Transport Committee on May 30th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It became a motion of the committee, and the committee did not support your continuing. If you want to move a motion now that we go back and resume the debate, we will have to have a vote on it.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, my motion was never voted on. I was never able to have the motion voted on. I want to know why I can table a motion without having it voted on. All I want is to explain the meaning of my motion and the reasons for it. That's all. I don't see what would prevent us from debating the motion and then voting on it.

I don't know whether you're aware of this, but we're currently in a situation where someone spoke on behalf of the committee, an independent committee. I'm tabling a motion because I want to continue discussing an issue—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

A point of order, Madam Chair.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I don't think we can rise on a point of order in this regard, at this time. I want us to debate the matter that interests me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Hold on, Mr. Rayes.

Okay.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, under the rules, this is a dilatory motion, and he has every right to put this motion forward to resume debate. It's non-debatable, which is what he's doing right now. He is debating it. The recommendation would be to put this to the floor for a vote, and then carry on from there.

Once again, it's a dilatory motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

According to all of the rules, it's non-debatable and non-amendable, Mr. Rayes.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will resume the discussion, Mr. Rayes, on the work that's before us here, the supplementary estimates (A).

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I'll give the floor to my colleague, Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm somewhat concerned. When the governing members choose to adjourn a debate, I always understood that the motion can be reintroduced at another time, but I respect the ruling of the chair and the advice of the clerk.

I know we have a number of motions on the table. I want to apologize to the folks at the table today, because I think that what we are doing on this side of the table is trying to ensure that the voices of opposition members are heard when we're dealing with very important things, when we hear from witnesses who come to committee to provide us with testimony that is meant to give all members an opportunity to hear the facts. Then we can make decisions based on what we've heard. I know we're here to discuss supplementary estimates (A), but I guess I have no choice, Madam Chair, but to move my motion that was distributed to members on February 22, 2017, as follows:

That the Committee invite the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to discuss the positive and negative impacts of the new federal carbon pricing strategy on the transportation sector.

I would like to give my rationale for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I have received a number of questions and comments from nearly every transportation sector stakeholder I have met concerning the carbon pricing scheme announced by the Prime Minister. I have asked many questions, in every forum possible, on whether the government had even considered the impact of this tax on transport, agriculture, manufacturing, home heating, potash, oil and gas, and the list goes on, before the announcement was made. All of our questions to date have been ignored by the government.

It's obvious to those of us on this side of the table that they don't actually know what the impact of this tax will be on these sectors and that they will go ahead with it regardless. The Minister of Environment even acknowledged that the government had not done any analysis of how this new tax will impact Canada's competitiveness relative to the United States, and the other countries our exporters compete against, before mandating this tax. I will quote the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change: “We have committed with the Prime Minister, working with the finance minister, [to] doing a review of competitiveness and review of carbon pricing to look at this issue, because I think it is really important going forward.”

We also still have no information on how this carbon tax will affect marine shippers that operate between countries and carry the flag of convenience of a country without carbon pricing, and, more relevant for Canadian consumers, how interprovincial flights will be affected, as provinces will not be able to tax these.

According to a witness as the Senate of Canada's energy, environment and natural resources committee, Canadians must cut emissions by some 208 million tonnes in order to meet the Paris Accord climate targets—which is more than that produced by all road vehicles in Canada.

This is a very tall order. It is incumbent on the federal government to learn from carbon pricing mistakes being made both at home and in other parts of the world. The failed environmental policies of the Ontario provincial government of Premier Wynne have resulted in the most expensive electricity prices in North America. It is chasing thousands of businesses and job creators out of the province. The Minister of the Environment must come to this committee to assure committee members and the transportation sector that the outcome of this federal tax will not be the same on the transport sector as Ontario's has been on every single sector of its economy.

The transport sector is very price sensitive. Canadian railways compete with U.S. railroads and U.S. trucking. Airlines, which already lose five million passengers per year to border airports, compete with international carriers. Small remote communities disproportionately rely on transportation for basic necessities like food. Even a small change in the cost of transport within this country will have huge ripple effects across the entire economy.

I don't believe that increasing the overall tax burden on Canadians will achieve the desired long-term emissions reductions, and will only serve to exacerbate the economic challenges that our country faces. I don't need to mention that the transportation sector will be one of the most affected by this new tax, so I think the environment minister's visit to this committee is critical.

