Finance Committee on May 7th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, we'll call the meeting to order. I'd just like to remind people that once the gavel is down, no more pictures are allowed in the committee room. I see a few of them out.

Today, we'll be furthering our study on the budget implementation act, Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

With us this afternoon we have six witnesses. We'll start with you, Mr. Leach, the associate professor of the Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta. The floor is yours, and we try to keep opening comments to about five minutes.

[Dr. Andrew Leach, Associate Professor, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman, it's a pleasure for me to speak to you today to express my support, and to provide context for the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, part 5 of Bill C-74.

This legislation, the backbone for the federal government's approach to climate change, will complement the measures already taken by Canada's provinces. It will allow provinces without carbon pricing systems to benefit from the federal architecture to impose a carbon price, and will allow them to receive revenue collected from it. This combination of federal policy with provincial-level flexibility recognizes the diversity of provincial economies, yet allows for federal leadership on climate change, which is so important.

This bill guarantees that carbon prices will apply on nearly all emissions from energy used in Canada, from the cars on the 401 and the 417, to the largest industrial facilities in Canada. The bill provides for the federal price to be applied in provinces without sufficiently stringent carbon pricing policy.

Assuming no changes in provincial policy, implementation of this bill would likely exempt the provinces of B.C., Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and most likely Manitoba. These provinces, home to 90% of Canada's population and responsible for 83% of Canada's emissions, would be potentially subject to this legislation were their domestic climate change policies to be significantly weakened.

Why have a carbon a price? Simply put, carbon price leverages the power of the market to enable emission reductions at the lowest possible cost. It does not rely on governments to determine who should emit, or what technology they should use to do so. It relies on individuals to make decisions where they are best suited to do so.

The carbon pricing plan proposed in this bill, just like current policies in B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, puts the price on carbon emissions from most sources, not just large industrial facilities. The broader the price is on carbon, the lower the price will be to meet any given target, or the greater the emission reductions will be from any given carbon price.

Of course, as we know, carbon emissions in Canada are not just a big industry issue and certainly not just an oil and gas issue.

Do carbon prices work? That's probably a question you're hearing a lot on this committee, and the answer is simply, yes. We have plenty of evidence from B.C.'s carbon tax, which has been in place since 2008, that carbon prices do reduce emissions below where they would otherwise be. If you want to look up some work on this, work by Nic Rivers at the University of Ottawa, among others, has shown this conclusively.

This doesn't mean they're magic. They will not always lead to emissions being lower than they have historically been, especially when macroeconomic growth is rapid, something we've seen in Alberta for years, or when technological change is slow. However, let me assure you, and put on the record, that demand curves slope downwards despite frequent claims to the contrary.

When emissions have a price, we'll use fewer of them.

If you think of innovation and technological change as the solution to climate change, a carbon price is your best policy choice. When asked how governments can spur innovation and green tech, Syracuse University's David Popp provided five rules for government in a report published by the C.D. Howe Institute. The first of these is carbon price, carbon price, carbon price, because in his words, "Supporting technology development means not only investing in new technologies but also creating demand for clean technologies throughout the economy.” That happens organically with a carbon price. A carbon price is also a useful alternative to governments picking winners with regulations and subsidies.

Therefore, why not just have a big federal policy? Why not just have a one-size-fits-all federal plan in this regard? I think that would be a poor decision because our provincial economies are very different—I've done a lot of work in Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec—as our emissions profiles are very different, as are the means to reduce emissions. I have a couple of examples. If you look at some of our provinces, we still generate a lot of our electricity from fossil fuel sources, whereas in other provinces, electricity is already zero carbon. That in and of itself provides different opportunities.

If you look at my home province of Alberta, about a quarter of our GDP comes from sectors which are described as emissions intensive and trade exposed. It means they're vulnerable to possible emissions leakage, so Alberta designed a program to mitigate that. If you tried to pick the same policy to work for Ontario that worked in Alberta, you'd find that the policy didn't fit very well.

Finally, of course, is the use of revenues. You can see different choices made across the country to meet provincial goals.

Therefore, I think the federal government has chosen wisely here, not only providing the provinces with the means to select their own policies but also to determine the uses of revenue from these federally imposed carbon prices.

Here again, I think this is an area where provinces are going to have different priorities and different ideal uses of revenues. Trevor Tombe recently put forward a proposal for Ontario that would see, without altering the income distribution, a carbon tax used to expand the sales tax credit by 80% and to eliminate the health care premium.

