Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2016

Paris Agreement

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was just reading through a recent document from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. One of the things it was wondering, and I would like to ask the same question, is whether the federal government is going to ensure that revenue collected from carbon pricing mechanisms directly facilitate businesses' transition to a lower-carbon economy, and that it does not go into general revenues. Further, the allocation of that revenue should be objective and transparent.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately the decision with respect to how the revenue from carbon pricing mechanisms work are going to be the purview of the provinces. The federal government is collecting no taxes and retaining no revenues. It is actually completely revenue-neutral from the perspective of the federal government.

In different provincial areas, governments have chosen to do different things. In British Columbia, the government has chosen to reduce income taxes as a way to utilize those revenues. In Alberta, there is a focus much more on accelerating the development of clean tech and renewable energy.

Members will find differences across the provinces, but thus far, we have seen very little willingness on the part of many of the provinces to look at simply putting it into general revenues. I think there really is an expectation that it will be used to further the transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary about carbon leakage, and the loss of manufacturing jobs to other jurisdictions with less rigorous carbon pricing, carbon costing. Does he have any suggestions on how the pan-Canadian framework could address carbon leakage?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on carbon leakage, again, the design of the systems will be largely provincial. However, there are a number of ways in which provinces can choose and some of them have chosen to deal with specific issues around carbon leakage in the past. There are trade-exposed industries that are dealt with in a particular fashion in British Columbia, for example, the cement industry. There are also discussions ongoing about things like carbon border adjustments and those kinds of things.

There are many different types of mechanisms, and that is something each province will work through. However, we are obviously happy to participate and be part of those conversations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the problem that we see with the carbon tax that has been introduced by the Liberal government.

Even though the Liberals are going to pass it off to the provinces and try to isolate themselves from consumers and taxpayers being upset about having to pay more in taxes, we have to remember that a $50-a-tonne tax on carbon will result in about an 11.5¢ increase in the price of gasoline. Does the parliamentary secretary realize that the hardest hit people by the carbon taxes the Liberals have introduced today are going to be rural Canadians?

It is going to be our farmers. It is going to be seniors living on fixed incomes who often have to drive from rural areas to urban centres to get the health care and medical attention they require. It will be these individuals who will be hit the hardest.

Why are the Liberals not considering the impact on rural Canada and how this would increase the production costs of food products right across this country?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would say is that any serious climate plan includes carbon pricing mechanisms. The question speaks to the fact that the previous government had no serious plan to address carbon emissions.

The revenue that is raised by provinces is under the purview of the provinces to decide how to actually return it back to taxpayers. They can use it for the purpose of things like generating activity in the clean technology and clean power space. To the extent that a provincial government decides that it wants to return the revenue back, in the same way that British Columbia does, that is certainly up to the province.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today and to follow the hon. parliamentary secretary. I will try to be as eloquent as he was.

It is important for me to speak to this issue today. It is very important for my constituents, as I found out during the course of a consultation in my riding on climate change. It is also one of the reasons the inaction of the previous government and, indeed, its distrust of science and scientists led me to leave my previous employment in the academy and seek public office.

I have to also admit, on a point of pride, that nothing makes a former teacher prouder than to see one of his students sitting in the House as Minister of Environment and Climate Change, which is precisely what happened.

I would like to elaborate and move the discussion from what my hon. colleague has just said.

First, I would like to acknowledge that Canada is committed to creating a cleaner and more innovative economy that reduces emissions and protects our environment, while creating well-paying jobs for the middle class and those who work hard to join it.

Today, the government is proposing its pan-Canadian approach to carbon pricing, as my colleague and the Prime Minister outlined this morning. Under the new plan, all Canadian jurisdictions will have carbon pricing in place by 2018. The Paris agreement emphasizes how Canada will harness the power of renewable energy as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada has to lead on this, and the government is proposing to lead on this, and this measure will lead us there.

