Evidence of meeting #140 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 fuel.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Next is Mr. Stetski for three minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Thank you.
I also live in British Columbia. It's been fascinating to be a member of Parliament and see how many different ways statistics can be used or misused. We've heard from many people about how successful implementing a price on carbon has been in British Columbia. We heard that from economists and scientists. I'm sure that the intent of the Sierra Club was to argue that carbon pricing should have been higher rather than lower.
I have a simple question for all of you, if I might, in my very short period of time. Putting aside everything that we've talked about today, do you believe that putting a price on pollution results in any decrease in greenhouse gases?
We can start here and go down the row.
5:05 p.m.
Environmental Director, Washington Policy Center
Yes. If you raise a price on something, you will get less of it. The question for me is whether it is durable. The case of Australia is a good example that if you raise the price, you get a reduction. The question is, what happens then? If the price is undone, then it is not durable. You need a durable incentive, and setting the price correctly helps ensure that durability. Looking for alternative ways that don't require a big price increase I think is the most durable.
5:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Fuels Association
I think carbon pricing, if properly designed, offers a policy solution that addresses a number of the principles that we see should be embedded in policy. Certainly, it provides some level of transparency. A carbon price with some predictability about how that price is going to change over time provides some clarity and predictability as well. From an economist's point of view, carbon pricing drives to the lowest cost reduction opportunity.
5:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Eastern Canada, Canadian Fuels Association
I think it's around pacing. It's about how deep and how fast; that's the disagreement.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada
Yes, I agree. Carbon pricing cost-effectively reduces greenhouse gas emissions both by disincentivizing higher emitting activities, as well as by inspiring innovation and new technologies that will help us to further reduce our emissions.
5:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Airlines Council of Canada
Yes, we support carbon pricing. It has to be the right approach.
The Australian example is instructive because under the Australian model the emissions of their aviation sector did not decrease. The same is true in the EU where they operate under an offset system. Our carriers, operating on a voluntary basis, have outperformed European carriers with respect to emission reductions.
5:05 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Sorry, at this point I'm going to have to interrupt. Look at the time. We're at 10 after, and I need 10 minutes of time at the end of the meeting to go in camera, but we have enough for one last round of rapid fire, three-minute questions like the last one we had. I'd appreciate it if everyone could keep their answers tight.
We'll jump over to Joe for three minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.
Mr. Chair, thank you.
I can't remember if it was Massimo or Geoff, but one of the concepts you brought up that we haven't discussed is carbon offset as it relates to your industry. Can you elaborate a bit?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Fuel and Environment, WestJet, Environment Committee, National Airlines Council of Canada
Under our international CORSIA program, airlines will be allowed to purchase offsets to help us meet our carbon-neutral growth. Those offsets and the definitions will be defined by ICAO by the end of the year. We'll know what they are in the next months.
5:10 p.m.
Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.
For one last thing, maybe we'll go back to Wayne or Mike to finish up.
You talked about the examples in Washington state. There were two referendums and both failed. What were the similarities and the differences between those two models and what the Canadian government is proposing?
5:10 p.m.
Environmental Director, Washington Policy Center
I think the similarity is with initiative 72, which was revenue neutral. I think the effort you're making with the federal backstop is an effort to be revenue neutral for folks.
Again, that failed in Washington state for a couple of reasons: first, people didn't trust that the deal would stick; and second, the environmental community ironically opposed it, because they wanted a revenue increase.
Those were the primary concerns that are similar to what you're trying to do, in our experience.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Very quickly, to follow on that, was a rebate not offered?
5:10 p.m.
Environmental Director, Washington Policy Center
It was not offered. In the first one it was not; it was a reduction of sales tax, which is our primary tax.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay, that's good.
I want to highlight as well that I became aware that the fires in Fort Mac had an impact of seven million work hours lost by the resource sector in Alberta, that there was a 40% drop in receipts by the sector as a result of the fires, and that exports dropped by 1.2% and imports increased by 13%.
Would you agree that we see impacts of climate directly upon our natural resource sector in Alberta that can be detrimental to that sector, in and of themselves?
5:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Fuels Association
That's a segment of the industry that I can't comment directly on—it's not the segment I represent—but certainly, weather events have impacts. Whether you can attribute any individual weather event to climate change is a different question.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I think you'll agree, though, that we see an increase in these 100-year events. In my own riding we had record floods in 2014, a record drought in 2016, and then floods again in 2017. In 2018, we had tornadoes in Ottawa and have had two years in a row of the worst forest fire seasons we've had in Canada's history in B.C. I think it's pretty evident that these 100-year events keep happening every year.
5:10 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
We're out of time.
Mr. Fast, take three minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Abbotsford, CPC
Okay, I'll get to it quickly.
Mr. Sopuck has asked me to ask you this, Joanna.
You noted that there were answers to his very specific questions. Could you provide this committee with the evidence that you've referenced?
Going back to Joanna, I'm going to quote you here. Your preference is for a "carbon price that increases predictably over time”.
Where do you see that carbon price ending? We have a carbon price in B.C. of $35 per tonne. The federal one is starting at $20 and will go up to $50. You want to see it increasing. At what point in time do you feel that it will be effective in changing human behaviour to the point that we'll see the outcomes you're hoping for?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada
Even a small carbon price will impact behaviour.
In terms of a final number, it all depends on the goals we're seeking to achieve, as well as what other policies we're putting in place. I therefore can't—
5:10 p.m.
Abbotsford, CPC
Those goals are pretty clear. They're outlined in the Paris Agreement, and individual provinces have set those goals. You're familiar with them. What carbon price will it take achieve those?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada
I am familiar with them; however, I haven't done the modelling to compare, with all of the policies bundled together, what carbon price is needed and by when, and so—