Evidence of meeting #128 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tax.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
We will have Mr. Bossio, Mr. Fast, and anybody else wanting to speak to the motion.
October 30th, 2018 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
We as a committee have agreed on what we would study next—forestry, agriculture and waste.
Mr. Lake, we had a number of other issues we said we would consider studying after that.
We had a timeline to discuss that and unfortunately he's decided that he wants to jump the queue on that discussion by bringing this forward now. I can't support jumping the queue on a study that we had already agreed to have or would have been happy to discuss this as a study down the road but since he wants to bring it forward now, I'll have to oppose.
Abbotsford, CPC
I'm very sorry to hear that from someone who claims to be very interested in the issue. I will remind everyone at this table that when the carbon tax was first announced, I was at a briefing where an Environment Canada official said very clearly in no uncertain terms that the carbon tax was the “foundational element” of their climate change plan—the foundational element. This wasn't some throwaway. It wasn't on the side. It wasn't a minor piece.
It's been repeated here by Mr. Turner that the carbon tax needs to be the major piece of every platform. If that's so, then we as the environment committee should at least have a close look at what a carbon tax entails. As some of you will know I've gone on quite a journey on the carbon tax. I've always been open to whether we should use a market-based mechanism to change behaviour in a way that ultimately doesn't punish Canadians broadly. It punishes, perhaps, or penalizes those who use more or who do things that emit more greenhouse gases but then return the money to taxpayers one way or another.
Which is why when the B.C. carbon tax was first introduced—Mr. Aldag, you're from B.C. so you will remember this—Gordon Campbell introduced this tax, and Gord is a friend of mine. This is not casting aspersions on him. He swore up and down that this was going to be a revenue-neutral tax that was going to discourage behaviour but be returned to the taxpayer. For the most part, with a few exceptions, that's what happened with the B.C. carbon tax.
Today that carbon tax is at $35 a tonne. I've yet to meet an economist who will agree that $35 a tonne or $50 a tonne or even $100 a tonne is significant enough to change human behaviour. Be that as it may, you have this tax in B.C. so it's now at $35. That's done. Greenhouse gases in B.C. are still going up. Some will say that's because the economy is growing. The Paris Agreement targets are absolute targets. There is no adjustment for economic growth. Those are your targets. You have to meet them.
If that's the reference point, we're failing in British Columbia to reduce emissions. What did the new government, the NDP government do? They removed revenue neutrality so now it becomes a cash cow for governments to spend on their own political priorities. Why wouldn't you want to study that? If there's a carbon tax that can be defended, that can be promoted to Canadians as being defensible and workable and effective, then let's do that at this table, not walk away from the issue. That's what it appears my Liberal friends are doing.
Let's have a fulsome discussion about this. That's all we're asking. This is the foundational element of the pan-Canadian framework on climate change that the Liberal government tabled and promised was going to lead us to climate change nirvana, that we were going to meet those Paris targets. Today it's very clear that we're not even on track to meet those targets.
That's my case. Let's support this. Let's do something and we will be constructive participants in that effort. We're not here to bash the carbon tax. I remain to be convinced, but I'm going to be a constructive participant and Mr. Lake will and Mr. Godin will and everybody else who comes to the table.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I'll simply say that's not what I heard Mr. Bossio say, but he is on the list, so I'll let him speak to what he said when it gets back to him.
Next up is Ms. Dzerowicz.
Davenport, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe the topic of what our next study would be came up at our subcommittee meeting. From my recollection—
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
On a point of order, I believe that committee meeting was in camera.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
I have a point of order. That's part of the problem, private conversations versus what we discuss in public.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
You can talk about the report that we brought from the subcommittee back to this committee, but not about the discussions behind what came back from subcommittee.
Davenport, Lib.
Oh, my goodness. Well, I don't know.
My point was basically what we said, and I think it's fairly general. To be safe, I don't think I should mention it, because I don't know if I can or not.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
The clerk is informing me that the only part that can be shared in public is what became public, which is the adoption of the report. I'm just trying to see if we have that....
Davenport, Lib.
That's because we believe we're putting a price on pollution.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I just need to find what the wording is in the report.
The report that was adopted did not mention the future studies under consideration beyond the next one, which is about forestry, agriculture and waste.
Davenport, Lib.
Right, and I was going to mention that, but let me just say very simply, because I have to be on the safe side, that I think we came up with a game plan on how to come up with the next study. I propose that we follow the game plan that we agreed to at our subcommittee meeting, because I think that includes the consideration of this motion.
That's it, Mr. Chair. I hope I didn't violate any deep privacy principles there.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To build on what my colleagues Mr. Fast and Mr. Lake were saying, we must rise above partisanship and try to advance the cause that affects us all.
Mr. Lake's motion states as follows: “That, following the Committee's study of Clean Growth and Climate Change in Canada: forestry, agriculture and waste, the Committee proceed next to a study of Clean Growth and Climate Change in Canada: Carbon Tax...”
I think the issue is very sensitive. Before making a decision, a good parliamentarian must have as much information as possible. I believe that this study will give us the tools to ensure that we make the best possible decision for the environment. In my view, this should be our main mission. We must rise above partisanship.
My colleague Mike Bossio said earlier that he would have been open to the motion but that, since the motion was tabled today, he wouldn't commit to it. Would my colleague be more open and would he support the idea of the study if other dates were scheduled?
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
I suggest that you defer the question to another time so that we can continue to hear from the witnesses. Otherwise, we could proceed immediately with the vote.
As an observation, I would say that the words carbon tax refer only to the tax on carbon. In Canada, we also have the cap-and-trade system, which is commonly known as the “carbon exchange.” Maybe the term carbon pricing, to reflect the notion of the price on carbon, would be a better choice of terminology than carbon tax.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I have one more person on my speakers list.
Mr. Lake.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
To Mr. Bossio's and Ms. Dzerowicz's comments, I do want to point out for folks who would listen to this that the subcommittees and committees are set up in such a way that the majority of the members on the subcommittee are Liberal members of Parliament. With that majority, they can dictate what is or is not in a report in the private, in camera subcommittee meetings. As you're analyzing the words put forward by Liberal members of the party, I think it's important to note that.
I think it is important that we're having this conversation in public. The carbon tax is the central pillar. No Liberal member of Parliament, and that includes the environment minister and the Prime Minister, would deny that the carbon tax is.... They might use different language, but whatever language we use— carbon tax, carbon pricing—it is the central pillar of the framework.
We are the environment committee of the House of Commons. If we're going to have a responsible conversation about Canada's environmental policy moving forward, it seems to me that the reasonable place to have that conversation is in a study on the pan-Canadian framework. This is the overarching study that we're doing right now.
In the study we're doing, if we're going to study something called “international leadership”—basically if the Liberal majority has decided we're going to study Liberal leadership on the environment at the international level—and if the committee has decided we're going to study forestry, agriculture and waste as a sub-study for six meetings, certainly the carbon tax would warrant a six-meeting study as well.
I am putting forward in public a vote by the committee on the question of whether, as members of this committee, we think Canadians would be interested—as they spend the next year contemplating environmental policy as part of an election campaign—in a conversation among parliamentarians from all parties and expert witnesses from across the country and around the world on carbon tax or carbon pricing or whatever it is we want to call it.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you. I have nobody else on my speakers list.
No. I do have another one. Mr. Choquette.