Obviously in Alberta and B.C., we've chosen more progressive policies, which have made the bottom 40% to 50% of households better off with the carbon tax than they were without.

I think these choices are better made provincially than federally.

Just to wrap up, I do have a couple of concerns with this legislation. I am concerned a little bit with the discretion provided to the Governor in Council to apply measures to provinces.

Clause 189 indicates that the cabinet may take into account any factor it considers appropriate, including the stringency of carbon pricing mechanisms, to determine whether a province should be covered. Here I'd like to see a cleaner definition of “stringency”; and conveniently, a price on carbon gives you that. A test judged by that standard would prevent an outcome where cabinet sees fit to apply to one province a price on carbon far higher than it would allow to be applied in others.

I am also concerned a bit with clause 188, which determines the distribution of revenues from the carbon tax to specified provinces. I think what we want to make sure of here is that the implications are clear that the revenues collected in these bills will be distributed to the provinces independent of other transfer decisions of the federal government.

Overall, though, it's my pleasure to be here with you today to express my support for this bill.

Thank you for your attention and for setting time aside for me. I will be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much.

Turning now to Mr. Kenney, who has been in this room near that chair in a former capacity, I believe. Jason is now leader of the official opposition in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.

Welcome.

[Jason Kenney, P.C., MLA, Leader of the Official Opposition of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been on both sides of the table, and at this end too, so it's wonderful to be back.

Mr. Chairman, I am leader of the United Conservative Party in Alberta. We just had our founding annual general meeting, which wrapped up yesterday. Since 98% of our members voted in favour of a policy to repeal the carbon tax imposed by the incumbent NDP government in Alberta, I am here in opposition to part 5 of Bill C-74 and its proposed federal carbon tax.

The NDP government in Alberta imposed its carbon tax five months after the last election. Hilariously, they forgot to mention their carbon tax in that election. It was the largest hidden agenda in our province's political history, and the largest tax increase in our history. They raised it by 50% on January 1 of this year. They are now committed to raising it by a further 67%, and they're blaming Bill C-74, the federal carbon tax.

I can report that there have been over a dozen public opinion polls taken on the carbon tax in Alberta in the past two years, showing consistently that two-thirds of Albertans oppose this tax. They oppose it not because they are indifferent to the environmental questions or the challenges of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, but because they understand, with their good common sense, that punishing consumers for living normal lives in a cold northern climate and an advanced economy is not a responsible environmental policy. They understand that making it more expensive for seniors to heat their homes when it's 30 below outside, as it was just a couple of weeks ago in Alberta, or making people pay more in order to drive to work, is punishing people for simply living their lives and doesn't make sense.

The theorists who support carbon tax will generally admit that it is a so-called Pigouvian tax, by which they mean there should be a taxation on negative behaviours, like sin taxes on booze and cigarettes.

Most Albertans don't think that heating their homes and driving to work and running their small businesses are something that should be punished.

I recently visited the Sundre Seniors Centre. It's a wonderful organization that keeps seniors active in their community. They do that for only $18,000 a year. It's a completely volunteer organization. They're now spending 7% of their annual budget on a carbon tax they can't afford, which is about to go up by another 67%. They don't get a rebate and they don't get any prospective offsetting tax cut, so they're looking at possibly having to close down their seniors centre.

There are real human impacts that the advocates don't talk about. That is why I am pleased to report to you that if Albertans elect a United Conservative government in next year's provincial election, the first bill that we will introduce in the legislature will be the carbon tax repeal act. We will completely repeal the NDP carbon tax.

If the federal government then seeks to impose the powers proposed in this bill on Albertans through a federal carbon tax, we will see the federal government in court. Our official opposition is making an application to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to seek intervenor status to join the Saskatchewan government's constitutional challenge of Bill C-74. Should we be in office, we will ensure that Alberta does everything it can to get Alberta before the courts on the same issue.

We believe this is an unconstitutional intrusion into the exclusive provincial power to tax for provincial purposes. It's also an unequal application of a federal power on different provinces, which are being treated differently.

I close by pointing out that the advocates of carbon taxes know that the $50 tax is just the beginning. Environment Canada has said that in order to hit the Paris targets, it has to go to $300 a tonne. This is the “frog in the pot” syndrome. All of the carbon tax advocates here are simply trying to get people used to paying more to heat their homes and to drive to work, so that they can continually raise this to give more revenue to politicians and more control to government. A future Conservative government in Alberta will do everything it can to fight that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kenney.

