Industry Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull, for admitting that you didn't pay any attention to what Mr. Perkins said when he put his amendment forward, because he did say that he wanted to include the consumer carbon tax in this motion. In fact, he was expanding the scope to include it, so your assertion that we don't want to talk about it is actually wrong. Thank you for putting on the record that you weren't paying any attention. I appreciate that.

I also appreciate how, previously, you put on the record publicly that consumers are going to face some significant pain because of your carbon tax. You admitted in public that people are going to have to pay up, and it is going to hurt. Those were your own words, so you were very clear about that, and that is exactly what we are seeing all across the country. People are in a lot of pain because of the economic ruin that you imposed upon this country—I think that's abundantly clear. That's why we would like to include the consumer carbon tax into this motion as well. Those were your own words, that people are going to experience a lot of pain. Let's see here. What were the words that you used? Was it “economic certainty”? Is that what it is? The economic certainty is that people are going to feel pain. I wonder, is that what you meant?

Then there's the element of dealing with the preamble as well. You've thrown in all these hand-picked statistics and different things like that. You're trying to set the tone for what you want the study to look like, and it's all speculative because the key word in there is “could”—“given that climate change could lead”. What you're insinuating is that it could lead to this.

Now, there are other factors at play here, of course. You look at the dollar values that you've assigned to it. Well, your government has failed on getting a softwood lumber agreement for nine years. That's had a substantive impact on the cost of building materials in this country. There are many other factors that have impacted the cost of building in this country, including your consumer carbon tax, which is a huge factor in that. There are many factors that are at play here, so if you want to have a real conversation about it, let's look at all of it. There's so much more to it than just simply saying, “Oh, climate change could cost $35 billion per year by 2030.” Well, if your government had actually done its job over the last nine years, I'll bet you that number would be nowhere near as high. That includes everything from trade policy to economic development, respecting provincial jurisdiction and allowing the provinces and industry to do what they do best, but you stepped in, every single time, to get in the way.

I'm on the natural resources committee. We're doing a study on the Trans Mountain pipeline. We had the PBO and other witnesses come, and they said that government policy is going to have a direct impact on what someone's going to be willing to pay to buy the pipeline, because of the lack of certainty that has been put in place. When you look at the conditions that are in place, why would anybody want to buy that pipeline when it's going to be almost impossible to have any new development in this country and get anything done? That's the record that your government has, Mr. Turnbull, when it comes to handling the economy and the “economic and social incentive”, as you put here.

When we talk to people, whether it's in meetings or when we go out on the road in our ridings and we tour around businesses, they talk a lot about the number one threat to them. In my riding, which is an agricultural and energy-producing region of the country, it's not climate change that they bring up; it's government policy that they say is the biggest threat to them. I would love to talk about the threat that government policy has been to these businesses, because they tell me on a regular basis how devastating it is and how hard it is to deal with trying to grow and expand their business, let alone just keep the doors open because of bad government policy that's been put forward by you and your government.

If that's what you want to brag about, I would love to hear it, and I would be more than happy to put those people's voices on the record during this study about the economic ruin that you have provided for businesses in Cypress Hills—Grasslands and all across this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Again, we're talking about the amendment.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'd like to make a couple more points.

I think what's interesting is that we had the food professor here, Sylvain Charlebois. I remember very specifically what he said when he was here, that for those who have agricultural-producing regions.... My region is Durham region. We actually produce lots of agricultural goods and products, and I know that farmers are definitely concerned about climate change. I know that Sylvain Charlebois came here and said that climate change is actually the biggest challenge that our agri-food industry faces, and that we need to address it. That's a direct quote. If the guy whom the Conservatives like to quote all the time is saying that climate change is actually the biggest challenge that our agri-food industry has, then why wouldn't they want to study the impacts of climate change and understand how we can help ensure that our agricultural industry and our producers, whom we all value, can continue to feed Canada and the world, and prosper in the future? It seems a little strange to me that the Conservatives would want to take out the specific reference to the industries that were in the motion.

Anyway, I could say more about that, but I'll just say that it seems a little strange, when farmers are at the front lines of the impacts of climate change, as we know, and we've heard this. I was on the agri-food standing committee for quite a while, and we heard about this as being a major concern for our food producers across Canada. I know that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada projected net revenue losses of 49.2% in 2023 for Quebec farmers, and 86.5% in 2024. I referenced that when Mr. Charlebois was here, and he agreed that the costs of climate change were real, that they were very concerning, and that we needed to address it. He certainly disagreed with some portions of how to address it—I will say that—but he definitely agreed that this was a major threat to the agri-food industry.

Mr. Patzer said something about trade policy, and I think that's another major consideration here. The EU is Canada's second-largest trading partner, after the U.S., accounting for more than $180 billion in bilateral trade in 2023. They have carbon border adjustments that will come into effect in 2026, which means that all of our exports will be subjected to tariffs if we don't abide by the same standard and bring ourselves up to the standard they've set. More than 70% of Canada's exports are either a variety of fossil fuels or goods resulting from emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors. We're talking about energy, transportation, manufacturing and agriculture. Canada's most trade-exposed sectors are iron and steel. That's pretty significant when you think about the kinds of things that I think should appeal to all of us in our respective jurisdictions, in the ridings we represent. Those industries are part of the backbone of our economy, and we should all be concerned with the fact that they are trade-exposed in the European market as those carbon border adjustment mechanisms come into force in 2026.

