Government Operations Committee on March 27th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I don't believe that motion is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Excuse me for two seconds.

Thanks, Mr. Sousa. I assume you're moving it as a matter-at-hand motion. I don't believe it's on a matter at hand, so I'm not going to rule it in order, Mr. Sousa.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to challenge that. Right now, there have been methods—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's fine. If you wish to challenge the chair, we can—

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I do wish to challenge that and move the motion forward and explain why.

There have been instances, as we already noted earlier before the meeting, that unilateral decisions are being made to have meetings and witnesses, without notice to us. It's impacting members' privileges. It's also disrespecting some of our members. It's a violation.

I would say that it's appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Mr. Sousa, but I'm going to interrupt. We'll go right to it. I'm advised by the clerk that it's treated similar to a dilatory motion, so there's no chance to speak to it.

We will go right to a vote on it, Mr. Sousa.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 3)

I don't believe the motion is valid, but we will debate it.

Just give me two seconds. I need to check something else with the clerk.

Bear with me for one second, Mr. Sousa.

Mr. Sousa, are you sending it in both languages?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, there is a procedural thing with this that we have to go over with the analysts and the chair. I'm going to suspend for a few minutes while we take a look at it. Just bear with us.

Premier Moe, I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry for the delay, colleagues. We are back. We'll go ahead.

Mr. Sousa, the floor is yours. Or are you fine with that as presented? I think it has gone out or is going out very shortly in both languages.

Are we ready to move to a vote on it, colleagues? Do we need to vote on it? I see nodding heads all around.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

On division.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I request a recorded division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Sure.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

Thank you for your patience there, Mr. Sousa.

We're now going to Mrs. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Moe, thank you for being here.

I have some questions for you about your view that the current government is too centralist. Being from Quebec, I'm inclined to agree completely. We've also seen the federal government's desire to interfere in areas under your jurisdiction and Quebec's, such as attaching strings to health care funding and separating transfers. As I recall, you called on the federal government to boost the health transfer to cover 35% of health costs. Neither you, nor the other premiers got that.

Let's say the health transfer did cover 35% of health costs. First, what would you be able to do, and how could you better administer not just your budget, but also services to the public?

Second, can the federal government really know what Saskatchewan needs when it comes to health care?

[Scott Moe]

I will answer those in reverse.

With regard to the second question about whether the federal government can know—whoever the federal government is, not just this administration—what the health care needs are in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the territories, Atlantic Canada, Quebec or Ontario, it can at a high level, possibly, but it should always be looking for opportunities to work with the subnational jurisdictions on how it can fund. Traditionally, our health care was funded fifty-fifty. There were tax points moved to the province a number of years ago. The chair of the Council of the Federation at that point in time was Premier Legault from Quebec, and we very much were supportive of returning the health care funding balance back to the 35:65 that it was always intended to be.

What would that mean to Saskatchewan? We landed with the federal funding at a 2.6% increase, I believe, over the next five years. We just released our budget this past year, and 10.4% was the lift we provided to health care. Some of that is to change how we deliver health care in the province. A 35% lift would restore the balance.

I think what you're seeing happen today is provinces—and you're seeing a number of their budgets coming out as we speak—making up the difference in many cases. That is what we're doing here, and that's why I think this committee meeting is very important for ensuring that we have a palatable and attractive investment environment. In our case in Saskatchewan, it's only through the strength of our growing economy that we're actually able to make that 10.4% investment in health care and a 9% investment in education, which is another provincial area of jurisdiction.

We have many points of agreement with Premier Legault at the Council of the Federation table and beyond. Premier Legault intervened, as did six other provinces—Quebec intervened on Saskatchewan's behalf—in the Supreme Court case when it came to removing the consumer carbon tax on Canadians. We, in turn, have collaborated with Premier Legault on advocating, working through our first ministers table, to restore health care funding for all provinces.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

The carbon tax doesn't apply to Quebec. According to 165 economists from across Canada, the effect of the carbon tax on rising prices is, on the whole, pretty modest. I don't say that to minimize in any way what the people of Saskatchewan are feeling and experiencing.

The carbon market is very lucrative in Quebec, just as it is in California, the wealthiest state in the U.S. The carbon market has generated $1.5 billion for Quebec. Provinces in Canada could have joined Quebec in the carbon market, which has helped not only the government's coffers, but also business by driving innovation.

Why did Saskatchewan choose not to do that? Since Saskatchewan wants out of the carbon tax system, what actions will it take to reduce impacts on the environment and encourage greenhouse gas reductions?

I would point out that the carbon tax is not unlike the measure that was successfully used in the past to reduce sulphur oxide, which causes acid rain. In fact, the amount of sulphur oxide in the air is down 78%. That's the kind of success Quebec and Canada hope to achieve through the carbon market and the measures in place.

Why didn't you join the carbon market from the outset? After all, it's a lucrative market in both the short term and the medium term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid we're out of time. I would ask that you offer as short an answer as you can, please.

[Scott Moe]

This really speaks to the diversity in our nation. What works in one area of the nation may not work ideally in another area of the nation. I think this is the reason you are destined to fail in your policy development if you don't have a federal government working collaboratively with all subnational governments across a nation.

