I have a couple of points of clarification on a couple of comments.
To my friend in the Bloc Québécois, that short, three-page response does indicate that the preparation of the scenario should include all “federal, provincial and territorial emissions reduction policies”, whether or not you're in the federal backstop. ECCC seems to indicate that they're using the B.C. and Quebec models as part of their overall analysis.
To my friend Ms. Collins, I can appreciate the delineation between the Climate Institute report saying 8% to 14% and higher for the output-based pricing system, but going back to the testimony of Mr. Hermanutz, I think we're giving the government too much credit. In the context of that conversation—and I do not have the testimony in front of me, so I will attempt to paraphrase—that was very much based on the consumer carbon tax. That was our line of questioning. It was not a combination of the consumer tax and the back-end, output-based pricing tax. Combining the two totals, I think, gives the government an out that they don't really deserve, given that this is the comment that started all of this, and we saw it in writing after.
Then last, as it relates to the motion of privilege, frankly, it's only the members on this side of the table who have addressed the motion. We've talked about politics and we've talked about carbon taxes, but when I look at page 2 of the most recent three-page submission from ECCC, it is interesting that they have three different scenarios. There's one with and one without carbon pricing—both excluding land use and land use change—and one estimating the impact of the carbon pricing. However, the motion that was most recently passed, I believe under the name of Ms. Collins, asked for a lot more. In the third motion of the three that endeavoured to get ECCC to honour the committee's wishes, we ordered the production of the Liberal government's complete carbon tax emissions model, including all parameters, variables and economic modelling.
This is a lovely chart, but I do not think it in any way covers off the carbon tax emissions model, including all parameters, variables and economic modelling. If this is how they're doing the modelling, I'm deeply concerned. As my colleague Mr. Kram said, whether it's a USB, a PDF or a bunch of paper.... There were 4,000 equations and 280,000 data points. There is a lot of information there, and that is what this motion is requesting.
That is why, in my view, this is a clear breach of privilege, not only for the first failure to respond with anything beyond a website link, but for the second failure to respond with just four random people putting their name on a document that says “draft” on it. Then, finally, with the third opportunity—three strikes, you're out—they came back with less.
Mr. Chair, this is a clear violation of our parliamentary privilege. I hope you see that and will rule in favour of this parliamentary privilege motion.
Thank you.