Finance Committee on May 23rd, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does that clear up the issue?

Do you want a recorded vote?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Yes.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The next amendment is CPC-4.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, I do appreciate that members chose their lines there. What we want to do is, again, try to focus on building transparency in the way that this new regime will report to parliamentarians. Again, this would be asking:

(2) The report must also set out the impact of the Act on greenhouse gas emissions, expressed in tonnes, in listed provinces.

This would not only help provide clarity as to whether or not this regime will actually decrease greenhouse gases, but it will also be able to report province by province as to the effectiveness. Again, in a previous conversation we had here, Mr. Chair, the government has said it wants to evaluate the stringency.

I would hope that members would be in favour of making sure that Canadians, through their representatives in Parliament, would be able to have access to that information on a regular basis. Again, there are many departments that do reports on all sorts of measures to Parliament. This is really a measure to ensure good accountability and transparency of this new tax.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On CPC-4, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I'd like to thank Mr. Albas for his comments and for all our desires for increased transparency in everything we do. It's very important.

With regard to the amendment that Mr. Albas has put forward, frankly, the current provision provides the flexibility to address the issue in the report. The government wants to set the direction of the content of the report through policy rather than through law. Information in the report can be repetitive, as it's already publicly available in both the GHGRP report and UNFCCC report.

It's unclear whether ECCC or FC—I'll use the acronyms again—have resources to meet this requirement that's in the amendment.

Finally, the 2022 review committed under the pan-Canadian framework provides the opportunity to do this type of assessment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I can appreciate that there are other reports. For example, there's the report that Mr. Moffet mentioned, which all of us should take advantage of on the website of Environment Canada, and it gave an aggregated amount. An aggregated amount does not allow people to find out whether or not individual provinces are participating in this and what the results are.

Again, the government is allowing two different options to individual provinces and territories, either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax method. By the way, it's not allowing innovations like the carbon capture and storage in Saskatchewan, which is also proven technology and very innovative.

We're not going to know that because it's not required. It's not listed. We have asked repeatedly for information as to whether the government has projections on whether it will be effective, and we have not received any answers. I would hope that government members and the NDP would see that Parliament should be respected, and that if we delegate the power to tax on behalf of our constituents to the government, the government owes a duty of care to reply and to give information that is not found elsewhere.

Again, we have it where the government itself has been empowered by the Liberal members here today to apply stringency as a primary factor. We would like to know specifically whether or not the efforts of individual provinces through this enforced regime, a backstop regime, are effective or not. That's what we're asking for.

Mr. Chair, I find it unfortunate. Usually with an environmental measure, for example, if we install a particular system to treat a tailing operation that comes out of a mine, engineers can tell you exactly what the effects are going to be, yet with the signature policy of increased taxation that this government is applying, they are not wanting to give more data on it to this Parliament. I think it's unheralded, and I think it's unbecoming of a government that campaigned on such a different way of doing business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll vote on CPC-4.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I would like a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We are still on clause 186, a popular clause, and we have CPC-5.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, again, affordability is top of mind for my constituents. I have a lot of seniors in my area, as well as young families who are struggling. Again, I do believe there should be no taxation without representation. Part of representation means being able to hold the government to account. How can you hold the government to account if they aren't giving you accurate facts? I'm not just thinking of myself; I think of future parliamentarians who would benefit from this information, to have a report every year, and the report must also set out the economic impact of the act on individuals in listed provinces broken down by income quartile.

Mr. Chair, it's very important to continue to have faith in the system, where people know that if they are being taxed, at what level does it cause them economic harm. We heard in committee that there are employment challenges that come up from the institution of the carbon tax. We also know that individual provinces are being given different tools to be able to do this, so I do think we need to not only equate whether or not greenhouse gas emissions are going down or up in a particular jurisdiction, but also whether or not the impact of the use of said tool harms individual families by what percentage of their income, particularly low- and middle-income families. For a government that campaigned about talking about the middle class, this is one way for them to know that their policies are either helping or harming. All we are saying is, information should be made public and then let that public, our constituents, decide whether or not that tax is in their interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Albas, for your intervention.

It's great that we are moving to a system in Canada where a price will be put on pollution, a price on carbon. With regard to the amendment, the current provision provides the flexibility to address this issue in the report and the government wants to set the direction of the content of the report through policy rather than through law. It is unclear if Environment and Climate Change Canada or the Department of Finance have the resources to meet this requirement.

Finally, the 2022 review committed under the PCF, provides the opportunity to do this type of assessment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

In reply to that, there's a continued reference to policy. Who decides policy? The government of the day does rather than the law, which is the law of the land, which would be decided by us, as parliamentarians. What you are saying is that you are going to allow future governments to decide what parliamentarians should know about taxes in this country and their effects on our constituents.

Again, I would just point out to government members, many of whom are new—and do you know what? That's a good thing; it's good to have a fresh outlook at stuff—and I will say, it's part of our job to provide long-term stability because governments come and governments go. In this institution it's up to us to be able to delegate to the government how much they can tax and in what ways they can tax. To hold them accountable you need data. If you allow the government of the day to choose it, then what you're saying is that you trust someone who you don't know. I do believe in limited government. I think this is an important accountability mechanism to make sure we do not have a case where there's taxation without proper representation. Again, how can you have proper representation if the government won't give us the numbers on what the carbon tax will cost to individual families and economic modelling, which I know has been done. Mr. Pierre Poilievre has done a lot of work on trying to discover that. It's one thing to not allow the opposition of the day, but we're talking about all parliamentarians 10 years from now. I imagine that the first thing we would do if we got in government is to cut the carbon tax.

Again, until the Canadian people weigh in, I would just ask you to think of the long term here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You didn't want to answer that question?

Seeing no further discussion, we'll vote on CPC-5.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I would like a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Chair, I have an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is it CPC-6 or is it a different one?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

It's a different one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, let's hear it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

It's that Bill C-74, in clause 186, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 365, the following:

Report to Canadians Starting in the year in which the first anniversary of the day on which this Section comes into force and each calendar year after that, the Minister of Finance must prepare a report to Canadians on the total cost of the provisions contained within this Act and make such report available on the Minister's website.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The members don't have copies of this, but it's being copied right now.

I don't think it will be a problem. Can we stand that aside and go to CPC-6? We'll come back to that when members have a copy. I just want to make sure we have agreement to do that. I don't want any problems when we go back to it.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.