Finance Committee on May 7th, 2018

[Jason Kenney]

Mr. Chair, in terms of being a credible voice, that will be up to Alberta voters to decide about a year from now. According to current polls, the party I represent has about a 35-point lead in voter intention in Alberta, in part because—

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

But you're here asking us—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. O'Connell—

[Jason Kenney]

The member's asking a political question about our political credibility. I'm offering a political answer, which is that consistently, in public opinion polls the majority of Albertans support the party that I lead. We'll see if that holds through to the next election. We do not see a concomitant support for the carbon taxes that the member is trying to impose on Canadians with this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, at the end of the day, the credibility in questioning is Mr. Kenney's. He says one thing on Twitter, he says another thing to his base at conventions, and then he comes to this committee and says something different. He denies basically the very comments that he made.

I think that this committee has to take this very seriously in the sense that Mr. Kenney is alone on this panel and unlike many Conservatives when it comes to pricing pollution. I don't think we can trust, after the last 10 years, the Conservative government or Conservatives with growing the economy and protecting the environment. They have no plan. Harper's Conservatives had no plan. Mr. Kenney has no plan. He says he'll release it later, but then why come here and not provide the details?

[Jason Kenney]

I just have a question, Mr. Chair.

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

Sorry, this is my seven minutes.

The Conservatives continue with their denial of science and denial of the facts. They like to make up their own facts, but have no plan, and I think, since Mr. Poilievre talks so much about this, that, if you had a plan, you'd provide it. It's going to be the same old Conservatives like under Stephen Harper doing nothing to grow the economy, not protect the environment, and leave Canadians on their own to deal with the damage.

I think the real cover-up here is the Conservatives' climate plan cover-up, and I would love for them to stand by their convictions and come forward with an actual idea. That's the cover-up. Just be honest with Canadians. Tell them you have no plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have to end it there and give Mr. Kenney the opportunity....

You know how this place works, so I'll give you the opportunity to respond.

[Jason Kenney]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Then we'll go to Mr. Kelly.

Go ahead.

[Jason Kenney]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. O'Connell has a firm grasp of the obvious in identifying me as being alone on this panel in opposing carbon taxes. Happily, I'm not alone amongst Albertans, two-thirds of whom oppose carbon taxes, and I would invite anybody who believes that Canadians buy the notion that punishing consumers is a good economic environmental strategy to put that proposition to voters on the ballot. We'll be doing that next year in Alberta, and I am very confident in the result.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Kelly, we're down to five-minute rounds.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've witnessed something extraordinary at this committee. We saw difficult questions put to a witness who is a parliamentarian, and the parliamentarian actually answered them. He was asked a series of yes-or-no questions that he answered. He provided an answer to every one of Ms. O'Connell's questions.

I contrast that with what happened here, for example, last Thursday, when the Minister of Finance was at the table and was asked repeatedly by Mr. Poilievre about supplying evidence that had been redacted resulting from an access to information request. He was asked repeatedly to end the cover-up, and was asked repeatedly, “What will the cost to ordinary families be for this federally imposed carbon tax?” We did not get any answers, not even an attempt at an answer, so I applaud Mr. Kenney for answering questions at committee. We don't see that very often here.

My question to Mr. Kenney is this. You've spent the last two years campaigning, and it's extraordinary what you've accomplished in uniting the Conservative movement, winning the leadership of that new party, and then winning a by-election. During all of your interactions with regular Albertans, can you relay to this committee some of the feedback that you heard from ordinary Albertans about what they think of the policies of this federal government specifically with regard to the carbon tax?

[Jason Kenney]

I've done nearly 1,000 events, and I have met tens of thousands of people in every walk of life and from every background across my province in the past 20 months. I have found overwhelming and passionate opposition to the carbon tax but also hostility to our energy industry, which, of course, has not only been a key engine of Canada's prosperity in recent decades and Canada's most important export product but has also been hugely important to Alberta's economy. Through their federal taxes, Albertans contribute a net amount of about $20 billion a year to fiscal federalism, with much of that fiscal capacity generated by the energy sector. Albertans don't understand the approach of bottlenecking our resources and punishing people for living ordinary lives through policies like the carbon tax.

This has real effects on people's lives, which is why consistently two-thirds of Albertans have indicated opposition to the NDP carbon tax in our province. The Ecofiscal Commission, which is Mr. Beugin's organization, said in a recent report that a rising carbon price is so important that a carbon price of $100 per tonne won't force actions that cost $200 or even thousands of dollars per tonne. I understand that Professor Leach has said—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—that what you need is a more or less $200 tonne carbon price, an expensive retrofit strategy, and a lot of other strategies. The Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis has said a significant hike is needed to achieve emissions targets. A 10% reduction in emissions over seven years would require $175-a-tonne levy. The Department of Finance said on February 24, 2017, “The overall approach will be reviewed by early 2022 to confirm the path forward, including continued increases in stringency”—meaning the tax rate—in future years. Environment Canada's March 30, 2017 memo said the carbon tax would need to be $300 in 2050.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll have to cut it there, or else Mr. Kelly is not going to get in his second question.

[Jason Kenney]

Sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Beugin wants in as well.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I would quickly ask if you've heard from municipal leaders who have pointed out the budgetary constraint that the carbon tax puts onto their operations, operations like heating buildings, running buses, running police cars, and all of the things that municipalities have to do.

[Jason Kenney]

Both the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association and the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties have passed resolutions opposing the current government's policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Beugin, go ahead.

[Dale Beugin]

Just because Mr. Kenney raised the report, I wanted to clarify that the point of a carbon price is to avoid regulations that impose those higher implicit carbon costs. Those high costs that Mr. Kenney alluded to would be potentially imposed by regulatory policies, by non-pricing policies that could be used instead of carbon pricing. The point of carbon pricing is to focus on low-cost emissions reduction, thus avoiding high-cost ones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses here today. I appreciate their comments.

Of course, there are some of you whose opinions I share more than others, but that is perfectly fine and normal.

Professor Leach, simply put, there are costs to doing things, but certainly there are also costs to not doing things. Doing nothing is rarely free. From your perspective in regard to putting a price on carbon, which is more expensive to the people of Alberta: putting a price on carbon or not?

[Dr. Andrew Leach]

It's a tough question to answer with hard evidence. I say that because part and parcel of acting on climate change when you're an economy like Alberta, which is exposed to the global investment climate, which is exposed to the global market, is, on the one hand, making sure that you maintain our competitiveness, and, on the other hand, making sure we maintain access to capital. I direct you to comments by Mark Carney from the Bank of England as a primary example of this. Mark Carney has stated that companies, lenders, insurers, and all of the finance areas, which are so important to an open economy like Alberta's, have become much more concerned with the question of climate change.

As other members of this panel will certainly know, in Alberta, we've fought against misinformation campaigns against our industry, etc. A lot of those campaigns were rooted in a perception that Alberta's economy was incompatible with action on climate change. Instead of stepping forward to say that we could not act on climate change because of our industry, we were able to step forward to say that our industry can act on climate change, why can't yours? We put that challenge forward to the world, and we're seeing that play out now, obviously with some roadblocks and speed bumps. That is something for which you can't necessarily go back with hindsight and say what would have happened without action, although I think action was imperative for Alberta.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

On that front then, Professor Leach, globally for Alberta, for Canada frankly, because Alberta's success will be Canada's success, how significant is this opportunity for clean growth, clean technology, and clean innovation that would result from putting a price on carbon?