However, for those who fear a carbon tax, this will be a good thing for our economy. Canada's renewable energy and clean tech industry will begin to play a much more critical role in our Canadian economy. It has developed a base already, but developing a strong Canadian clean technology industry is paramount to the development of a prosperous and sustainable low carbon economy, and we can help provide solutions globally to address the question of climate change.

This industry contributed $11.6 billion to Canada's GDP in 2014 and directly supported over 55,000 jobs across the country. These are quality jobs that sustain Canadian families. Canada's clean technology entrepreneurs are on a mission to innovate and create high-value, high-quality jobs that have a positive impact on climate change and the environment. There are close to 800 Canadian clean tech firms operating in Canada. Over 90% of these firms are small and medium-sized enterprises poised for growth.

These companies play a critical role in creating clean electricity, clean energy, and in reducing the environmental footprint for all of Canada's manufacturing industries, including our natural resource industries, helping them to become more efficient and more competitive internationally. This is a 21st century industry sustaining innovative advanced manufacturing jobs from coast to coast to coast and it is one that a carbon price will help spur, continue to grow, and create incentives to grow.

We want Canadian companies to be world leaders in using and developing clean, sustainable technologies and processes that can be exported worldwide. Achieving that goal will strengthen our economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2016 federal budget announced a number of investments, including $1 billion for clean energy technology, $2 billion for a fund that will help us work with the provinces to transition to a low-carbon economy; over $100 million for energy efficiency; and $50 million for Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

As part of the new trade and investment strategy and to make the most of the investments in budget 2016 and national plans for sustainable resource development, climate change, and innovation, we consulted Canadian clean technology exporters to find out how the government can help them compete in the global market.

This is a truly national sector with industry clusters, jobs, and commercial benefits stretching across the country. Canada has a strong industrial process cluster in Quebec, a mature water cluster and a renewable energy cluster in Ontario, and marine energy clusters on two coasts. We are the world's leader in carbon capture and storage, with projects stretching across the Prairies, including SaskPower Boundary Dam project, Shell Canada's Shell Quest project in Alberta, and the world's largest carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery project in Midale, Saskatchewan.

In the north, clean technology is even changing the way we mine at Raglan's nickel mine complex in Nunavik. Tugliq Energy, a company headquartered in the riding of my hon. colleague and member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, has implemented a new project setting a new standard for industrial scale wind energy in Canada's north. The project features leading-edge energy storage with an Arctic-grade wind turbine and has successfully demonstrated the economic and environmental benefits for Canada's northern mining operations and communities.

Green collar jobs are not low-skill, part-time jobs. They are jobs in innovative fields, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This new progressive sector is also noteworthy in that it attracts and employs youth. Twenty-one per cent of employees in the sector are under thirty years of age, a percentage well above the Canadian average.

In global markets, Canadian clean technology businesses punch well above their weight. More than 87% of our small and medium-sized clean technology businesses are exporters, and the clean tech industry as a whole generates more than 50% of its revenue in global markets.

Although the United States is still our largest export market, Canadian exports of clean technologies are very diverse, and more than 40% of those exports go to markets other than the United States. We now expect that exports will only increase with a sharp global shift to low-carbon economies.

In fact, Asia, Latin America and Africa have shown increasing interest in Canadian clean technologies. There are ample opportunities to increase exports. The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service has new programs such as CanExport, which provides direct financial support to small and medium-sized Canadian firms to help them find new markets, and is ready and eager to help these companies prepare to enter global markets and be successful.

Canadian clean technology firms embody Canadian innovation. The technological dynamism of these firms has contributed to innovations across a broad spectrum of sectors, including renewable green energy, green infrastructure, natural resources, and green transportation.

The Canadian clean technology sector invested approximately 10% of total sector revenue, or $1.2 billion back into research and development in 2014. That is more than 10 times the Canadian average of 0.9%. It even exceeds research and development investments of well-known innovative sectors, such as aerospace and oil and gas.

It should also be pointed out that three-quarters of clean technology research and development spending was made by Canadian SMEs. They firmly believe that strategic investments in innovation are the foundation for sustainable growth, and so do we.

Environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand. Clean technologies are a key part of the government's approach to promoting sustainable economic growth, and they play an important role in fulfilling our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This sector has many benefits for the environment. For example, technologies implemented by 66 companies and funded by Sustainable Development Technology Canada have led to a reduction in greenhouse gases of 4.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2014 alone. This is equivalent to taking 950,000 vehicles off the road for one hour.

Canadian businesses in that industry are net exporters and help countries all around the world reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

For instance, I had the opportunity to visit Canadian Solar, based in Guelph, in my hon. colleague's riding. It is one of the largest manufacturers of photovoltaic systems in the world.

Our government wants to make Canadian firms leaders in the use and development of clean technology, and carbon pricing is a good step to get us there.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 in my community, logging companies were going to log 90% of Meares Island and most of Clayoquot Sound. The chiefs in that community stood up for the environment. They stood up for what was important. They were being told that the land had to logged for the sake of jobs. Environmentalists, business people, even loggers stood with them, and people from across Canada and around the world. They knew that we could not keep going, that it was unsustainable to continue down this path of destruction. Therefore, they decided to do things differently. They did not have the answers, but they took a bold and important leadership role to stand up for what was right.

Today, we have the answers. We know we can lower emissions through green energy, clean energy, and clean rapid transportation. We can do it right.

Knowing we are facing the greatest crisis of our time, will he share that bold leadership that the chiefs of Clayoquot Sound and the people in the war of the woods did to stand up for the environment? Today, we are not even meeting the U.S. commitment to meet the 30% reduction commitment by 2025. Why can we not at least join the Americans in their commitment to reduce emissions by 30% by 2025? We know Sweden has grown its economy by 50% and has reduced emissions by 25% since it signed onto Kyoto. Therefore, it can be done.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's passion for this. I believe we are showing leadership. We led in the signing of the Paris accord. We will lead in the implementation of the Paris accord across the world. We fully intend to continually push our targets. What they are today is not necessarily what they will be tomorrow. We intend to meet the commitment we made under Paris, and we intend to lead along the way.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba we take climate change very seriously. We are the home base for an organization called the International Institute of Sustainable Development. It has determined that the average winter temperature has increased 3° over the last 40 years. If the trend continues, and unless we move forward with this plan there is little hope that it will not, we will see winters that are 7° warmer by mid-century.

Is the hon. member aware that the Manitoba Conservative government, which was elected last April in the provincial election, stated in its throne speech that it would adopt a climate action plan that would, “include carbon pricing that fosters emissions reduction, retains investment capital and stimulates new innovation in clean energy, businesses and jobs?” This is the brand new Conservative government in Manitoba, led by a former member of Parliament of this chamber.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I am aware. I know that 85% of people in Canada are already living in a province or territory committed to carbon pricing. Most experts say that carbon pricing is the way to go. Therefore, it is not surprising that we would find support on all parts of the political spectrum, including members of the Conservative Party across Canada, and former leaders, such as Preston Manning, who have come out in favour of carbon pricing as the solution moving forward.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement by the member. I am sure he is also aware that the Premier of Alberta, who has been brought up many times today, has said that unless Alberta gets a pipeline to tide water, it will not sign on to this agreement; they are done.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the process for the approval of pipelines is another way in which we are trying to balance economic need with a primordial mission to protect the environment against climate change. We have established a good set of processes, and we are moving forward in good faith on all of those various projects.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Essex, International Trade.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great privilege this afternoon to speak to Motion No. 8, the Paris climate change accord. I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

Canadians coast to coast want a say in this issue of climate change. It is interesting. From the the Paris agreement, the Liberal government has all of a sudden adopted the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that were set by the previous Conservative government. Imagine that. The previous government, I will just let members know, set the 30% reduction of GHG by 2030 over the 2005 levels.