We'll turn, then, to Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, Mr. Beugin, executive director.

[Dale Beugin, Executive Director, Canada's Ecofiscal Commission]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.

I represent Canada's Ecofiscal Commission. We are a panel of senior economists from across the country supported by a cross-partisan advisory board with representatives from industry, civil society, and perspectives across the political spectrum. The commission's mandate is to identify and support policies that make sense for both the environment and for the economy. In other words, it is to identify policies that achieve environmental objectives at the lowest economic cost. Our research and analysis clearly indicate that carbon pricing is such a policy.

Today, I look to unpack three key aspects of carbon pricing as they relate to BillC-74. First, carbon pricing is effective in reducing GHG emissions. It creates incentives for businesses and households to choose lower carbon activities and technologies, it creates demand for low-carbon technologies, and it drives low-carbon innovation. We know that prices affect choice all through the economy, but there is also, as Mr. Leach alluded to, ample and empirical evidence that carbon pricing works.

In B.C., according to academic research, GHG emissions would be 5% to 15% higher had B.C. not implemented its carbon tax. More specifically, for example, in the absence of the tax, vehicles would be 4% less efficient per capita, gasoline demand would be 7% to 17% higher.

Ecofiscal's own modelling analysis from 2016 found that a carbon price rising to $50 per tonne in 2021 and $100 per tonne by 2027 could reduce emissions by about 170 megatonnes in 2030 and 80 megatonnes in 2022.

Second, economists agree that carbon pricing is the lowest-cost approach to reducing GHG emissions. Our same analysis finds that the cost of carbon pricing, even when rising to $100 per tonne by 2027, would only slightly affect economic growth. How does revenue recycled affect these estimates? At worst, carbon pricing would reduce growth rates by about one-tenth of a percentage point, but if revenues were used to cut income taxes, as provinces have discretion to do under the pan-Canadian framework, the impacts on growth would be negligible. Economic growth would remain positive and strong.

Alongside these small costs, we must also consider benefits. Carbon pricing can reduce GHG emissions, helping Canada to achieve its 2030 target. Doing so will also contribute to global efforts to fight climate change, and avoiding the costly impacts of a changing climate. These reductions will also have benefits in terms of reducing local air pollution, and thus improving local air quality and health.

Canada has ambitious targets for emission reductions in 2030. Achieving these targets will have costs, but carbon pricing can achieve those emissions reductions at the lowest possible cost. Other policies, including subsidies or prescriptive regulations, will cost more. Regulations that require specific outcomes or technologies in specific sectors are less flexible, and thus have higher costs. Carbon pricing does not require a preconception as to where in the economy or the country the lowest-cost opportunities for emissions reductions might exist.

The flexibility of carbon pricing also creates powerful incentives for clean innovation. Subsidies for clean technologies require picking specific technologies. Furthermore, they're often paid to businesses or individuals that would have adopted the clean technology even in the absence of the subsidy or with a smaller subsidy, thus raising costs.

Finally, well-designed carbon pricing can reduce emissions while also protecting the competitiveness of Canadian businesses, even while some of our trading partners do not price carbon. In particular, Ecofiscal's analysis of output-based pricing suggested that this approach, as included in BillC-74, can provide transitional steps forward to vulnerable industries. It creates incentives for industry to reduce GHG emissions by improving emissions performance, not by reducing production or investment in Canada. This is the approach that Alberta pioneered under the specified gas emitters regulation in 2007, and subsequently improved under the carbon competitiveness incentive regulation.

Canadian businesses, especially those in emissions-intensive and trade-exposed sectors, have expressed clear support for output-based pricing as a way to cost-effectively encourage emissions reductions without undermining economic competitiveness.

To conclude, a climate plan based on carbon pricing is the lowest-cost approach to achieving Canada's GHG emissions targets. The legislation here ensures carbon pricing applies across Canada, addresses concerns around competitiveness, but also gives provinces flexibility in designing provincial carbon pricing and recycling revenue.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Beugin.

We turn then to the Climate Action Network Canada, and Mr. Marshall, vice-chair of the board.

The floor is yours.

[Dale Marshall, Vice-Chair of the Board, Climate Action Network Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for inviting me to take part in your meeting today.

My name is Dale Marshall. I am national program manager for Environmental Defence, but I am here representing Climate Action Network Canada, as their vice-chair of the board.