The environment minister's contention that this initiative will be revenue neutral is somewhat hard to believe, and I look forward to hearing the supporting evidence for that. It is hard to believe that a policy that could increase the federal government's accounts receivables by over $40 billion each year can be revenue neutral. This will become the second-largest source of federal revenue going forward, putting it ahead of the sales tax, the corporate income tax, the customs import duties, employment insurance premium revenues, and crown corporation revenues.

I also think that this motion is timely because Environment and Climate Change Canada recently released a technical paper called “Federal Carbon Pricing Backstop”. I will just quote from the document: “The backstop will also supplement (or 'top-up') systems that do not fully meet the benchmark. For example, the backstop could expand the sources covered by provincial carbon pollution pricing or it could increase the stringency of the provincial carbon price.”

This motion would give the minister an opportunity to provide more detail to this committee on the technical paper. I do hope that the members opposite will vote in favour of the motion and invite the minister of the Environment and Climate Change to come to speak to how this major government initiative will impact the transportation sector, in which we are typically taking on a number of issues.

In closing I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to table this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Block. Certainly, in spite of the fact that we have a room full of people to discuss supplementary estimates, it is your right to be able to move it. You have given plenty of notice.

Now I will have to open up the floor for debate on Ms. Block's motion.

Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm also interested in discussing the motion of my colleague, Ms. Block. The motion reads as follows:

That the Committee invite the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to discuss the positive and negative impacts of the new federal carbon pricing strategy on the transportation sector.

I want to join my colleague in thanking the people who are here to discuss supplementary estimates (A). I understand that the current situation is quite unusual. We must discuss the motion of my colleague, Ms. Block, instead of asking the witnesses very interesting questions. I had a number of good questions to ask. However, as you know, this situation stems from a recent event. As a result of the event, today we're trying to understand how this committee works. I was particularly surprised about the committee's reaction to the desire to resume the debate on the motion. Since my colleague's motion had already been given 48 hours' notice, normally, we should have been able to simply continue the adjourned debate without another notice or decision. I think we'll need to ask for further clarifications on the matter.

Let's talk about the impact of the new federal carbon pricing strategy on the transportation sector. I've had the chance to meet many people in recent weeks and months. You know the Conservative Party had a leadership race. Last weekend, I found out who my new leader would be, the new leader of the opposition. He's a fine person from western Canada, specifically Saskatchewan. Andrew Scheer was resoundingly elected. I'm especially pleased about how all Conservative Party members have rallied behind him. When we conduct a campaign to lead a federal party, we travel to all provinces and speak to people, citizens, heads of companies and business leaders. During the campaign, which gave us a leader for the 2019 election, one of the most common topics of discussion was how the carbon tax would affect the transportation sector. Many citizens asked me what the pricing would change in their daily lives and how much it would cost their family and businesses. They wanted to know whether it would affect their job.

I'll use the example of a middle-class family in Saskatchewan. I chose Saskatchewan completely randomly, not to flatter my colleague, Kelly Block, but only as an example. Let's take the example of a normal family that goes grocery shopping, that must heat the house, and that buys vehicles to get around and to commute to work. Essentially, the impact of carbon pricing will be felt during basic daily activities, starting with grocery shopping. From now on, a tax will be imposed on fuel, which the family needs to travel to the grocery store. A tax will also be imposed on the fuel required to transport the family's groceries. The tax will increase the cost of buying these essential products. Everyone will agree that a family must purchase food. Therefore, the impact is direct.

This tax will also affect the cost of heating homes in Saskatchewan, among other things. Families will need to pay more for heating at the end of the month. An even greater portion of their income will be used not to put food on the table or improve their quality of life, but to pay a carbon tax for heating, an essential need.

On that note, I want to acknowledge the official opposition leader's excellent suggestion of removing taxes from all home heating services.

You know, in Canada, it's not really a choice to heat your home. It's essential. When we live north of the 45th parallel, winter is quite harsh. We need heating. However, the carbon tax will directly affect what citizens, including the small family in Saskatchewan, have left in their pockets at the end of the year.

That's not all. We can talk about groceries, but there's also clothes shopping. In short, my example can apply to all the purchases of the small family in Saskatchewan. In the end, the impact of the new federal carbon pricing strategy on the transportation sector will result in higher taxes payable to the government.