Granted, this is an ambitious goal, although it gives businesses time for planning to address the global emissions. We need a fair and effective approach to international efforts on climate change, and this must, as we all know in the House, include all of the world's major emitters of greenhouse gases. Keep in mind, Canada represents only 1.6% of the global GHGs. Our government established reduction targets. We went from 1.9% down to 1.6% in our time of government.

The Province of Saskatchewan is trying to be a leader, as we all know, in carbon capture technology. Carbon capture technology can help to minimize CO₂ emissions. While it might not be perfect in certain situations in the eyes of some environmentalists, it is seen as a way for the world to transform to renewable energy. There has to be a balance, as coal-fired power plants may still have sustainable life, not only in my province of Saskatchewan, but next door, in Alberta. Using these facilities will extend the life of many jobs and many local communities in these two provinces, not to mention that there should be some spin-off in selling this technological change worldwide. We can all point to China, as the Chinese are now building one new thermal coal plant every 10 days or so.

Right now, the Boundary Dam near Estevan is one such area in the province that is trying to be that world leader. The Boundary Dam has captured one million tonnes of CO₂ this past year. That is equivalent to 240,000 cars being taken off the road, in a province that only has a population of 1.1 million. Saskatchewan mining operations continue to reduce the energy and water usage, and the GHG emissions, through initiatives such as heat recovery co-generation, continuous mining, remote control mining, and the use of electric vehicles. I saw this first-hand when I visited one of the mines about two weeks ago in Allan, Saskatchewan.

This takes time, and with the economy on the brink of disaster, time is needed. That is why the Province of Saskatchewan and our opposition government on this side of the House do not support the Vancouver declaration. Once the lone wolf of reason, Saskatchewan has recently been joined by all three territories, and now Nova Scotia.

Brad Wall, the Premier of Saskatchewan, said today in the legislature, “The level of disrespect shown by the Prime Minister and his government is [ridiculous]. Today is “stunning” in the House of Commons”. Wall made the comments to the Regina Leader-Post, saying the PM unilaterally imposed the carbon on the provinces and the territories. The premier said, “This meeting [this morning was] not worth the CO₂ emissions it took for [all] environment ministers to [head to Montreal for discussions...]. This is a betrayal of the statements made by the Prime Minister in Vancouver this March.” That was when they had their meetings.

The Saskatchewan environment minister, Scott Moe, also said today, “the carbon tax will cost each family in [Saskatchewan] about $1,250 a year and the province $2.5 billion, while at the same time threatening jobs in the energy sector. [...][facing] a tax could be on par with Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Program [introduced in the 1980s].”

We all know what that led to: ongoing animosity between western provinces and Liberal governments.

I might add that Aaron Wudrick, from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, also slammed the current government, in that an average Canadian family could pay nearly $2,600 per year in new taxes by 2022. Canadians should hang on to their wallets.

These are the numbers that are now coming out. We had not talked about these numbers until I brought them to the House: $1,250 per family in Saskatchewan, and nearly $2,600 per family by the year 2022.

SaskPower, by 2030, wants to be 50% renewables: hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal. There is no guarantee on wind, so it needs to back that up with gas generation.

Saskatchewan, as we all know, and as has been mentioned before in the House, has three coal-fired power plants in the province: Boundary Dam, Shand, and Poplar River. Saskatchewan feels that it is being singled out unfairly over this carbon tax, dealing with agriculture, with vehicles, and with utilities. Other provinces, like Manitoba, B.C., and Quebec, have the advantage with hydro, which may be the cleanest resource of them all. All three provinces are exporting to the United States. Therefore I ask: Would Manitoba sell its hydro to a province like Saskatchewan cheaper than it does to the United States, which it is currently doing today?

I was also reminded on Friday night, when I was going back home, that Saskatchewan companies right now, like many in this country, are exploring all possibilities on new energy. The former Liberal MP, Gary Merasty, is president of Des Nedhe Development. It is in my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood. Many of its workers were on the same plane that I was, from Toronto to Saskatoon, on Friday night. We had a good handful of officials, and they had been in Germany looking at wind power possibilities. The Saskatoon delegation, somewhat upbeat I might say about their exploratory trip, were feeling that it may help their situation back home in Saskatchewan. This is what companies in Saskatchewan and Canada are doing. They are reaching out worldwide and sharing information.