I'd like to make three points in support of the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. The first is that a polluter pays system is an important tool in the fight against climate change. Secondly, Canadians can afford to put ambitious and far-reaching climate policies into place, including a price on carbon. Third, Canadians can't afford to leave any tools in the tool box, when it comes to this massive risk and given the urgency of the issue.

First, a polluter pays system is an important tool in reducing emissions, giving incentives for businesses and individuals to move towards clean energy and to move towards greater energy efficiency. It's been used in many places for many years. That's why seven of the 10 largest economies in the world have some form of a price on carbon. China has often been used as the bogeyman of climate change. At the state level, they have had a cap-and-trade system for many years and now they're implementing a national cap-and-trade system.

Design matters, though. The concessions that this bill gives to industry, in terms of its output-based pricing system, could make it less effective. In the past, when carbon pricing systems have failed to be as effective as possible, it is because of larger than necessary concessions to industry. What worries me is that Canada is doing the same thing here. There is a small portion of the Canadian economy that does face competitiveness concerns when you put into place a price on carbon, yet this bill gives blanket concessions and blanket exemptions to the industrial sector and that could be its undoing, quite frankly.

Second, the Canadian economy can afford to have a price on carbon across Canada. Four provinces already have it. The fact that those four provinces are leading the country, in terms of economic growth, does not mean that carbon pricing provokes economic growth, but it certainly shows that you can have both a strong robust economy and a price on carbon.

Scandinavian countries were the first to put these kinds of carbon pricing systems into place and generally, they have led the industrialized world, in terms of economic growth. The modelling shows that the difference you can have between doing absolutely nothing on climate change and having ambitious, robust climate policies is incredibly small and incredibly manageable. Environmental Defence and some of our partners published recent research from leading Canadian economists, which showed that the difference between reaching our Paris commitments by 2030 and doing nothing on climate change would be the difference between 38% growth in our GDP and 39% growth in our GDP between now and 2030.

Third, Canadians need to use every single policy tool that we have in order to fight climate change. Canada's 2030 target has been deemed to be highly insufficient to avoid dangerous levels of climate change and yet we're not on track to reach it. Therefore, proposed policies in the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change are incredibly important and they should be implemented with the greatest urgency and rigour. That includes carbon pricing across Canada. Leaving it off the table just leaves us further from doing the bare minimum to fight the biggest threat that we face.

Over the last decade, maybe even a generation, the history of Canada has been that we have increasingly understood the perils of climate change, yet we've done nothing about it. I certainly hope that the next decade isn't written by those who will favour polluters over the public good.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall.

We'll be turning to Équiterre, with Mr. Ribaux, executive director. The floor is yours.

[Sidney Ribaux, Executive Director, Équiterre]

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for the invitation.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure for me to be here to represent Équiterre. My comments will mostly be on section 5, that is, on the price for pollution caused by greenhouse gases.

Équiterre is a not-for-profit organization with charitable status. We have 22,000 members and 110,000 supporters. We have offices in Quebec City, Montreal and Ottawa. We have been involved in environmental and climate issues for 25 years.

To tackle smoking in Canada, our government increased the price of tobacco. To tackle the acid rain that was destroying our forests, President George Bush senior put a price on sulphur dioxide using a cap and trade system. If we want to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, GHGs, there has to be a tax on carbon. Moreover, this is an international commitment that Canada made in Paris and it is a policy essential for the achievement of our goal. It is a simple, inexpensive approach that has been shown to be effective on a number of occasions.

According to the recent report by Environment and Climate Change Canada on the estimated impacts of the carbon pricing system, it could decrease GHG emissions by 80 to 90 million tonnes in 2022, if Canada and all the provinces and territories adopt a pricing system. That is huge. It is the most significant tool at our disposal. In addition, still according to that report, the impact on the growth of the GDP in Canada would be negligible, as my colleague has already said.

Given that we are still forecasting a shortfall of 64 megatonnes of GHGs compared to our 2030 target, we need these estimated results from the price on carbon. Setting a price on carbon is the norm now. According to the World Bank, more than 67 countries, including China and several other trading partners of Canada's, have already set a price on carbon. It is high time that Canada took the same economic route.

Some are concerned about the potential economic disadvantage that Canadian industry might suffer, but the federal system provides for precise measures to mitigate the risks for the industries exposed to that type of competition. The new clean innovation fund or the low carbon economy challenge, for example, will stimulate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in a number of economic sectors, thereby ensuring that our industries remain competitive.

