Evidence of meeting #151 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pricing.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
My question was directed at Mr. Kenney. Is this going to come off my time?
4:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Yes. I'd be very interested to see any evidence to suggest that the Alberta policy imposes a large burden on lower-income individuals. Statistics Canada certainly disagrees with that. If you look at the 2017 data, it showed that over 40% of Albertans were made better off. The bottom 40% by income remain on average better off by the combination of the carbon tax and rebates, including the indirect effects that Mr. Kenney mentions.
Then, if you look at the 2018 data, before any adjustments to the credit that I'd like to see forthcoming, you're still looking at about 35% of Albertans, the lowest 35% of Albertan households by income, who are made better off. That's Statistics Canada's data or their SPSM model. That's not something that's made up. You're entitled to an opinion, but not your own evidence.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't want to get into a debate in the left-hand corner, but Jason, go ahead.
4:20 p.m.
P.C., MLA, Leader of the Official Opposition of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, As an Individual
I would invite Professor Leach to join me. I'll take him out on the road for a day or so, and we can visit some charities and non-profits that are barely hanging together, and on which this is imposing massive additional costs.
Perhaps he'd like to be part of the fundraiser that the Sundre Seniors Centre now has to hold, so that low-income seniors can pay the growing carbon tax bill for which they get no offset or credit. There are huge gaps in how this addresses the cost burden on low-income people.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Kenney, your province has had a reduction in investment as a result of numerous policies, but I suspect this carbon tax has not assisted. When large multinational oil companies leave Alberta, and invest and produce in other jurisdictions around the world, does that reduce the overall global emissions of greenhouse gases? Have you seen examples of this happening in the last couple of years?
4:20 p.m.
P.C., MLA, Leader of the Official Opposition of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, As an Individual
We estimate that in the last two years nearly $40 billion of capital has been reallocated from Alberta's oil and gas sector to similar sectors in other jurisdictions that do not have carbon taxes, like Colorado, North Dakota, west Texas, Kazakhstan, Iran, and other oil and gas producers around the world.
I would further point out that the carbon tax was sold to Albertans as something that would produce so-called social licence, that it would move the opponents of pipelines and our energy industry to become proponents and supporters. I have not been able to identify, and nor has the NDP government, a single government, political party, environmental organization, or other major stakeholder that has moved from opposing pipelines to supporting them as a result of punishing Albertans for heating their homes in the winter.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to all our witnesses for joining us today.
My first question goes to the Hon. Mr. Kenney. A number of people, mostly Conservatives, if truth be told, will tell us that an economic apocalypse awaits us if we decide to adopt a carbon tax. We have been asked to express an opinion on that issue as we study Bill C-74.
Can you share with us any data at all on the issue, or tell us a country where it has had a negative effect on the economy? Can you give me an example to support the argument you are putting forward?
4:20 p.m.
P.C., MLA, Leader of the Official Opposition of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, As an Individual
Certainly.
Australia is one example. That is why Australia's Liberal government withdrew the carbon tax and the country's Labour Party supported the decision.
People in Australia have the impression that it did not allow the environmental objectives to be achieved and that it hurt the country's economy.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
So there is economic data to show that it is possible to establish a cause-and-effect link between the price of carbon and lower economic indicators. Is that correct?
4:20 p.m.
P.C., MLA, Leader of the Official Opposition of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, As an Individual
Yes.
I will also say, if Albertans believed that the carbon tax would help with economic growth, I imagine that most of them would have supported a tax of that kind. The fact is that two-thirds of Albertans are constantly opposed to the carbon tax.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Okay.
I have one last question for you.
In your last comments, you referred to a cause-and-effect link between the carbon tax and an increase in the needs for community organizations and food banks, needs, that is, for social assistance.
Do you have any data to show that there really is a cause-and-effect link between the price of carbon and an increase in social needs?
4:25 p.m.
P.C., MLA, Leader of the Official Opposition of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, As an Individual
Yes.
That is just common sense. When the cost of heating homes, buildings and facilities increase because of the carbon tax, it is very difficult for small organizations, not-for-profit organizations, charitable organizations, and even for schools.
The Calgary school board made cuts of $1 million in its daycare programs, and the cost of the carbon tax for that school board was also $1 million per year. School boards and not-for-profit organizations are clearly feeling the pressure from increasing costs because of the carbon tax in Alberta.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll remind people, if you want in on any of these points, to agree or supplement, that's fine.
Mr. Dusseault.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
To change tack a little, Mr. Leach, you are from Alberta. We have barely touched on, barely scratched the surface of, the rebates provided under Alberta's policy. Could you focus your thinking and tell us what numbers that represents for the Government of Alberta?
For example, if the federal government had a similar system, using the Alberta model, what could we expect in income derived from a price on carbon and from the direct investments in the economy by consumers and residents, or by other initiatives in the green policy?
4:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
The figures I have at the moment indicate the impact on individuals and families. In Alberta, for example, we see that, for 10% of families, those earning the lowest annual income, the estimated total cost is more than $218, according to Statistics Canada figures, and the rebate is $294. In 2018, we estimate that, on average, those 10% of families, those with the lowest income, will be ahead by $76 per year because of the Alberta policies on the carbon tax. Those figures do not include the measures funded by the carbon tax. As for aggregate data, I do not have them at hand.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada's Ecofiscal Commission
[Technical Difficulty—Editor] analysis explored how revenue recycling can address these issues for low-income households and found that using about 10% to 13% of the revenue generated from a carbon price would be sufficient to make the bottom 40% of households, in terms of incomes, as well off as if the carbon price had not been in place. That leaves sufficient revenue for all kinds of other options, including for example reusing other taxes. It points to one of the advantages of the pan-Canadian framework that gives provinces the flexibility to use revenue as they choose, whether it is to address these concerns, to remove other distortionary taxes, or to drive other benefits as they see fit.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
So I have two versions. The first is that, using Alberta as an example, the least well-off families have on average more money in their pockets at the end of the year. According to the other version, social needs are constantly increasing as a direct result of the carbon tax. I have difficulty understanding which version is true and knowing whether there really is an impact on less well-off people.
Do others have comments to make or data to provide that could clarify the debate on the issue?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Équiterre
I can tell you that a number of measures can indeed be put in place to mitigate the impact of the carbon tax on low-income people. First of all, we have to understand that the most disadvantaged people use very little energy. Low-income people have no vehicles, for example, and that is true all over Canada.
Involvement is certainly needed in the area of housing. Targeted energy efficiency programs can be established. In other cases, some countries have chosen to provide energy rebates, and they literally put money back into the pockets of low-income people. So a number of mechanisms have been used by other governments, here in Canada and elsewhere, to mitigate the impact on the most disadvantaged.
Clearly, in the medium term, the impact of costs often improves when you succeed in moving from expensive energy to energy that is less expensive, for example, or in insulating houses. However, at the end of the day, we are recording clear savings, which probably explains the figures that Mr. Leach provided.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you , Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kenney, do you believe climate change is a popular delusion and a media conspiracy?