Since I've been here and since we've been working on the committee, it has been clear that transportation lies at the heart of Canadian society. We can all agree on this. Without transportation, there's no organization on the land. Canada is a very large country. If we can't transport goods and people in the country, we'll have a major problem. We've organized our society around transportation. Western Canada was developed as a result of the railway system expansion.

Transportation is part of our daily lives. We all have one, two or three cars, especially if we live in a rural region and we don't have access to public transportation. In that case, we must have cars.

I find this situation somewhat depressing. Since there's no public transportation service in Thetford Mines, as soon as our children are old enough to obtain a driver's licence, the first thing they ask for is access to a vehicle to go to cégep, go out at night and on the weekend, or go out with friends. My oldest is 20 years old, and he has his own vehicle. My youngest is 14 years old, and she dreams of having her own vehicle. I've also just bought a vehicle for my 16-year-old daughter, who recently obtained her driver's licence.

Transportation plays an essential role in the lives of families and all Canadians. Unfortunately, this new federal carbon pricing strategy in the transportation sector will directly affect the family budget, and my children's budgets. They may have a means of transportation to get around. However, they won't necessarily have enough money to buy gas. It will have a double impact. They won't be able to pay the carbon taxes for gas, since they simply won't have enough money to fill up their vehicle.

The impact is real, and it concerns the very heart of Canadians, meaning their families.

I haven't yet had the chance to address how the carbon tax will affect small and medium-sized businesses in rural regions such as mine.

At home, in Thetford Mines, a relatively large SME manufactures all the bases used at the BIXI self-service stations to park bicycles. We see them everywhere, in particular in Montreal and Toronto. Another part of the stations is manufactured in the Trois-Rivières area, and other parts are manufactured in various different places. Therefore, the components of these BIXI facilities, which are found in Montreal and the other major centres, come from regions across Canada.

You will understand that the number of docking stations for BIXI bikes manufactured by this company greatly exceeds the needs of our city, Thetford Mines. The stations manufactured in Thetford Mines are probably made from Canadian aluminum from either the Baie-Comeau or the Lac-Saint-Jean region. The aluminum used was probably trucked in to Thetford Mines. Unfortunately, we don't have a railway system in Thetford Mines. Those raw materials shipped to Thetford Mines and turned into BIXI docking stations to help people to adopt a healthier lifestyle in major centres have also been subject to an additional tax, a carbon tax. Those stations then have to be shipped to Montreal.

You see, imposing a tax on transportation has negative repercussions.

My colleague's motion requests:

That the Committee invite the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to discuss the positive and negative impacts of the new federal carbon pricing strategy on the transportation sector.

I would really like the minister to tell us what that carbon tax will cost families, young people, small and medium-sized businesses, larger businesses and society as a whole.

We requested those figures. My colleague Pierre Poilievre, who filed access to information requests, received documents that were unfortunately completely blacked out. We couldn't read anything. I think the government is afraid of us learning the true cost of the federal carbon pricing strategy for Canadian families.

When someone really believes in an idea, a principle, a project or what they want to do, they don't need to black out documents; they act in a transparent manner and provide people with figures. Canadians can then decide whether or not the carbon tax is a good initiative.

During the latest Conservative leadership campaign, which I mentioned earlier, one of our candidates was in favour of the carbon tax. His arguments were interesting to hear. However, the right information must be provided before any debate takes place. I think that is essential.

Has the Minister of Environment and Climate Change had access to that information? Has she seen the figures prepared by the Department of Finance on the real cost of the federal carbon pricing strategy? That is the question we are asking, and I think rightly so.

Were those documents just as censored for cabinet members and government MPs? Did the members of the Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities have access to those figures? Before this decision by cabinet and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was supported, did the minister present all the facts to government MPs? I think that is a good question. We can be misled when we make decisions without having all the necessary data.

It's like an election campaign. To get elected, promises are made of very small deficits, only for three years, followed by a return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. In the fourth year, the election year, they tell people not to worry and that they will have....

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I have a point of order.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

With all due respect to my colleague, I want to point out that we are not discussing the election campaign and so on. I think that my colleague should stick to the motion, which concerns carbon tax in transportation.