We fundamentally oppose efforts by the current federal government to increase the overall tax burden of Canadian taxpayers. I gave members the numbers earlier: $1,250 for each family in Saskatchewan, and nearly $2,600 Canada-wide for every family by 2022.

On the overall tax burden on Canadian taxpayers, and certainly over what the plan would look like, we are chasing away investment. This has resulted, as we all know, in the loss of thousands of Canadian jobs in Alberta and Saskatchewan, all dealing with the oil and gas sector. It has had major impacts on those two provinces, along with Labrador and Newfoundland.

What is really disturbing is a recent report released by Meyers Norris Penny, which showed that 64% of people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are living within $200 a month of not being able to pay their bills and debt. Laid-off workers and families are not the only ones who are hurting now.

Adam Legge, the president of Calgary Chamber of Commerce, said that, “greenhouse operations [in Alberta] will be taxed for carbon-incentive products they currently use, such as fertilizers”.

The reason that the Saskatchewan government turned down a wind power project near Chaplin, Saskatchewan the environment minister said, was that “potential impacts on migratory birds were [simply] too great”. This is the reason that the government could not approve the project.

I might add that groups like Ducks Unlimited also have a big say in western Canada. We have a great Ducks Unlimited organization in our province. It has done a tremendous amount of work.

A previous Conservative government reduced the carbon emissions and grew the economy. We are stalled right now, and that is why provinces and the territories today are more than skeptical about the Vancouver declaration developing a pan-Canadian network on clean growth and climate change.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthy of noting that earlier today we took a strong step forward for the country in dealing with one of the most important environmental issues of our nation, and that is the issue of climate change. Our Prime Minister clearly enunciated how important it is to all Canadians. We, as a government, are listening to what Canadians want, and this is something that we believe Canadians expect of the government.

There have been negotiations and discussions among different provincial and territorial leaders, indigenous people, and world leaders. It is all coming down to a very positive statement from the House

I wonder if the member would acknowledge that the resolution we are debating today is in fact worth supporting. It sends a message that Canadians want to hear, and it sets into place tangible action.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member heard my speech. I talked openly about the premier of Saskatchewan today and the level of disrespect shown by the Prime Minister and the government in the House of Commons today.

The people of Saskatchewan are not happy. When they find out their taxes are going up $1,250 by Saskatchewan statistics, we are not going to be happy coast to coast to coast.

I was happy about the Paris accord, but I am certainly not happy with the Vancouver declaration and will not vote for it in this.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for sharing his views on this issue. In Courtenay—Alberni, just in the last few years, we have seen flooding in our community. We seen the banks of the Somass River and the Puntledge River break. We have seen drought, and on Mount Arrowsmith the snowpack was gone by June in 2015. We have never seen that before.

Our salmon could not even make it upstream and it rained just in time for our salmon run. Infrastructure has been stressed in all of our municipalities from drought and flooding. We have seen Humboldt squid from California show up on our coastal beaches. This has never been seen before.

With acidification in Baynes Sound and forest fires, it is an urgent situation we are facing. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy forecasts that the impacts of climate change will cost us between $21 billion and $43 billion a year by 2050.

Would it be fiscally responsible not to transfer the tax burden to future generations but to mitigate that right now and invest in tackling climate change in a urgent manner like other countries, such as Sweden, have done?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, there are companies in the province of Saskatchewan and elsewhere in Canada that are going worldwide. We all know that we want to work on fair climate change plan, but what does it look like? My province right now has unemployment of nearly 8%. Next door in Alberta it is over 8%. So where are we going? All I am saying is that there needs to be a balance, which takes time because government and business need to get on the same page, which does not happen overnight.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have listened to the speech by my hon. colleague, who has very strong support from his constituents in Saskatchewan. First and foremost, he has talked about the average Canadian, the guy who works hard, pays taxes, and wants to see his wages well used by government.

