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.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
I just want to clarify one point. If the words carbon pricing are used, I'll vote in favour of this amendment.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
If we replace the words carbon tax,
if we just change “carbon tax” for “carbon pricing”, I will vote in favour.
4:45 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
We'll accept that.
Actually, I think we have to vote on that amendment.
4:45 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Okay, so we have an amendment.
This is on the amendment put forward by Mr. Choquette to change the wording of the motion.
4:45 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Could we get a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
4:50 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
The amended wording is defeated and now we'll move to the vote on the original motion.
4:50 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Could I have a recorded vote, please?
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
4:50 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Okay, that motion is defeated. Now, while we have our witnesses here, Mr. Lake is out of time.
We'll move back to Mr. Bossio for his—
4:50 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
I have a point of order.
Did the motion count against my time? I just want to make sure that we're clear on that.
It does. Okay.
4:50 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Yes. That's how we've done it with other points of order that have come forward.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you all for your patience. Thank you so much for being here today and providing the testimony. It has been great testimony.
In discussing the ITMOs side of things, I know that on the other side, my colleague, Mr. Fast, had spoken about the international transfer of technology and skills, etc. Would that be enough to actually get us to our emission targets—to our commitments under the Paris Agreement?
4:50 p.m.
Consultant, Drexhage Consulting, As an Individual
No.
Like I said in my intervention, it's not one or the other. It's “and”. The two are absolutely critical. I think the discussion is framed too much in an either-or context. That's what I'm objecting to.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Turner, are there examples around the world where a price on pollution is actually lowering emissions?
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm trying to think of the most recent numbers. Various prices on pollution have led to decreases in fuel use across the board. Sometimes there are other emissions coming from those countries for other reasons that wind up pushing up or negating some of the progress that carbon prices do. That's been the experience in British Columbia, for example, where emissions were actually on a downward trajectory, and then, partially because the price got frozen for a couple of years, emissions went flat.
Most of the experts I've ever spoken to about this would say it does not work by itself. It needs to be embedded in a larger climate policy package that further increases the opportunities to use other fuel sources and that increases investment in renewable energy technology and emissions technology and that sort of thing. The hope is that it makes all of those things work more efficiently.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
It's been quoted many times that we would need a price of $1,300 a tonne in order to really effectively deal with this. Under our pan-Canadian framework or under our climate measures, there are 50 different measures that we're actually bringing forward to reduce our emissions targets. Would you not agree that this is a responsible approach and that we need to use every tool at our disposal to try to lower those emissions?
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Absolutely, yes.
The thing with carbon prices that makes them a fairly effective policy instrument is that you can change them around. If they're not working, you can increase them or you can decrease them. If you're going to do something like invest billions of dollars in carbon sequestration technology, making that stuff more attractive by putting a price on carbon is an obvious complementary policy.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Have not most economists out there agreed that a price on pollution is the most cost-effective and efficient way to reduce emissions?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Sorry, I don't know if Mr. Drexhage and Silvia would also like to comment. I apologize.
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
They'd be welcome to.
Certainly a great many economists—I don't know if it's a majority or not because I don't know how they number themselves—who've looked at this have concluded that it is one of the most low cost to implement and most efficient in sending price signals to encourage the decrease in use of fossil fuels.
4:55 p.m.
Consultant, Drexhage Consulting, As an Individual
The point I would like to make is the one you made just previously.
I think it's just so simplistic to talk about a carbon price versus regulations. It's the entire menu. There is not one country out there that has simply put in a pure carbon price without other measures. Every measure carries its own carbon cost and carbon price. The entire panoply needs to be understood in that context. It's not saying this one instrument is better than that one instrument. It's the context of the countries. It's the political conditions. It's the social conditions. It's all kinds of different factors. It's not simply an issue of price versus regs, or tax versus price, or what have you.