Evidence of meeting #110 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was spending.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Do your calculations include the cost of doing business as well with some of our trading partners, and what those additional levies would be, say, if we're sending items to the United Kingdom that don't have that carbon pricing included?
12:30 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It's clear that there would probably be some carbon border adjustment if Canada were to do nothing on climate change, but it's very difficult to determine exactly what these costs would be in the absence of more information as to the timelines for not doing anything.
It's also difficult to determine with a high level of certainty what the response would be from our trading partners if we were to do nothing when it comes to climate change. What would be their reaction? What would they deem to be sufficient or insufficient? What's the trigger for our trading partners?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Also, would it capture some of the foreign investment around that zero emission economy that we're really trying to build here in Canada—for example, the $30 billion just in the automotive industry?
12:30 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I think that would probably be a slightly different issue.
The government has a zero emissions vehicle mandate, so even if we were to move away from a carbon tax, while it would probably mean that internal combustion engines would be slightly less expensive to operate, there would probably still be a need for electric vehicles, given the zero emissions mandate that the government has announced and will be putting in place.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
How about the net job increase around renewable energy, and the electric vehicle industry? Are there numbers to account for that as well?
12:30 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
No. That's a whole different category of issues.
The government has introduced a number of tax credits to stimulate green energy, the use of hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage, and we have not tried to measure the impact of these in terms of jobs and economic activity because they are separate measures.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
In general, if we didn't have some of these regulatory pieces in our plan, do you think that companies and corporations would have made some of these deliberate decisions to move away from fossil fuels and into a more renewable and green economy, just as an opinion piece for you?
March 18th, 2024 / 12:30 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It's very difficult to express an opinion on that, given that companies' decisions to invest are based on a number of factors—the regulatory environment, the social environment and so on. This would be one aspect of it, but it's very difficult to express an opinion that takes into account only one aspect.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Giroux, thank you again for your very welcome comments and impartiality.
Mr. Chair, my colleagues talked about ArriveCAN several times, but other questionable software applications are being implemented. I'm forced to move a motion I gave notice of on February 28. It pertains to the cost of these applications. I have to do this despite the fact that I still have—I think you're starting to know me after five or nearly six years—15,000 questions. You already have the text of the motion in both official languages, and I'll read it:
That, given that: (i) the Auditor General has found that the ArriveCAN application has cost taxpayers at least $60 million and that the Canada Border Services Agency’s management of public funds with respect to the ArriveCAN application has been disastrous; (ii) the Canada Border Services Agency is currently working on implementing an official, digital system of record to apply international trade policies for commercial duties and taxes for importers and trade chain partners, known as the CBSA Assessment and Revenue Management (CARM), and that this new system will come into effect for everyone on May 13, 2024, despite a short trial period and limited testing; (iii) the government procurement website canadabuys.canada.ca states that contracts awarded to Deloitte for the development of the CARM project have a minimum value of several hundred million dollars; Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), the committee A. orders the Canada Border Services Agency to produce, in both official languages, unredacted copies of: a. all signed contracts relating to the development and implementation of the CARM project since the beginning of 2018; b. all CBSA communications relating to the 2018 Deloitte technical specifications; c. all CBSA communications relating to CARM Release 2 testing since October 2023; provided the documents are submitted to the committee clerk no later than 15 days following the adoption of this motion; and B. once the documents have been received by the committee that it invite the President of the Canada Border Services Agency to testify at a 2‑hour meeting to answer the committee’s questions about the contract for the development and implementation of the CARM.
Yet again, we're facing a situation where millions of dollars are being injected into an application, and where, once again, there has been limited testing of and a very short trial period for this application. The purpose of the motion is, therefore, to know exactly what happened and the test results. Indeed, we want to avoid Phoenix 2.0. In this case, though, it's not the pay of public servants being attacked, but rather, Canada's entire trade system, meaning everything passing through our borders. That's why I'm moving this motion today.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you very much.
This went out on February 28, so everyone received it a fair while ago. It's mostly a document request, with a request for one meeting.
Mr. Sousa, go ahead.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you for the motion.
As you know, I think CIIT has already passed a motion to study CARM and I think they're expecting to do it soon, so the question is whether we need to duplicate the work when we have already agreed upon so many other motions today.
My issue is that we have quite a bit on the go and a lot of requests for material, and another committee is already proceeding to do so.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I understand my colleague's concerns, but as he knows full well, every committee takes a unique approach. We look at the process. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology will look at the consequences on industry, among other things.
I want to ensure that we avoid the kind of situation we had with Phoenix. It's true that there are many documents; I'm well aware of that fact. I needn't tell you that I'm reading tens of thousands of pages relating to the other requests for documents that we've received.
Nonetheless, in light of the approach we need to take and the committee's objective, namely to ensure that whatever procurement process used is adequate, proper and appropriate, I believe that this motion is relevant to our committee as well. It's essential to avoid mistakes such as the ones we've seen in recent months.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm looking at the timeline that's been suggested and I see that 2018 is the reference point. I'm proposing a friendly amendment before an official one: It's that maybe that number could be 2010.
I'm aware that CBSA got funding for this project in budget 2010 to begin with, so it may be useful to look at it from that starting point.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I understand what you're saying, but you can't do friendly amendments. You can propose an amendment.
I'd only offer up the concern that getting documents that far back is certainly going to destroy Ms. Vignola's 15-day timeline for the order production. That's just a comment.
However, if you want to put through an amendment, we can debate that.
Mrs. Block is next.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I recognize that you have encouraged Ms. Atwin to consider doing something different. Will there be any debate on the amendment she's proposing?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're on Ms. Vignola's motion.
Ms. Atwin, I see your hand is up.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I move to amend the motion so that under paragraph A.a., I suggest the date be amended to 2010 instead of 2018.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay.
Does anybody wish to speak on that?
Go ahead, Mrs. Block.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While I understand the intent of Ms. Atwin's amendment, I'm a little confused about going all the way back to 2010 when we're talking about ArriveCAN specifically in this amendment and a new initiative that the Canada Border Services Agency is currently working on.
I don't know what the timeline is in regard to when they began work on this project. However, I'm not sure it's useful to go all the way back to 2010 when we're talking about issues we've seen at our border services agency with this new digital system.
Thank you.