I'll also just mention quickly that there are labour market impacts. I noticed that Mr. Perkins, when he proposed to gut this motion and take everything out of it, is taking out the specific references to labour markets. Those are real jobs, employment and wages for our workers, and in particular the most vulnerable workers in Canada, who I think would be most exposed to the risks of climate change, the natural disasters that affect their ability to go to work every day.

We've had conversations about climate justice. I know the Conservatives don't even believe in climate change, so they don't really participate in these conversations very often. We know that the most vulnerable people in Canada who would be most exposed to the risks or impacts of climate change are often the people who are already the most vulnerable and live in the areas that, through no fault of their own, would be impacted by the damages done by climate change.

For example, the Canadian Climate Institute finds that, due to climate change, “All households will lose income, and low-income households will suffer the most.” Low-income households could see income losses of 19% in high-emissions scenarios by the end of this century.

Climate change is a job killer. It leads to job losses that could double by mid-century, and increase to 2.9 million by the end of the century. That's a really significant number of job losses in this country. For those of us who care about Canadians' jobs or pretend to care.... I hope most of us actually do care. It seems strange to me that the Conservatives would rip out that portion of the motion because they're not interested in understanding the impacts on labour markets and real people's jobs.

Perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment, Chair. I just wanted to add those points to my arguments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull.

As a reminder, colleagues, we're on the amendment of Mr. Perkins.

I have on my list Brian Masse and Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the past, I've tried to see if we could amend things to get them passed here and get them done. I'm going to look at this. In the same line, and with a couple of words to that.... Perhaps if we concluded the first line, “Given that governments have an economic and social incentive to act on climate change”, and then moved to the final line, “That the committee allocate no less than two meetings to study the topic of industrial carbon pricing” and so forth, we would get rid of some of the things in there that are causing some of the debate.

Even one of those lines in there right now, with the Liberal Party saying that “climate change could lead to devastating impacts”.... I would argue that it has led to that. I could get into that. I could add a line like, “Given that the Liberal Party of Canada, as government, made the single largest economic investment in carbon pollution in buying a leaky pipeline that continues to expand emissions and increase debt and free market manipulation.” I mean, I could do that kind of stuff, too.

I'm trying to figure out whether there's actually a sincere interest to try to see if we're even doing it.

I would suggest that if we could keep the first line and get the specifics of the other stuff out, which they could raise during testimony with the witnesses who are here, I don't know whether that would get us off to the point where we could actually get this done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'm afraid, Mr. Masse, that we probably have to deal with the amendment first. I'm not sure that this is—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. I'm trying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Putting stuff back that's been removed in an amendment is not the most elegant way of doing things. I would suggest maybe, Mr. Masse, that we deal with the amendment, and you can bring it back if it's not adopted.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay.

I apologize to the interpreters if I'm speaking too fast.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I have Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

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

The chair could seek UC, could he not, to do what Mr. Masse suggested?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Everything is possible with unanimous consent, if there is unanimous consent.

Thank you, Mr. Perkins. You're a useful vice-chair.

Mr. Masse, maybe propose it again.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, thank you.

It would just be that we'd have Mr. Turnbull's motion as it stands here, “Given that governments have an economic and social incentive to act on climate change”, and then move down to the final paragraph: “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.”

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

Do you mean that includes the paragraph I had?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins had modified the concluding paragraph to include “consumer” and had given some sort of timeline that we would start the study after we are done with what's currently scheduled.

We would keep the last paragraph as Mr. Perkins had suggested, but basically we just keep the first sentence.

Do we have unanimous consent for that proposition by Mr. Masse?

I don't see unanimous consent, unfortunately, Mr. Masse.

That takes us back to the amendment as it stands.

I have Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Chair, my understanding is that my Conservative colleague, Mr. Perkins, has moved the following: “That the committee allocate no less than two meetings to this matter on the industrial and consumer carbon pricing”. I mean, this sounds like a very reasonable motion. I think that lots of Canadians care about ensuring that the government addresses climate change in a meaningful way, but also in a way that doesn't make life unaffordable for them.

It shocks me today that my Liberal colleagues would vote against this motion. I don't know why they would vote against that, unless they don't care about climate change or making life more affordable for people. I think lots of Canadians would be shocked to see how the Liberal Party, when they think nobody is looking, would vote against a motion to study industrial and consumer carbon pricing. We'll make sure that people see how they vote on this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just to make a correction, we're debating the amendment by Mr. Perkins, not the motion. I would like that to be clear for everyone.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I appreciate the attempt that Ms. Rempel Garner has made to contort this into something that we're voting against. This is clearly an amendment designed to gut and take out the industrial and labour market portion with specific references to the rationale and motivation for bringing this motion forward. I don't support that, and I don't think that it adds any value to take out all of the substantive stuff, to be honest with you.

The Conservative members seem to want to take out energy, forestry, mining, agriculture and fisheries, all of which I think are industries that they should care about. That's why we specifically made reference to those. We figured that you would want to understand the impacts of both climate change and industrial carbon pricing, in particular, on the competitiveness of those industries. Purposely designing it that way was to bring you into the conversation and have you, hopefully, support what I think is a strong rationale for a good motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Do I have any other speakers on my list?

It doesn't look like it.

We can therefore proceed to vote on Mr. Perkins' amendment.

Madam Clerk, you may proceed with the vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Since the amendment was defeated, we will now go back to the original motion moved by Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

I have an amendment for the main motion.

After “pricing system” in the main motion, we add the following: “Given the Liberal Party of Canada, as government, made the single largest economic investment in carbon pollution buying a leaky pipeline that continues to expand emissions, increase debt for the public, and free market manipulation”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Would it be possible, Mr. Masse, to have someone in your staff send it to the clerk to be circulated?