Environment Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are ready to begin the meeting.

I think Mr. Deltell wants to say something.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, pursuant to the Standing Orders, I would like to move a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. I have Mr. Deltell, Mr. Mazier and Mr. van Koeverden.

Mr. Deltell, go ahead.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, I will move the following motion, which was made public within the prescribed time frame.

Given that:

(a) the Chiefs of Ontario, which represents 133 First Nations, have filed a judicial review in Federal Court on the Liberal government's carbon tax;

(b) the Chiefs of Ontario stated that the Liberal government “refused to negotiate with First Nations in Ontario to alleviate the discriminatory and anti-reconciliatory application of the Greenhouse Gas and Pollution Act on First Nations.”;

(c) the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations has publicly expressed her willingness to support the Chiefs of Ontario's judicial review application against the Liberal government's carbon tax;

(d) the Chiefs of Ontario have noted that Indigenous communities would face greater challenges in switching to lower emitting technologies;

(e) Grand Chief Abram Benedict of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne stated that “The government has boasted that Canadians will pay a carbon tax, but through the rebates, through the subsidies they will actually receive more than what they have paid. That doesn't ring true in First Nations communities”;

(f) Grand Chief Benedict stated that “This judicial review was completely avoidable if Canada only showed up to the table,” and stated that “I sincerely hope that Canada gets the message that reconciliation and collaboration are non-negotiable, and policy made about us without us is never acceptable. Show up and work with us so we can come up with solutions that make sense.”; and

(g) Canada's Environment Commissioner and Parliamentary Budget Officer acknowledge that the carbon tax disproportionately punishes Canadians who live in rural, remote, and northern regions.

The committee report to the House its disappointment in the Liberal government's failure to engage with First Nations on providing financial relief from the carbon tax; and pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a) the committee invite Grand Chief Abram Benedict and the Chiefs of Ontario to testify for no less than two hours by February 2, 2024, on their judicial review filing on the federal carbon tax.

No relationship is more important than the one the Canadian government and first nations must have. Who has said that, multiple times, over the last eight years? It was the current Liberal Prime Minister. This is not the first time that first nations and the federal authority have had differences of opinion. This is not the first time that first nations have gone to court to assert their rights and to be heard.

In my opinion, this case is unprecedented. It is unprecedented to see more than 100 first nations chiefs come together to talk about a situation that is contrary to the spirit that the current government is supposedly espousing.

I would like to remind you that, in his first important speech, on December 8, 2015, here in Ottawa, before the Assembly of First Nations Special Chiefs Assembly, the Prime Minister said:

It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations Peoples. One that understands that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of First Nations in Canada are not an inconvenience but rather a sacred obligation.

I wasn't the one who said that; it was the current Prime Minister. I could go on for a long time, as everything the Prime Minister has said flies in the face of why first nations in Ontario are now taking legal action. It goes without saying, from our perspective, that when first nations have something to claim, we have to pay attention to it. In particular, when such a large group initiates legal action, it is our supreme duty to ensure that they get the attention they deserve.

After eight years of Liberal government and multiple unfulfilled commitments, it is time for accountability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Deltell.

Mr. Mazier, you have the floor.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague for introducing this important motion.

This is a very serious matter. First nations are challenging the Prime Minister's carbon tax in Federal Court because the Liberal government refused to listen to their concerns. First nations are opposing the carbon tax because it's unaffordable. That's the truth. The Liberals are proud of their carbon tax. They pretend it's working and affordable when it's not.

If the Liberals refuse to listen to my concerns about the carbon tax, maybe they will have the decency to listen to the chiefs of Ontario. Grand Chief Benedict has stated, “Canada should be working with us to confront the climate crisis and close gaps on reserve instead of creating policy in an ivory tower that exacerbates the affordability issues our citizens face”. Those are the words of the grand chief, not mine.

Last week, the Conservatives introduced a motion to hear the carbon tax concerns of first nations, but the Liberals abruptly shut down debate. I wonder what the chiefs of Ontario and Grand Chief Benedict think. Here's the reality: The Liberals don't want to hear from the first nations that oppose the carbon tax. They don't want to hear from the first nations that challenge the carbon tax in court, and they don't want to hear from the first nations that expose how costly their carbon tax is.

