I agree that the first two responses from ECCC were woefully inadequate, and sending a link to a website is unacceptable. The documents the department sent with regard to the second motion were also clearly inadequate. They didn't have the information that I would have liked to see. That's why I worked with all parties, and we were able to find support for a third motion.
The data that came back in this was helpful. I found it helpful, and I also found it interesting that the department also attached a second document with the Canadian Climate Institute's report on carbon pricing. I think that report really shows that carbon pricing is an essential tool in our tool box when it comes to tackling the climate crisis. It also shows that consumer pricing and industrial carbon pricing, these two pieces, are doing different amounts when it comes to bringing down our emissions.
I am committed to building a climate plan that makes big polluters pay, that brings down the costs for Canadians, that meets our emissions targets and that really unifies people when it comes to tackling the climate crisis. I think the document from the Canadian Climate Institute that was attached by ECCC highlights in some ways how the government has fixated on its own specific design of consumer carbon pricing, maybe to the detriment.... It may not be the best and only way to tackle the climate crisis, and the government has used it as a political wedge.
When you look at those documents, you see that one of them says the consumer price will contribute 8% to 14% to Canada's emissions reduction plan, whereas if you look at the industrial carbon pricing system, the system that makes the biggest polluters pay what they owe, you see that it's projected to do more than any other policy to cut emissions, delivering between 20% and 48% of Canada's emissions reductions. Going back to what the Conservatives initially were asking about—the comments made by ECCC about whether this contribution was actually a third of Canada's emissions reduction plan—the document from the Canadian Climate Institute shows that 8% to 14% plus 20% to 48% fall within that and back up the comments made at the environment committee.
It is critical that we strengthen climate policies to hold big oil and gas accountable and to get the deepest emissions reductions. It's disappointing to me that we are often talking solely about consumer carbon pricing when clearly industrial carbon pricing and carbon pricing on the biggest emitters—big oil and gas—are doing the bulk of emissions reduction and are projected to do the bulk of emissions reduction. It's really concerning to me that the Conservatives have refused to answer the question of whether they would scrap the industrial carbon price. That policy is doing the most work when it comes to emissions reductions. It is terrifying to me to think that they might scrap it, so I am very interested in having these conversations.
The information that was provided most recently answered the questions that I had. The only thing that is maybe niggling at me is that this document says the Statistics Act protects this information. I am unclear as to whether that is just an offhand comment letting us know that this information is protected generally, or that document is claiming that they would have provided more information but the Statistics Act protects the information so they couldn't. That is unclear to me, so if we had officials here to answer that, it would be helpful for my understanding of this privilege motion.
Thanks.