With respect to the carbon tax specifically, we've always said, from day one, that it's a harmful tax. We've also always said that outside of Quebec, it's been reasonably fairly imposed, as harmful as it is across the nation. What we've seen more recently, with the decisions that impact heating fuel in Atlantic Canada, is that outside of Quebec, this tax isn't being imposed fairly across the nation in any way. That's why we made the decision we did when it comes to home heating fuel to rebate the carbon tax on natural gas and electricity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Premier Moe. I'm sorry. We're past our time.

Mr. Boulerice, welcome to OGGO. You have six minutes, sir.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, as well, to the witness. I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak with the Premier of Saskatchewan, even though I'm still not entirely sure why he was invited to appear before the committee. We are actually supposed to be studying other matters, specifically related to the estimates.

I'm sure you'll agree, Mr. Moe, that climate change is having a growing impact on communities. In the past few years, a number of communities in Saskatchewan have been affected by severe forest fires. The number of fires has significantly increased over the years, affecting public health, people's health. Residents had to be evacuated from their homes.

In 2023, your province experienced 231 forest fires, which is much higher than your usual average of 150 fires. There were not only more fires, but also 10 times as many hectares affected, so 300,000 hectares as opposed to the usual 30,000. Smoke covered the sky for days. People had trouble breathing.

Canada lags behind most other countries when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. I assume you're familiar with the targets in the Paris Agreement, which Canada signed.

How do you propose making big companies and major polluters pay for pollution? I'm talking about those that have a real impact on the climate and the environment.

What's your game plan, Mr. Moe?

[Scott Moe]

First of all, I would say that the average number of forest fires in Saskatchewan is 300, not 100 or 150. We had 450 last year, and we experienced some rain that helped us out immensely. Alberta and the northwestern British Columbia had a much more challenging year.

Yes, climate change impacts weather, which we're experiencing, in fairness, all across the nation. Around the world, they are experiencing that to some degree.

I'm very familiar with the Paris Agreement. In that accord, there are a number of opportunities for us to provide a platform.

Let me back up. I don't agree that Canada is a climate laggard, and I certainly don't agree that Saskatchewan is a climate laggard. I think Saskatchewan and Canada are leaders when it comes to developing industries that are reducing emissions with innovation, and then sharing that around the world.

Again, as I said, through the Paris Agreement, there's article 6, with the internationally traded mitigation outcomes option. I would encourage this federal government to act on that and work collaboratively, for example, with the Saskatchewan agricultural industry.

We're selling air drills all around the world. We would love to be able to recapture some of those carbon credits back to Canada, to our nation, to our province and, ultimately, to our agricultural industry and our innovators in that industry. They are building some of the latest and greatest technologies that are sequestering carbon in our soils. They're ultimately making Saskatchewan agriculture one of the most sustainable producers of food in the world, and are marginally very close to being net zero today, when you compile that with precision agriculture and the tier 4 engines that Saskatchewan agriculture producers are paying for and utilizing in every piece of equipment they have.

Canada is not a climate laggard. Canada is an innovation leader when it comes to providing innovation to reduce emissions, whether that be from Saskatchewan's perspective, the agricultural industry's perspective, the potash industry's perspective, the uranium industry's perspective for clean nuclear power or the oil industry's—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Premier, I'm going to have to—

[Scott Moe]

I think we need to look at this differently. The goal is not to have polluters pay.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I know you really like talking, Premier, but you didn't answer my question.

According to a UN report, Canada is the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita. From 2016 to 2020, Canada emitted, on average, 19 tonnes of greenhouse gases per capita, four times higher than the global average. The Paris target is two tonnes per capita, so we are nowhere close to that.

How are you going to make the big companies responsible for the climate crisis and climate change pay for pollution? You didn't answer my question. Instead, you pulled out your high-tech magic wand, as though you're going to use some giant vacuum to suck up greenhouse gases.

How are you going to make big polluters pay? They are the ones responsible for the natural disasters affecting the people you represent.

[Scott Moe]

With all due respect, you're bouncing back between gross numbers of carbon emitted and then a per capita measurement, and you're not able to do that with any credibility in the question.

The goal is not for the big climate polluters to pay. The goal is for them to reduce their emissions, because they are employing people in your community and my community, with all due respect.

Per capita emissions are the wrong metric to use. I would encourage everyone at this committee and across the government to not be using that metric. If you want to use that metric, Saskatchewan is the largest per capita exporter in Canada and one of the largest per capita exporters in the world. Yes, what we are producing emits global emissions, but we are providing that food, fuel and fertilizer—the cleanest food, fuel and fertilizer—to over 150 countries around the world. We are displacing...in the case of potash fertilizer, for example, it's 50% lower in its carbon emissions per tonne produced.

We are displacing fertilizer that is being produced by Russia and Belarus today by making more Saskatchewan fertilizer available. Credit goes to the federal government that invested in the latest fertilizer and the latest potash mine that is being developed here. It was a $20-billion investment by a global company.

The goal is not for our employers to pay more. The goal is for them to emit less and to displace higher-emitting...like competing industries around the world. That is how we build a strong Canadian economy. That is how we lower global emissions, and that's how we employ Canadians in your community and in mine.