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.
4:15 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Mr. Choquette, we move over to you.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to thank you for being here this afternoon to talk about a clean economy and the fight against climate change. These are extremely important issues.
Recently, the Green Budget Coalition—which I'm sure you're familiar with—released its annual report containing recommendations for a green budget. One of the recommendations concerns fossil fuel subsidies. We have good news regarding one of the recommendations. We've reached an agreement with Argentina to ensure that our fossil fuel subsidies will be disclosed in the future.
The coalition also recommended that the Government of Canada “[initiate] work with partner countries to define “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.”
Are measures being taken to reduce fossil fuel subsidies? What could be done to improve the situation? I'm thinking of the establishment of partnerships with various countries around the world, such as the partnership entered into with Argentina.
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Director, International Environmental Law, Centre for International Governance Innovation
I can give you some elements of an answer. I guess there are different kinds of partnerships on fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies. One of the issues with fossil fuel subsidies is that they seem to provide an incentive that is contrary to the incentives we're looking for to make the transition to a low-carbon economy, so in fact one could argue that fossil fuels have a competitive advantage over renewables.
Fossil fuel subsidies are less likely to be challenged, I understand, under the trade regime. I'm not a trade lawyer, but I've read a little bit about it. Because of their nature, they tend to be more diffuse. It's harder to find the challenge there in terms of harm being done.
In terms of what Canada is doing, this is a G7 initiative. I think Canada and the G7 and the G20 agreed to take steps to reduce fossil fuel subsidies in both those fora. In the G7, they're having a series of partnerships to explore fossil fuel subsidies in each of those countries. I think it will be very interesting for Canadians to see what kinds of fossil fuel subsidies there are in Canada so that we can have a debate on that.
The language with respect to the G7 and G20 declarations is rather unfortunate, because it talks about “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. I haven't found anybody so far who can tell me what an “efficient” fossil fuel subsidy is and what an “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidy is. That gives the negotiators a little bit of wiggle room, but we don't really know what it means.
There are countries who are working on the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies. As a matter of fact, at the latest meeting of the WTO council, it was New Zealand who was trying to move forward on fossil fuels. There are also a couple of initiatives from NGOs. I think they're called “friends of fossil fuel reform”. John might know about this, because he has some IISD connections. There are countries and international NGOs who are working on that issue.
I'll just throw in one more thing. It's not about fossil fuel subsidies, but there is an agreement under the TPP and also, remarkably, under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement, to do away with fishing subsidies for fish stocks that are almost depleted. That's a good thing to look at as a model in terms of how to go about addressing subsidies. Maybe there is a process there that can be used to address the issue of fossil fuel subsidies as well more generally.
Thank you.
4:20 p.m.
Consultant, Drexhage Consulting, As an Individual
The first challenge is the definition. It's always an issue.
We have to give you an idea of the range of what we're dealing with. On the one hand, you have the IEA, which has estimated that overall global subsidies are in the area of around $450 billion and are all related to consumption. Iran pays way lower prices for their fuel than the global market. They don't really look at their production side at all.
On the other side and on the other extreme, you have the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, which takes into account the entire social cost of carbon. They estimate the subsidies to be $4.5 trillion. The UNDP, OECD, IEA and all of these multilateral institutions are trying to get to some kind of common understanding of what “subsidy” actually covers—let alone “efficient” and “inefficient”. Finance Canada, to be absolutely frank, still has not been entirely transparent about how it addresses subsidies.
I'll leave it at that.
4:20 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you very much.
Mr. Amos, you're up next.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses. This has been a bit of a tour de force, in a way. There's a lot on the table.
I've been thinking most about what you said, Mr. Turner, particularly having read the Walrus article you published a year ago. I would recommend it to our committee members. I think it's a really interesting take on how all Canadians are, in some way, shape or form, complicit in the issue of climate change. It's not a battle to be won. It's the kind of issue that is ripe for incremental politics but that nonetheless presents a massive challenge to us. In essence, what I took from that piece was that we're all in it together.
I would ask you to give us your reflections on the Conservative Party's take on pollution pricing. My views are well known. I spoke for 10 minutes in the House a couple of weeks ago during our emergency debate. I'm on the record as decrying the dumbing-down of this debate—a tax on carbon being a tax on jobs and everything else. I'd like to hear your views on what needs to change in the political discourse, particularly as regards the Conservative Party's treatment of that pollution pricing issue.
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I can speak to that.
Incidentally, the Walrus piece that I think you're referring to is actually an adaptation of the last chapter of my oil sands book, so you can find it there as well. I actually wrote recently in The Globe and Mail about various approaches. It wasn't specifically looking party by party, but just where we are going on climate policy and how far have we gotten.
Certainly, it was quite clear in that piece that, federally, the Conservative Party at present doesn't have a plan that I'm aware of. It has not yet been disclosed what their plan is going into the next election. Certainly, as a government, though, the Conservatives actually initially had some not bad stuff. If you could go back to the “Turning the Corner” plan that was brought forward, I think, in 2007—
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, it was John Baird's “Turning the Corner” plan. It was not bad. Certainly, it did have potential mechanisms for putting a price on carbon. It really did seem to want to address in a broad, thorough way what was going on. It was not terribly well-received outside of the party itself. Some of my colleagues have certainly argued and maybe unfairly criticized it simply because the rhetoric of the day was so heated around this stuff that there was just not a lot of ground being given, but that kind of fell by the wayside.