Today is a bad day for Canadians because, as the Prime Minister said in question period, the government will impose a new tax. More than that, there is a new fight between the federal government and the provinces.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about these new sunny ways of the government.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is not revenue neutral. We were told today in this place that it is revenue neutral. We already have stories out there. The price of gas is going up 11.5¢ a litre. In my province, we import a lot of vegetables in the winter. We cannot grow vegetables when it is minus 40°, so this is not going to be revenue neutral. We have been told by the premier of Saskatchewan that it is going to cost families $1,250 a year. We have been told by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that it is going to cost homeowners over $2,600 a year by the year 2022. We were told this is revenue neutral. I say to the members across the way, as the premier of Saskatchewan said today, it is not revenue neutral.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House to speak to this issue of climate change. I believe it is one of the greatest environmental challenges of our time. This file has befuddled federal governments for over two decades. I am glad to see that the current government has come forward with a plan.

I note that the current government has adopted the targets established by the previous Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper at Copenhagen for a 30% reduction in greenhouse gases below 2005 levels by 2030, even though in Paris, I note that the current government said this target was a minimum target and that it would come forward with a stronger target. Clearly, that is not the case.

I would also note that the Liberals promised in their election platform that “targets must recognise the economic cost and catastrophic impact that a greater-than-two-degree increase in average global temperatures would represent”. That is on page 40 of their platform.

To be clear, the House should know that the 30% target adopted by the government does not meet that election commitment to keep global warming to a two-degree limit.

However, I commend the government for coming forward with some plan so that the House can debate it. I have long believed that the federal government needs to do better in reducing emissions. That is something I have said, not just on this side of the aisle but consistently when we were sitting on the other side of the aisle.

The way to reduce emissions is to price carbon, to take what is an externality in our economic system and internalize it by pricing it; but there is a right way to price carbon and there is a wrong way to price carbon.

The right way to price carbon is based upon three important principles. The first is to have consistent prices across all regions of the country and across all economic sectors. The second is to ensure that no backdoor equalization takes place. The third principle is revenue neutrality, not to the government collecting the revenue, but revenue neutrality to the taxpayer who is paying the revenue.

Those three principles are incredibly important.

The first principle, which is to have a consistent price across all economic sectors and across all regions of the country, is important because we would otherwise distort our national economy and do great damage both to consumers and companies.

The second principle, that there be no backdoor equalization, is also equally important because in the constitutional structure of our federation, the provinces own the resources and should enjoy the full benefits of those resources. A province like Alberta, with over 65 tonnes emitted per citizen, or Saskatchewan, with closer to 70 tonnes emitted per citizen, would have money taken out of their jurisdiction by a potential system and redistributed across the country. That cannot be allowed to happen because it would be nothing more than a backdoor equalization program and would be unfair to those provinces that have the resources they are developing.

The third and final principle, I believe, is the most important one. It is the principle of revenue neutrality for citizens and taxpayers across the country. Here is why this is such a critically important question. The government has proposed a $50-per-tonne price on carbon by 2022. In a 750-megatonne economy, that is the equivalent of close to $40 billion a year in revenues to various governments and in various schemes. That represents 2% of GDP. If we assume that after 2022, the government's plan is to continue to increase it at a rate of $10 per tonne per year, we would end up with a price of around $125 a tonne by 2030. That would be the equivalent of $66 billion a year, assuming that the $125-per-tonne target achieves a 30% reduction in emissions to 525 megatonnes. This revenue of $66 billion a year would represent over 3% of Canada's GDP.

This third principle is the most important one, because if there is no revenue neutrality for the taxpayer and families and citizens across this country, then we are about to embark on one of the largest tax grabs in Canadian history. That $66 billion a year represents over one-fifth of federal government revenue. It is a huge chunk of change.

Let us judge the Liberal plan on these three principles: the principles of consistent pricing, no backdoor equalization, and revenue neutrality.

