Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here.
I want to follow up Mr. Poilievre's questions. I didn't have a chance to read your study that was released yesterday, but I went through it quickly here. Mr. Poilievre talked about modelling. Maybe he hasn't had a chance to read it either, and we'll let it him get caught up, but appendix 1 speaks specifically to modelling. For some of the characteristics, it's not a secret that you can't provide the number; it's the fact that there are a variety of characteristics that need to be incorporated and looked at.
Let's talk about some of them that are in black and white, and not a secret. Again, that's not a catchy catchphrase or hashtag. Among other characteristics, it will include the following:
...provincial production and consumption patterns through a detailed input-output table and links provinces via bilateral trade. Each province and territory is explicitly represented as a region.
It later goes on to say:
The baseline for this macroeconomic analysis is Canada’s 2017 GHG reference case that was reported in Canada’s 7th National Communication and 3rd Biennial Report to the United Nations.... It includes the future impact of policies and measures taken by the federal, provincial and territorial governments as of November 1, 2017....
These are all important factors that I think would need to go into the modelling. In forecasting, it says:
key macroeconomic variables in the model such as GDP, the exchange rate, and inflation [rate] are [all] aligned to Finance Canada’s projections.
It goes on to talk about things like gas consumption by each province and consumption of other goods. This is what makes it so difficult to put a specific number on it, because, obviously, it's going to vary dramatically in each region. Mr. McLeod just gave some examples of how the north may be impacted differently.
What are the dangers of using outdated memos, and memos unrelated to this bill? What is the danger of not actually waiting for provinces and territories to come forward with their plans, with the economics provided for in their regions that are specific to those people? What is the danger of using fearmongering and Conservative tactics, and putting some random number on it instead of waiting for provinces and territories to come back and work with the federal government?
I know that having partnerships with provinces and territories is a new concept, but what is the risk of using outdated economic information and modelling that is not relevant to regional differences in this country? Again, it's the ability for provinces and territories to design their own systems that will provide the best return of carbon pricing revenues back to the consumers who probably need it most. What is the basis for ensuring that all of these factors are taken into account, and why is this bill focused on modelling that respects regional diversity? Why was that so important to Environment Canada and Finance Canada?