Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I listened to my Conservative colleague's presentation earlier. In fact, when I look more closely at his request as set out in his motion, I believe it's impossible to respond to it.
There's a Canadian law that requires Quebec and each province to have a price on carbon. We need to talk about carbon pricing rather than a carbon tax, because it doesn't apply in Quebec. The Conservatives recognized this in a motion they voted on with us in the House.
The carbon tax doesn't apply in two provinces: Quebec and British Columbia, which have carbon exchanges. If the Conservatives' goal is to get an overall picture of how much carbon emissions would be reduced as a result of carbon pricing, they won't get there, because their motion doesn't refer to carbon pricing, but rather to the carbon tax.
I don't want to defend my Liberal colleagues, because their environmental record is pitiful given the massive support they give to the oil and gas sector, but no one is held to the impossible.
In theory, it's completely impossible to get details on modelling by presenting a motion like this, because it would only allow us to obtain a single portion of the vision for reducing carbon emissions. For that reason, I believe that my colleague's motion doesn't hold water. We can't follow it logically because it's poorly worded.