Industry Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 146 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Before we begin, I would like to remind all members to read the instruction card in front of them regarding the use of earpieces and microphones. This is a health and safety concern for everyone, especially the interpreters, whom we thank very much for their services.

There are no witnesses before the committee today. The meeting will be on committee business.

Colleagues, just before we start, you've seen the calendar that's in front you. With the clerk, we've been trying hard, with respect to the motion that was sent to us by the House, to have the witnesses who were named be invited and confirmed. They've all been invited. Some are confirmed. For some, we still have some work to do, but I think we have a pretty good schedule going forward.

Just as a note of information, next Monday, we're going to have a double meeting, so four hours, and the Monday after that, too, so both Mondays coming forward, just so that we can get through this motion before the deadline, which is on December 17.

Take a look at the calendar. This is going to help us.

I see you, Mr. Turnbull, and Mr. Perkins next.

Before we start the discussion, I'll just get this out of the way. We have a request for a supplementary project budget that you've seen. I think the clerk has distributed it. Is it the will of the committee to approve this request for extra budget?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Given that we have a lot of motions outstanding.... I've seen Mr. Turnbull, then Mr. Perkins, then Mr. Patzer and then Mr. Masse.

Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Could you add me to the speakers list, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a point of order, Chair.

Even before I was already waving for your attention there, I believe the clerk had seen me waving earlier in the meeting already, to have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Patzer, I saw Mr. Turnbull raise his hand first, and then Mr. Perkins. I believe you were third. My apologies for that.

Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, I know today we're considering committee business, so I want to put something else on the floor here for our consideration as a committee.

I'm going to move the following motion. I'll read it into the record, and we will provide it in both official languages by email in just a moment. It reads:

Given that governments have an economic and social incentive to act on climate change;

Given that climate change could lead to devastating impacts on Canadian businesses and industry, with climate damages and economic losses of up to 35 billion dollars per year by 2030, and $865 billion by 2100 or six times the revenues of Canada's most populous provinces, in the absence of climate action;

Given that the energy, forestry, mining, agricultural and fisheries sectors will be particularly affected, putting many local economies at risk, given these sectors contribute to the economies of hundreds of municipalities and communities across the country;

Given that climate change, in turn, may impact labour markets, employment and wage growth, particularly in the absence of climate action, and;

That industry supports industrial carbon pricing as the backbone of decarbonization across the country, spurring growth, especially in lower intensive sectors of the economy, job growth and greener projects, and; that industry has called on governments to work together to strengthen Canada's industrial pricing system;

That the committee allocate no less than two meetings to study the topic of industrial carbon pricing, as well as the broader industrial and labour market impacts of climate change.

That's the motion. I'm just going to speak to it briefly.

This letter, I believe, was tabled with the committee on October 23, 2024. It's from some of our very large industrial producers. The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters was a signatory to the letter, as were the Canadian Steel Producers Association; Alberta's Industrial Heartland, the capital investment destination; Carbon Removal Canada; the Canadian Renewable Energy Association; the Cement Association of Canada; the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada; Lafarge; Clean Prosperity, and the list goes on.

It's important for us to consider this as a topic of study. It's clear to me that the coalition of industry players here is calling on us, as well as provincial governments, to work together to strengthen our industrial carbon pricing system in Canada, which has its challenges.

If you read the letter that they've put forward, you see there are quite a number of barriers that are created by the patchwork of systems that we have across each province and territory. Perhaps I won't go into more depth on that, because there's more information, but I'm sure that if the committee decides to study this, we'll get a chance to look at what specifically those trade barriers and misalignments are, and what impacts they have on a strong industrial carbon pricing system in Canada.

I think this is an area where the federal government can help to eliminate barriers and red tape by working closely with provinces and territories. I think that's an exciting prospect for us here at this committee. We can undertake some work to look at that and say, “Okay, what could we recommend that would be helpful?” This group has called upon governments at all levels to look at this and to work together, so I think it's incumbent upon us to respond to their request. It's an important call from industry.

We also know from the Canadian Climate Institute's work that two-thirds of emissions reductions will be led by industry in this country—that's 66% of all the emissions reductions in this country. It's found that industrial carbon pricing will be the top driver of emissions reductions between now and 2030. Industrial carbon pricing will do more than any other policy to cut Canada's emissions. The large emitter trading system that is in place already is the single biggest driver of emissions reductions.