So I respectfully ask the member to discuss the motion, and not other issues, such as what was said during the campaign or what must be done during a campaign. I don't think that is relevant.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

So I will continue, Madam Chair.

During the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised very small deficits. Last week, the figures indicated that the deficit would be $21 billion.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Sorry, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Again, the member is talking about deficits, but that is not what we are currently discussing. The motion does not pertain to deficits, but rather to carbon tax. So he should talk about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. Mr. Berthold has the floor, unless something else is said, it's his privilege to speak. If he wants to continue speaking, he's entitled to do that because he's speaking to the motion.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

So I was saying that, during the election campaign, the Liberals promised very small deficits of about $10 billion. We recently learned that the deficit for the current year would exceed $20 billion.

To satisfy my colleague who is wondering why I am talking about deficits, I would say that it's because certain factors lead to those deficits. What are those factors? They are quite simply unreasonable government expenditures. How will those unreasonable expenditures be repaid? By imposing a carbon tax on Canadians. So there is a direct link to the Liberals' promises to create very small deficits.

In reality, the deficit will exceed $21 billion this year. The Liberals are hungry and are trying to get as much money as possible anywhere they can to deal with those huge deficits. The carbon tax will be used to pay for the interest on the Liberals' credit card, which unfortunately doesn't seem to have a limit.

I could compare that to a family with a young child. This is in fact a young government of only 18 months that has access to credit and suddenly decides that it is wonderful to have a credit card without a spending limit and not to have to pay back the debt for another 30, 40 or 50 years. To hell with spending. They get into it, they spend and they will see later. Others will have to manage the debt. The children of our children will have to manage it.

However, a few people see things more clearly and tell themselves that borrowing is fine and well, but we have to at least pay back the interest on the credit card. The carbon tax, which is supposedly a tax to help protect the environment, is actually nothing but a way the Liberals have found to get even more money out of the pockets of taxpayers, families, SMEs and big companies to handle those large deficits.

When the Minister of Environment and Climate Change appears before the committee, she could answer those questions. Did she take action to improve the environment, to work on climate change, or did she simply react to an order from the Minister of Finance, who was unable to find funds anywhere other than in taxpayers' pockets? How to find money and make people pay by giving them the impression that it's the right thing to do? By imposing a carbon tax to protect the environment.

However, a tax is still a tax. The money taken out of people's pockets is money they cannot use themselves. That limits the decisions they will make with regard to their budget or actions they will take to protect the environment. The means to take action are being taken away from them.

I want to come back to the example of very small deficits that have now become very large deficits. We now understand better why, when we asked the Department of Finance to provide us with details on the real costs of the new federal carbon pricing strategy for Canadian families, those figures come to us blacked out. We understand why department representatives have no interest in disclosing those figures. It is because they know full well that people will be shocked and insulted by the extent of the costs for families.

That obviously affects the transportation industry. Many changes have been made. Bill C-49, which has been introduced, will allow foreign companies greater participation in airlines' shareholder structures. Some companies are trying to provide the most affordable transportation services possible. Very recently, the media reported that there are significant differences in the costs of regional transportation, be it in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. Airlines in particular are very worried about the competition they will see from foreign companies, especially when it comes to long flights, owing to the carbon tax they will have to pay on fuel. I heard that here during the meetings we had with airline representatives. Will we be hurting our airlines through these measures? I believe that question deserves to be asked.

Concerning airlines, we want to ask the Minister of Environment and Climate Change whether she has analyzed the repercussions of the carbon tax on the transportation sector. We want to know whether she has only considered the quantity of products sold and the quantity of carbon produced before imposing a tax in order to produce revenue, without looking into the effects the tax could have on companies' competitiveness or the accessibility of air transportation for middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class. We want to know whether the minister has assessed the effects on them, on their wallet, as well as on airline companies. The same reflection applies to transportation companies....

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Berthold—

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

—excuse me for just a moment.

We have folks here for the supplementary estimates. Could we stop for a minute and either let the witnesses go or deal with the supplementary estimates and then resume, if that is your desire, talking about this for the rest of the meeting? In fairness to the witnesses who are here, they should not be required to remain.

Is it the desire of the committee to move forward on the supplementary estimates that we have before us?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I just want to understand the situation, Madam Chair.