Evidence of meeting #135 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was biodiversity.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thanks.
I appreciate that. I know that we're not supposed to accuse members of lying, but when they mis-characterize especially each other's comments...and in this case, it's been brought up a couple of times. There is an original—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't know what.... I mean, this is why we have a discussion. It's to get to the bottom of it and find out the truth.
I'd like to keep the discussion going.
Mr. Leslie, you had the floor. Go ahead.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That same environment commissioner's report talked about a failure to conduct value-for-money audits on your climate programs broadly speaking. Obviously, that is concerning, particularly with the current green slush fund that has gridlocked Parliament in your refusal as a government to hand over the documents on the net-zero accelerator fund. We are trying to decipher through, despite our parliamentary request of this committee, very much redacted documents.
Will you commit to having in the future—and, ideally, going backwards—value-for-money audits and, particularly as it relates to the net-zero accelerator fund, an actual number of emissions to be agreed upon as part of those contracts?
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Obviously, for most emissions reduction programs, we work with all of our partners to make sure that the businesses meet the targets in the contracts. We use various mechanisms: tax measures, direct investment and regulation. It's simplistic to say that we have just one mechanism to achieve our targets. That is not the reality.
Liberal
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much to the minister for being here today. We really appreciate your standing up for us in Canada by putting in place these provisions to try to address pollution and protect our green spaces in Canada.
I want to continue on the price on pollution for a couple of moments.
First, I want to put into context some things we've heard and ask if they are correct. We heard a comment that GDP in 2030 would be decreased by $25 billion. That was in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. This is a projection that's many years out, obviously. The projection without the price on pollution program, I believe, was $2.68 trillion, with the price on pollution being $2.66 trillion. There's a difference of about 0.5%.
Sometimes, when people put out numbers and don't put them in the context of the absolute numbers, they sound exceedingly large and scary. I just wanted to see if I'm correct on that.
Secondly, the Parliamentary Budget Officer hasn't compared what our economy would be like if the climate events continued to increase at the rate they are increasing now. Is that correct?
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
That's correct, and I believe the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself acknowledged that in his report.
Liberal
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Nor does he take into account the benefit of investing in decarbonization.
November 27th, 2024 / 5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Right. We simply have the cost of one program versus a baseline projection, but we don't have that projection with the benefits that are coming from the program in there, so this could easily change.
As we all know, statistics and projections are only as good as the assumptions. We're projecting out to 2030 and we have a 0.5% difference. I would say that for the benefits Canadians are getting from reducing pollution and living up to our international obligations, this is a very small price to pay.
I want to get back to a comment made by the member opposite on the Canada carbon rebate and the idea of energy poverty. I know the member opposite lives in a rural riding. Heating fuel was exempted for the next three years across the country because it's a very expensive fuel and, usually, those who don't have a lot of money use heating fuel, in fact. Their homes haven't been renovated, etc. We've exempted that altogether so there's no carbon levy on this heating fuel.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that eight out of 10 households get more back than they pay through the Canada carbon rebate. If this member is asking for the price on pollution to be cancelled, does that mean that the cheques his constituents are getting for the Canada carbon rebate, which gives them more than they pay, would also be cancelled?
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Yes, which flies in the face of helping people in a time of affordability issues.
Liberal
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Lastly, as I said, Mr. Leslie's in a rural riding. Perhaps you could comment on the top-up for rural Canadians, because I understand that in these backstop provinces, there is a top-up for rural Canadians, understanding that they have more difficulty with alternatives at times.
Is that correct?
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
There's a famous video from two years ago of Danielle from Alberta, who said she did the calculations herself and came to the conclusion that she was getting more money than she was paying in carbon pricing. On top of that, because she lives in a rural area, she gets a top-up, and now that top-up has been doubled from 10% to 20%.
That Danielle is the Premier of Alberta.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Her calculations would show she even does better now than when she made the video a few years ago because she has a top-up of 20%.
Liberal
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I also wanted to confirm that as the price on pollution or the carbon levy goes up, so does the rebate, so that amount would be compensated through the rebate that constituents in all of our ridings receive.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much for clarifying that.
Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Perfect.
I want to ask a bit about clean electricity and the grid we need to expand by 2050. I know that many companies have invested in Canada because we have clean electricity and we're trying to expand that further.
Could you share with us what is being done to grow and decarbonize our grid?
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
The Canadian electrical sector is really a model for decarbonization. While the sector has grown substantially over the last two decades, its emissions have come down substantially. Now, we need to basically double the size of the grid between now and 2050 to meet the demand and the needs for electricity in the transportation sector, industrial sector and building sector, and—
Liberal