National Defence Committee on June 13th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Okay, thank you.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Which one did he withdraw?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

It was one before your time, Leona. It had been there for a while.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

It was from February 2017, on the fire risk at CFAD Bedford.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Mr. Bezan, go ahead.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I'll move my last motion, from November 25:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee conduct a study of the Federally Mandated Carbon Tax and its effects on the Canadian Armed Forces, especially on the budget and spending items; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House of Commons no later than Thursday, April 13, 2017.

I'll speak to that now, or do you want to adjourn debate?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'd like to amend the wording of that, from “carbon tax” to “price on carbon”.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Let me finish first before we start going into this.

Mr. Chair, since I have the floor, I'll just speak on this. Even though in the defence policy book that was tabled this week, they did talk about exempting the fleets of military vehicles, ships, and planes from having to fit under the criteria of carbon emission reduction, it doesn't change the fact that all of our bases, all our planes, all our army equipment, all of our ships—the navy, army, and air force—still all have to pay carbon taxation. Wherever they buy their fuel, those jurisdictions have carbon taxes. Whether it's B.C., whether it's Nova Scotia, whether it's anywhere else across the country, there will be a mandated carbon tax brought into play in each and every one of those jurisdictions.

There is a cost associated with that. Just with some quick numbers, because we did some access to information requests as well as questions on the order paper based upon...and we went province by province right through. I can tell you that based upon the value of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and natural gas that's used for heating buildings as well as propane, especially in some of our remote bases where they use propane to heat buildings, it looks like the navy could be looking at anywhere from $13 to $19 million; the army between $8 and $10 million in extra costs; and the air force between $191 million and $245 million. That is significant, and it all would increase the price of fuel. That in itself could be as high as a $275 million cost to the armed forces, in terms of the difference between what these fuels cost now and what they will cost in the future.

It's $6.5 million—yes, I read that wrong. It's a $6.5 million total cost to the entire Canadian Forces.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

It's $60.5 million.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

It's $60.5 million to the entire Canadian Armed Forces.

I think that's significant. Whether it's carbon tax or it's carbon pricing, it all increases the price of fuel when you actually take actual expenses and add in the carbon tax on top of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Debate?

I have Mr. Spengemann.

Sven.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Is this a study that's strictly aimed, based on your comments, at the cost of hydrocarbons to the armed forces, or is it also aimed at the concept of the green army that the United States is pursuing in trying to reduce the carbon footprint of the armed forces and increase the contributions that the forces could make to mitigation of climate change?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

No, this is about the impact on the budget of our military.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

It's strictly financial, fiscal considerations.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Yes, it's a fiscal thing. Now there's no doubt that when we have the minister here next Tuesday, we can question him about the one core mission that's been added to the Canadian Armed Forces, which is to battle climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Seriously, it's those words, “battle climate change”.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I didn't know that we're at war with climate change, but now it's a core mission of our Canadian Armed Forces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Anybody else?

Mr. Garrison, do you want to chime in on this?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have been concerned that the budgets allocated to the Canadian Forces by the current and the previous governments that have been below the rate of inflation for operations. So I think there's a legitimate question about the impact on what I would call the budget's carbon price—not carbon tax. I think that is something we should be concerned about, but I'm also concerned about exempting the military from certain aspects of carbon pricing. It seemed to be in the defence review. So I have a somewhat different view.

There's only one planet here. Everybody's on it, including the military. I'm not sure the time we will have with the minister will allow us to fully explore this question. I do think it's an important question. I'll be supporting the motion. I would prefer that it did not say “carbon tax”. I guess I will move an amendment to change it to “carbon price”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Okay, that's on the table, then.

There's an amendment to the motion to change it to “price on carbon” from “carbon tax”.—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Or we could have “mandated carbon pricing”.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Any one of those is fine.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Then you just take carbon tax out and put price in.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Yes, that's fine.