I will note that, recently, the journal Science published an article that was a very in-depth study. It's probably the most comprehensive study that has been done on climate policies and the intersection of those policies or the mixture of those policies. They looked at 1,500 different policies across 43 jurisdictions around the world and looked at 20 years' worth of data, and they were able to isolate and show that the most successful policy mixtures for emissions reductions included carbon pricing or pricing instruments and mechanisms, as well as incentives and regulation.

I would say Canada has all three, which is a good thing. We have the right policy mixture in Canada, but we have this misalignment across provinces and territories in terms of the system that we have. We need to work together to figure out a path for addressing the concerns that our industry associations and representatives are asking us to look at.

What hangs in the balance here is really how fast we can decarbonize and how much we can mitigate the risks of climate change as we move forward, which are very costly, as we know. Just this year, it's estimated that there will be $25 billion in damages and losses due to climate change, which is half of projected GDP growth. That's not insignificant. Imagine half of our projected GDP growth going to just cover the costs of the damages of climate change and the productivity losses.

There is significant impact here that I think we need to be aware of. We can't put our hands over our eyes and pretend this is going to go away. It's not. I really think this committee can do some deeper-dive work on a study. We're seeing no fewer than two meetings. I honestly think this will require more than two meetings, of course, and I would be happy to study it for longer.

Maybe I'll speak more to this if we have more time for debate on this, which I imagine we might, but we'll see what the other committee members have to say about this.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull.

Just so we're clear, members, in the excitement, I think I had the wrong motion circulated—the one that Mr. Turnbull had given notice for—but this one is from the floor and it's been circulated via email by the clerk, so now we're talking about the motion that Mr. Turnbull has just moved.

Before we enter this discussion, I want to reiterate the list that I have after we've dealt with this motion. I have Mr. Perkins, and then I have Mr. Savard-Tremblay, Mr. Masse and Mr. Patzer. I saw all the hands go up more or less at the same time, so I'm going by party. I think that's going to make it easier.

Now we're on the motion by Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Masse, go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the motion coming forward. I'm trying to figure out, as we go through several of these motions here, what it means for our current schedule with regard to the credit card study and then getting it, hopefully.... I was hopeful—and maybe this is a little bit too optimistic—that we might have a chance to either have a report before we break or table something if there's actually time, if we give direct discussion points to our analysts.

What I'm trying to figure out is how we go through this trifecta of suggestions on work we do without knowing our calendar. I don't want to end up in a situation where we do not end up finishing the work we wanted to get done. That's what I'm trying to figure out right now as we go through this. I'm not opposed to the motion, and I'm open to doing other things, but I'm just trying to figure this out.

Lastly, and I think this is a really important part of it, where the hell are the amendments from the government on Bill C-27? All I get is commentary from the minister in the public domain or in having to answer interviews. I think at some point I might have a motion to pull the minister here specifically for that issue, because it was promised that we were going to get these amendments. They weren't even amendments, if we go back in time. We still don't know where that is. I don't know how we can actually deal with all of these things, because we don't even know what the intent of the government is on him publicly saying here that he had amendments and publicly saying to us and in talking to us privately that we're getting something, but we still don't have it here.

If the government's real intention is that they've run up the white flag on Bill C-27, in terms of all the work.... I still thought there was some commitment to get the privacy stuff done. I have legislation ready that would split it in the House of Commons, as all parties know, and we've even discussed that before, so that we could actually get a piece of work to the Senate if there was compromise. However, we don't even know what that is. The government has another motion right now on committee business, and they still have not brought these other amendments on legislation.

I'm just trying to figure out how we prioritize all these things. If we knew exactly what the plan was from the government, then maybe that would help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Masse, I'll just share my two cents on this. Reading the motion, it has no hard timeline. Our schedule is pretty packed until the end of the session, until the holiday break. I agree with you on the credit card study. Once we're done, I'd like to finish our report and submit it. I don't want it to linger in a no man's land for too long.

That said, it has no timeline, so at this point we're just putting potential studies on the docket.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I echo the comments of MP Masse. We all know, and I'll say it here, that the minister had conversations with everybody when the House came back, asking what he had to do to get Bill C-27 through. We—at least the three opposition parties, I think—all made it very clear what it would take, and the minister did pledge to go back and do that.

Then he's been yammering in the media about how the committee is blocking everything. The committee isn't blocking anything. The minister, once again, hasn't lived up to his commitment. He hasn't come back with the changes to the tribunal and the AI portion of the bill that we all required in order to proceed. It would be good if he would come here. I would support a motion by MP Masse to recall the minister and to ask him what the heck he's doing.