Then, as a government, the Conservatives spent most of their time using the phrase “job-killing carbon tax” every single time that the subject came up. I think it was an extraordinarily negative thing to do to the public discourse: to frame the essential response needed to climate change nationally as a thing that was trying to destroy the economy.
What we've found in the limited evidence that we have to date—British Columbia is the best—is that putting a price on carbon is not a drag on the economy in any way whatsoever. There's no real evidence of that. I think that a lot of the opposition now is basically looking for other ways to put prices on carbon without saying “tax” because they sort of recognized that putting a price on pollution is a smart thing to do, but that they can't say it anymore because they've spent 10 years talking about how it was the worst idea on earth. You hear that, certainly, from some of the premiers and would-be premiers now when they talk about it. I think that it's an enormous disservice to Canadians to be framing the debate in those terms.
I don't think that the Conservatives are entirely alone on this. I think governments of all stripes over the last 10 to 15 years have taken political positions that don't necessarily match up with where they claim to want to go. Everyone now kind of claims that climate change is a serious problem and that we have to do something about it. However, we're never willing to kind of say, “Hey, let's all agree that there's a baseline”—and this is something that I talk about in that Globe piece—the same way we agree on the baseline that universal health care is a good thing, that it's good for Canadians to not have to pay for health care and to not go broke because they get sick.
Similarly, not having carbon pollution be free is a good thing. If we intend to do anything about climate, at some point it has to be punished. I think arguing about whether it's a tax or a price has really fed some very reactionary politics that have not helped the debate at all.
I'm not sure if I've answered the question thoroughly, but I think—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
That's a helpful indictment. I appreciate it, but I think it also opens up an avenue for potential for improvement. You cited the “Turning the Corner” plan, which has been in the rear-view mirror now as the decade has gone. What would you like to see the Conservative Party come forward with to engage more constructively in the debate beyond saying “job-killing tax” on everything?
4:25 p.m.
Abbotsford, CPC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. The focus of this study is international leadership. We have three people who are well-informed on the issue and who, so far, have been providing information that is helpful to this committee.
The political nature of the questions that are being asked and the exclusive focus on one party, rather than dealing with international leadership and where that should take us, I don't believe is within the scope of the study that we're doing. I would ask you to rule on that and maybe consult with our experts.
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
The comment that I'll offer is that we know that the MPs do have a fair bit of latitude, and with regard to this study, I've been pretty good about letting people explore whatever aspect of what they see as international leadership that they would like.
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
There are 30 seconds left, and I would say the Conservatives are up next.
You'll have six minutes to explore what you would like on international leadership.
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I take your points. I don't know if Mr. Amos has anything further in his 30 seconds or if he would simply like to hear a response and then we'll move on to Mr. Lake, who is the next person.
I think there is perhaps something in your comments that we can all take. We want the questions and answers to be productive so we can end up with a good report that will hopefully guide us moving forward on international leadership. That's something I'll get all members to think about in their questions.
4:30 p.m.
As an Individual
One thing I would say on the subject of international leadership is that most—in fact, all, I think—of the international organizations have looked at this thing. IPCC, the UN, various...and, I believe, even the IEA has looked at it, and said that one of the best mechanisms, one of the essential mechanisms for the global response to climate change is going to be a price on carbon. There is pretty widespread, non-partisan agreement that it is a key instrument.
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Okay. Thanks for your comments.
Now we'll move to Mr. Lake.
October 30th, 2018 / 4:30 p.m.
Mike Lake Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
I don't know what to say. I'm new to the committee. I find that to be an incredibly interesting line of questioning from a Liberal MP to a former Green Party candidate, basically asking for criticism of a Conservative Party position and then actually referencing it as a “helpful indictment” as he frames his conversation theoretically around how we move towards a more constructive debate.
It's astounding to me. I've given notice of the motion. I'll move it now, because I really do think that we could have a constructive debate about this. We have a study on Canada's international pan-Canadian framework. We have a study that is tackling the pan-Canadian framework, so far dealing with three aspects: the built environment, international leadership and, next, forestry, agriculture and waste. I have noted that in my short time on the committee, the vast majority of the witnesses have referenced carbon pricing or carbon tax as a key priority. In fact, the pillars of the framework are written into the framework itself. It says the pan-Canadian framework has four main pillars. Everywhere that it's mentioned, pricing carbon pollution is mentioned as the first of the four main pillars. It forms the core of the plan, and I think that if we're going to have a study of the pan-Canadian framework, it would be irresponsible of the committee not to study the carbon tax.
I have put forward the motion:
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, and that the study consist of no less than six meetings with witnesses.
That is the motion I put on notice a week ago. I'm hoping that it actually won't take too long, because I think that this, as the core pillar of the Liberals' pan-Canadian framework, would be something they would want to have a robust discussion about and invite witnesses who are experts on the topic to come before committee and discuss.
I agree with you on the point you make that Canadians want to have a good conversation about this issue, a respectful conversation about the issue. This will give us a chance to hear from the top witnesses, top experts, in the world on it, if we invite them. Perhaps at that point, it would be fantastic to have the minister herself come before the committee and talk about carbon pricing. Clearly right now, in Canada, there is a considerable conversation taking place around carbon pricing.
There have been elections during which the carbon tax has been the key electoral issue, and clearly the consensus that may have existed three years ago is not the same today. I think it's incumbent on us as the environment committee studying the pan-Canadian framework to discuss that.