Quebec's greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system covers almost 85% of the economy and has recently expanded again as the Quebec market joined with those in California and Ontario last January 1. For Quebec, the carbon market is the most appropriate economic tool to guarantee reduced greenhouse gas emissions because of its reducing caps and also because of the income it generates. To date, the carbon market has generated revenues of $2 billion, which are channelled in their entirety to implementing Quebec's climate change action plan.

In passing, it must be said that, in Quebec right now, there is a political consensus on the carbon market. No major party in Quebec is opposed to it. It is here to stay.

The revenue from the carbon market auctions goes into the green fund. This fund pays for investments in the economy of tomorrow. Let me give you an example: the fund supports Lion, the Quebec SME that makes school buses that are 100% electric and has more recently started exporting them to California. One day, all school buses in the world will be electric and Quebec will have carved out a part of that lucrative market, thanks to the green fund.

We should note, however, that putting a price on carbon, though it is essential, is not sufficient in itself to attain our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, provincial and territorial governments must implement complementary policies. Let me give you just one example: regulating GHGs in passenger vehicles, meaning regulating the energy efficiency of those vehicles. Without that, manufacturers are going to continue to spend billions of dollars in advertising so that they can sell us huge vehicles, and especially light trucks. That holds consumers hostage to fluctuations in the price of gas, as we have recently seen.

So it is essential to regulate the energy efficiency of vehicles and light trucks. This is a measure that complements the carbon pricing. The debate about carbon is not a new one. We have been talking about it for a very long time, at least since the 1990s. Consensus has been established in a number of ways. In 2008, the federal Conservative Party at the time adopted a climate change plan entitled “Turning the Corner”, which proposed setting a price on carbon.

Of course, my colleagues have already spoken about the provinces that have since set a price on carbon themselves. So we have some convincing examples.

I also want to emphasize that Canada's target for 2030 was set by the previous government.

I will close by saying that we feel that it is important for a carbon price to be part of a comprehensive climate change plan for Canada. For that reason, we support the bill before you.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ribaux.

I'll turn now to Mr. Saul, executive director of Nature Canada.

Welcome.

[Graham Saul, Executive Director, Nature Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the finance committee, my name is Graham Saul. I am the executive director of Nature Canada.

First, I'd like to acknowledge that budget 2018 represents a historic federal investment in nature conservation. Nature Canada is truly excited about the promise of expending the $1.3 billion prudently over five years to reverse the decline in biodiversity in Canada and to establish managing protected areas and recovering species at risk. Thank you to everyone who played a role in supporting those provisions.

On the subject of the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, I think it's worth remembering that it was 26 years ago, in May of 1992, that Canada signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It has been more than 25 years since Canada first promised to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution, and we've barely begun to follow through on that promise.

And it was about 14 years ago that former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin first announced plans to put a price on greenhouse gas pollution by creating a market for emission reductions in all sectors of the economy, and it never happened. Then, in May of 2008, almost exactly 10 years ago today, Conservative federal environment minister John Baird called carbon trading “a key part” of the government's new Turning the Corner plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Later on that year, also in 2008, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper won a minority mandate with a campaign that clearly pledged to develop and implement a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, and it never happened. Then, in 2015, Canadians supported a Liberal election platform that made a clear commitment to put a price on greenhouse gas pollution, and here we are today.

What are just a few of the things that have been happening in the meantime? The city of Calgary had two 100-year floods in only eight years, the most recent of which, in 2013, resulted in $6 billion in financial losses and property damage. In 2016, two years ago this May, almost 90,000 people were evacuated from wildfires across Fort McMurray, and thousands of homes were reduced to ashes. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Fort McMurray wildfire became the costliest insured natural disaster in Canadian history, with an estimated $3.77 billion in claims filed by mid-November, 2016.

On this day last year, I watched as the military was called in to help deal with the fact that my hometown of Ottawa-Gatineau was flooding. The flooding caused more than $220 million in insurable damages. A couple of months later, I spent a few weeks in British Columbia as the worst recorded fire season in the history of the province unfolded. More than 1,300 fires burned more than 1.2 million hectares, displacing 65,000 people from their homes and costing B.C. over $500 million. The wildfire season included the longest state of emergency in the history of British Columbia, lasting a total of 10 weeks.