With regard to this motion, of course, I agree, Mr. Chair, that a lot of the things we're doing.... The House has ordered us to do a study on the potential anti-competitive nature of the e-transfer and the broader economic payment system and banking system that causes Canadians to pay what appears to be way too much money for their financial services.

On this particular motion, however, I do agree that there should be a study on the Liberal government's carbon tax—a carbon tax on everything, a carbon tax that has put up the price of everything, a carbon tax that the government claims reduces carbon emissions, yet their own environment department doesn't even monitor its impact, so it has no impact. It's so important to the government that the radical Liberal environment minister doesn't even bother trying to monitor its impact. I think it would be great to have a study on this.

My problem with the motion that MP Turnbull put forward is that he actually wrote the report in the preamble before setting up the study and made a bunch of conclusions, so I would propose the following amendment to Mr. Turnbull's committee study: to delete everything from the first word, “Given”, until the last sentence. That last sentence, of course, begins, “That the committee allocate no less than two meetings to study the topic of industrial carbon pricing”, but what I would do is amend that line to say, “That the committee allocate no less than two meetings to this matter on the industrial and consumer carbon pricing, and that these meetings begin once the committee has set its schedule and figures out appropriate timing.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. We have an amendment on the floor by Mr. Perkins. Essentially, it would be removing everything before “That the committee allocate” and include industrial and consumer carbon pricing.

On the amendment, we have Mr. Turnbull.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Just a moment, Mr. Chair. I have to listen to the interpretation to make sure I understand correctly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I can repeat it in French, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

Basically, what Mr. Perkins is proposing is to remove all the statements and just keep the following:

That the committee allocate no less than two meetings to study the topic of industrial carbon pricing…

The idea is to discuss the impact on consumers, too. He is also proposing that this study begin once we have finished what is currently on the agenda.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

If I understand correctly, we would also remove “Given the recent evidence”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Everything before “That the committee allocate” would be deleted.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Okay, that's perfect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It seems like the Conservatives are all talk, then, because they sound like they want to study carbon pricing and are against it—as usual, which is fine—but want to delay it as long as possible. They're actually scared to study it.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Well, you can put a time frame on it.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Perkins has suggested that I presupposed where the study was going to land. I didn't do that. I actually referenced the most, I would say, significant piece of scientific research that has ever been done on climate policies. It showed that carbon pricing and pricing instruments in general work in combination with other policies as a mixture to bring down carbon emissions quickly.

I can quote directly from the article, if Mr. Perkins would like, but maybe he's suggesting that I don't have the right to take the floor and motivate a motion that I'm moving in committee. I don't see how that is relevant here, given the fact that the Conservatives do that every time they move a motion. Why would I not be afforded the same right and privilege to speak to a motion that I put on the floor?

I find it strange that they want to gut this motion and don't actually want to study carbon pricing. I find it strange, given how much time they spend talking about it in the House of Commons. It's a little bit strange.

The other thing is that our industry is asking us to do this. Isn't this committee supposed to study things that are relevant to industry? If industry associations, even in the prairie provinces, where I know some of the members across the way come from, want us to study and look at this as a major issue that they have.... They're aligned in asking us to look at the challenges and, essentially, how we can fix the interjurisdictional challenges that they experience—those misalignments that create problems for them within their operations. We want a more competitive industry. They're saying that carbon pricing is what helps them be competitive.

I don't know why the Conservatives would be against this. It seems to me to be a study that we should all be aligned on.

I know the NDP has backed down quite a bit from carbon pricing in general, and its members have said that they're against the carbon tax, but they certainly are not against.... I haven't heard them say they're against the industrial carbon pricing system that we have. In fact, I think Mr. Masse and his party, the NDP, are for carbon pricing. I think they always have been, even though they've backed down from the consumer-facing portion of it. We know they've been supportive. I know that within the circles of very progressive-minded people in this country, the NDP has often cited its leadership on climate change and wanting to raise ambition. It would strike me as very strange that its members would vote against or oppose a motion that would support us looking at how our industry could be more competitive and decarbonize faster.

I don't understand how it could be a major contentious issue here to study this in detail.

The preamble that's in here is really referencing most of what I think is significant about what the rationale is for bringing up this particular study at this moment. I think those elements of the motion should stay in.

I would, respectfully, say that I will be voting against Mr. Perkins' attempt to gut this motion because he's scared to study carbon pricing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Patzer, and then Mr. Perkins.