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—