The people in rural, remote and northern regions can no longer afford this Liberal government's carbon tax.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Disappointingly, the Conservatives continue to perpetuate the myth that affordability challenges and inflation are being driven by carbon pricing. On this side, we're always more than happy to meet with first nations, as we do regularly. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Indigenous Services have said this in the House of Commons and in the media. We would be happy to listen to their concerns here.

However, I think it's important to say, in the context of this meeting, being a public one, that the Conservatives continue to, once again, perpetuate the myth that pricing carbon—with a very similar plan to what they ran their last electoral campaign on—is driving inflation and affordability. Those are categorically false claims, Mr. Chair. It's been refuted by all economists across the country. There is not one economist in this country who is pointing to carbon pricing as a leading driver of inflation or food costs.

Now, the Conservatives were waiting for the food cost report to come out this week, and it did. It pointed to two factors, primarily, that were driving food costs. Number one is climate change, not carbon pricing. We ought not to get those two things confused. The second is the labour market. It's challenging out there. There is a labour shortage in Canada, the United States and elsewhere. Nowhere in that document did they point to carbon pricing, pollution pricing or carbon tax.

More recently, in a University of Calgary report that was then picked up by the CBC, Policy Options and lots of other publications, the results are unequivocally clear. This is not something you can have an opinion on. It's math. It's like climate change. You can't choose to believe in it or not. It's simple. It's actually not simple math. It's complicated math, but it's math that economists are very capable of doing. They have measured the impact of carbon pricing on groceries in Canada and, for a family of four in Ontario, it's less than $1 a month. There was a good article in the CBC this past week on the impact of removing the carbon tax in Ontario and what that would do. The results are out. It would cost your average Ontario family of four $300 per year. They get a rebate four times a year of almost $1,000, and that far exceeds any costs they incur from carbon pricing.

Mr. Chair, any reputable plan to fight climate change and lower our emissions includes a plan to price carbon. Those are not my words. Those are the words of Michael Chong, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, in his leadership campaign; Erin O'Toole, the former leader of the Conservative Party; and Preston Manning, the former leader of the Reform Party. Carbon pricing works to lower emissions.

Only a few weeks ago, we had the commissioner of the environment here stating clearly, for all members and everybody watching, that Canada's emissions were on the rise in 2015. Since then, we've seen that blunted and turned around. Canada's emissions are now decreasing in every sector, with the exception of the oil and gas sector, where they continue to rise. The most important part of their presentation was when they clearly stated that one-third of the emissions decrease we've seen since 2015 can be attributed to carbon pricing.

Mr. Chair, again, on this side, we would be more than happy to continue to listen to first nation leaders. However, in the context of this motion today, I would once again move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There is a motion to adjourn the debate.

It's a dilatory motion. There's no debate.

Will the clerk kindly take the vote, please?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

I have Mr. van Koeverden, and then Mr. Mazier.

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to re-raise my motion from Thursday, December 7.

Given that:

a) The federal government is making monumental investments in technologies that will reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector;

b) Canadians deserve to have certainty that these investments will result in significant emission reductions;

c) Capping and reducing emissions from the oil and gas sector is necessary to meet our 2030 emission reduction goals and avert the worst impacts of climate change; and

d) Reducing emissions in the oil and gas sector has the potential to create high quality, sustainable jobs.

The committee express its collective support for the government's proposal to a) amend the Federal Methane Regulations for the Oil and Gas Sector to require a reduction of methane emissions in the upstream oil and gas sector by at least 75 per cent below 2012 levels by 2030; and b) introduce a regulatory framework document on the proposed approach and stringency of a cap on greenhouse gas pollution from the oil and gas sector.

Mr. Chair, in the context of COP28 ending in the coming hours, I think this is a pertinent motion for this committee to discuss today.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You wanted to be on the speakers list too, right, or is this a point of order?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

This is a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you want me to keep you on the list?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

On a point of order, this needs to be brought forward as a motion to resume debate.

He didn't do that, so it's out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will pause for a second.

Mr. Mazier raised a point of order. I have consulted with the clerk. Indeed, it would have required a dilatory motion to resume debate, and that wasn't done.

Mr. van Koeverden has a question for me, which I would like to hear.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Did we need a dilatory motion on the previous...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It was needed to resume debate, because your debate had been adjourned.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

We adjourned debate, and then I retabled my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You need a motion to resume the debate.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

But we didn't resume debate on anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, that's what you're basically trying to do.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I reintroduced the motion from Thursday.