Environment Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I look forward to us all door knocking and hearing from Canadians on their views.

My point is that the carbon tax is making it more expensive to heat your home, to eat and to put a roof over your head.

I know that you, Mr. Chair, made some comments in the previous meeting. I respect you, and I don't want to bring up the fact that there seems to be a real lack of evidence, but that's the flip side of the entirety of this problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have a point of order on that, but anyways.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I didn't try to quote you there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

My point is that the fact that this government... I look forward to seeing our motion from last meeting, in terms of the modelling and assumptions, come forward to see what the emissions being reduced from this are.

My hope is that we don't just adjourn debate and that we don't just disregard the views of the first nation chiefs across Ontario, the Liberal premier from Newfoundland and Labrador and, frankly, my constituents, because that's my job, to come here and defend them. They are adamantly opposed to the carbon tax.

Simply put, it's time we axe the tax for everyone, on everything and for good.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, to the witnesses, this happens all the time in these meetings now. I'm sorry that your time is being wasted. You are valuable experts. Your expertise and your testimony is important to our work.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I have a point of order.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Am I not entitled to speak now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll get back to you in a second.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

What's the relevance to the motion?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

The relevance to the motion is that the motion has been raised during a committee meeting, not during business, not during a neutral opportunity. Again, the Conservatives want to hijack this meeting for their own partisan desires.

When the Conservatives blame the cost of living crisis on carbon pricing, a proven emissions reduction strategy, just as 200 economists across the country have validated it, I welcome them to bring testimony from even one economist that suggests that carbon pricing isn't an effective way to reduce emissions. They're still only serving the greedy corporate interests of billionaire oil and gas executives.

There's no rebate on the provincial gas tax that Danielle Smith jacked up on Albertans on April 1. There is no rebate on the summer fuel surcharge or on excessive oil and gas profits. However, the Canada carbon rebate does have four quarterly repayments as an incentive to use a little less gas and get a little bit more tax-free cash in one's account four times a year.

The Conservatives still don't have a plan for affordability. They don't have a plan for the environment. They don't believe in climate change. They consistently prioritize the corporate interests of their greedy oil and gas masters over the needs of everyday Canadians.

For that reason, Mr. Chair—and I hope I haven't taken too long—I move that we adjourn debate on this motion for now, so that we can continue with our witnesses, out of respect for them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to go to a vote.

We'll go to a vote. Then we'll go back, I hope, to hearing from our witnesses.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We'll go to Ms. Taylor Roy, for three minutes, please.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Once again, I'd like to apologize for that interruption as well, especially when we have experts on behavioural economics and behavioural change in the room.

Mr. Brouwer, I'd actually like to direct my questions to you because this is our final meeting with expert witnesses on this subject, and we've had these interruptions throughout.

We've heard from Professor Lasserre that climate change is exacerbating the problems of drought and flooding. It has so much to do with water management, and you have mentioned water pricing as a way to control that.

Given that the member opposite has brought up the pollution pricing program we have in place, could you comment on how important you think it is to put in these pricing incentives to get Canadians to change their behaviour and reduce greenhouse gas emissions? As well, do you think that putting a price on pollution is a policy that works?

[Roy Brouwer]

I think there are sectors in the economy that speak the language of money, so I strongly believe in raising awareness. When I was a kid, I was taught to brush my teeth and not leave the tap water running. I also gave that message to my children, and I think it's an effective way of communicating that water is valuable and that you shouldn't spill it.

At the same time, I also believe that we currently don't pay anything for the water that we're using. We're paying for the treatment of the water, and that's not only an issue globally but also here in Canada. There is technology readily available that we can use, but we're not using it because there is no financial incentive to do so.

Where I come from, my house already had a grey-water tank to flush my toilets. It's crystal-clear water. We don't need drinking-quality water, which is very valuable and very costly, to flush our toilets, for example. We're not using that kind of technology because there is no incentive. It's too cheap to—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I have just a minute, so I want to ask you this: Would this same behavioural economics change also apply to pollution pricing, so that consumers faced with a price on pollution would change their behaviour just as they would when there is a price on water?

[Roy Brouwer]

Generally speaking, you would. I cannot speak to carbon.

I can speak a little bit to organic farming. You see that there is still a huge discrepancy in the amount of organic food that we're buying versus conventional food. We're not internalizing the externalities associated with conventional farming in our food products. The food is offered very cheap, and there is no chance for organic farming. For 20 or 30 years already, the market share, at least in Europe—I don't know in Canada—is—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

You're saying that these pricing signals do work to change consumer behaviour, and that we need to internalize the externalities, as with organic foods.

[Roy Brouwer]

We also need to have patience. It takes time because it's highly dependent on the baseline price that we pay. The reason farmers don't respond right away if you introduce a price on water is that they hardly pay for it. If they already pay a very high price and then you start increasing the price, they will feel it more and more, so they will start reducing their water use or invest in more efficient irrigation—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

A 23% increase in the price on pollution makes sense in that context.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to stop there.

We'll go to Madame Pauzé for a minute and a half.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Lasserre, we know that the north is melting. There are no borders in the north per se, and our neighbours aren't the friendliest. Have you studied this issue at all?

[Frédéric Lasserre]

Do you want to discuss the Northwest Passage issue?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes.

[Frédéric Lasserre]

Yes, that passage happens to be in the sea, in the water. It's not at all the same dynamic as the freshwater we've been talking about, though.

That said, there's the whole issue of Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, an issue I would like to explore at this time. The United States agrees with Canada that it doesn't agree on this sovereignty, so it's not a defence priority.

Let me explain. Since the signing of the Arctic co‑operation agreement between Canada and the United States in 1988, our two countries have agreed to disagree. In other words, Washington respects Canada's position but says it disagrees every time Canada asserts its sovereignty. For its part, Canada respects the American position. So there's a kind of agreement that there's disagreement, without seeking to resolve the issue or force the other party to take another position.