Now, all we have to do is look east to the tragic situation unfolding in New Brunswick. As Premier Brian Gallant put it:

We are seeing weather events like we have never seen before. This is most likely going to end up being the largest, most impactful flood that we have ever recorded here in New Brunswick....

I've been asked to comment on what I think about part 5 of Bill C-74, which enacts the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act and makes the fuel charge regulations. I think this is a policy that we should have adopted at least 10 years ago. I think we need to use all the tools in the tool box, including carbon pricing, to finally move this country in the right direction. We need to stop fiddling while places like New Brunswick drown. We need to stop fiddling while places like British Columbia burn.

Canadians have consistently voted for leaders who have promised to take action to fight climate change, and now we need to stop playing politics with what is quickly becoming a life-and-death issue for communities and species across Canada and around the world. We need to position Canada to be a leader in the economy of the 21st century, and putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution is part of that process.

We need to position Canada to be a leader in the economy of the 21st century, and putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution is part of that process.

More importantly, we need to finally send a signal to our children and grandchildren that we are prepared to invest in solutions instead of turning our back on the problems and letting them deal with the resulting damage.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Saul.

Given that everybody held their remarks fairly tight, we can go to our regular rounds of the first four at seven minutes apiece.

Ms. O'Connell, you're first.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, all, for being here.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Kenney. In all of your years in the House of Commons you never once acknowledged that climate change exists, so I have to ask. Do you accept the science and acknowledge that climate change is real and is caused from human activity?

[Jason Kenney]

Yes, yes, and yes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Right. I'm so glad you're there finally because you then tweeted and said that carbon dioxide is as natural as water and oxygen.

Do you actually believe that oxygen is as harmful to the environment as carbon dioxide?

[Jason Kenney]

An extreme excess of any natural element can be injurious to human health. I stand by that plainly scientific statement.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

You talked about Albertans being there and knowing that climate change is real, and we have to get there, but you, being part of the Harper Conservatives, did nothing to actually put forward a plan to deal with climate change.

You're asking this committee to take you as a credible witness to talk about the economy, but as a minister under Stephen Harper you failed our economy while not protecting the environment.

Why should we believe in what you're saying now? Why should we not take action?

[Jason Kenney]

I reject the premise of the torqued question, Mr. Chair. I would ask in response if the member and her government feel this strongly, why don't they have the courage of their convictions and just admit to Canadians that what they really want is a carbon tax of at least $300 a tonne? Why don't they admit that this is just a frog in the pot? They are trying to get people used to the idea of punishing folks for simply driving to work and living normal lives.

I can tell the member my job is to represent the majority of Albertans, two-thirds of whom oppose carbon taxes and don't believe giving politicians more money is a solution to environmental challenges.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Then, Mr. Kenney, what's your plan in dealing with this? Are you expecting Canadians and farmers and municipalities to deal with climate change on their own? We heard about 100-year storms happening more regularly. You have no plan to help municipalities deal with that. What's your plan, or should farmers just adapt to crop cycles being changed on a regular basis, and storms, and wildfires, and the continuation of floods? Why would you suggest that you leave Canadians and Albertans out on their own to deal with climate change when we know the impacts are real? Why don't you acknowledge the cost of inaction, as was rightfully pointed out by Mr. Saul's testimony?

[Jason Kenney]

There are several questions there. I am standing in defence of farmers, for example, who are facing massive increases in the cost of doing their business as a result of this bill of this proposed Liberal carbon tax. There are 49,000 farms in Alberta, and the current carbon tax in Alberta at $30 a tonne will cost upwards of $182 million a year. The federal department of agriculture says that the national carbon tax will cost farmers $3,705 on average when implemented at $50 a tonne.

Perhaps Liberals think costing farmers an extra $4,000 a year is helping them. I happen to think it's hurting them.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Kenney, you come with the statistics on what you believe the costs will be, but until we implement the full plan and know how each province and territory is going to move forward with that implementation, we don't actually.... What you don't come here with is any information on what you're going to do for the costs of Canadians, or Albertans in your case, of inaction.

What do think Canadians or municipalities are going to do without partners in government that are preparing and dealing with the mitigation that climate change and these effects will come forward with?

[Jason Kenney]

The estimate of this bill costing Canadian farmers $3,700 a year is not my belief. It is the estimate of the department of agriculture of the federal Liberal government in the memo that they published on January 17, 2017. I'm only making reference to this government's estimate, and in terms of other costs to consumers—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Can you answer my question about the inaction?

[Jason Kenney]

Could I just finish one sentence?