't think Ms. Collins has had the opportunity to say what she wants to say. I'm done here, but I think it is relevant to suggest that back in November, when we discussed this and initially got a response from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and from Mr. Derek Hermanutz, we were referring to carbon pricing as a whole, including those 80 measures, and not just the consumer price on pollution that the Conservatives are up in arms about.
I will just ask again, if I can, that we adjourn this meeting. I would like to revisit that after you rule.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Collins, is it a point of order, or do you want to say something?
5 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I had my hand up before Mr. van Koeverden, and then I gave a point of order.
5 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
To be honest, I'm going to raise a point very similar to Mr. van Koeverden's on the context and importance of industrial carbon pricing.
The carbon pricing conversation should be about how this policy best helps us achieve robust and credible climate planning. Unfortunately, I think the Conservatives—and, honestly, also the Liberals—have turned the consumer carbon tax into a political wedge. I hope that we can keep the industrial carbon pricing central as part of this conversation.