On the first principle, the government should be given a checkmark. It has established a consistent price across the country. It has also designed it so that the price would be gradually ramped up in order to prevent a shock to the economy, from $10 a tonne in 2018 to $50 a tonne in 2022. Presumably, the price is going to reach closer to $120 to $130 a tonne by 2030. On the first principle, the test is met.

On the second principle of no backdoor equalization, the test has also been met. The federal government, by mandating that the provinces collect these revenues and that where provinces do not collect these revenues, the federal government would do it on their behalf and fully remit the transfer back to the provinces without any strings attached, means that the second principle has been met.

However, the third principle of revenue neutrality has not been met. As I said earlier, by revenue neutrality I do not mean revenue neutrality in terms of the government's use of that money for government programs or balancing its budget or other forms of government initiatives. I mean revenue neutrality so that the ordinary Canadian family, the ordinary citizen, will come out no further ahead or behind under any carbon pricing scheme.

That is not the case here, because the federal government will allow this system to be established in a way that allows governments to spend the money. As I mentioned earlier, by 2022 we are talking about 2% of GDP, some $38 billion, assuming a 750 megatonne emissions level. It will still be roughly 750 megatonnes in 2022, because every economist and every expert has told us that the reductions in emissions do not really kick in until the back half of the plan, when the price starts getting closer to $100 plus a tonne. By 2022, we are looking at $50 a tonne and 750 megatonnes and a cost of $38 billion a year. That is more than $1,000 per person in this country. For a typical family of four, we are looking at imposing about $4,000 in additional costs. By 2030, we could be looking at imposing an additional cost of $7,000 on a typical Canadian family of four.

In contrast, the much-ballyhooed Liberal middle class tax cut saved those middle class taxpayers just under $3 billion a year. Compare and contrast the much-ballyhooed middle class tax cut of just under $3 billion a year with a tax grab in the form of a non-revenue neutral carbon tax of closer to $38 billion a year in 2022 and $66 billion a year by 2030.

The federal government has missed a huge opportunity to use these revenues to reduce income taxes. It could have used constitutional power over taxation, over the regulation of interprovincial trade and commerce, and its powers with respect to the Criminal Code, with relation to toxic substances, and with respect to international trade to convince the provinces to adopt a nationwide scheme that truly would have been revenue neutral.

This plan reminds me of the plan the Ontario Liberal government introduced almost a decade ago, called the Green Energy Act, a plan that used public money to subsidize all sorts or renewable energy in Ontario and that has put a huge burden on Ontario families and cost them an enormous amount of money, with an almost doubling of their electricity bills. This plan will go down the same path, and I fear that the Liberal government has just sown the seeds of its own demise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on recognizing the fact that climate change is real, for starters, and a problem. I hope I can say the same for the rest of his colleague, but I am not sure if I can.

I listened to his description of the math and the taxes and how they add up, but I think he is missing the fact that the whole reason we want to tie this to the economics is so that it drives incentive within the companies to decrease their emissions, to decrease their contributions to carbon. Therefore his math will not add up because he is basing it on what present day emissions are worth. Give this two years to be phased in and then a gradual increase over the following five years.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we see clearly when we read the economic research on carbon pricing that the initial introduction of a carbon price has little impact on emissions. It is not until the price reaches its final stages further down the line that it actually starts to significantly reduce emissions. In other words, the reduction in emissions is not linear; it is exponential and the significant decreases come at the tail end of the pricing scheme and not at the initial stages.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little frustrated by the debate in this chamber between Liberals and Conservatives who are arguing about different ways to get to the same inadequate targets.

We know that the Harper targets that have now been adopted by the Liberals will not save us from the disasters that are looming in our economy, not just in society. I am not talking in general terms about loss of species and all those things that are very important, but we have had the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy advising us that the economic impact on Canada of climate change will be between $21 billion and $43 billion per year by 2050.

When the Conservatives talk about the impact of this tax that should be neutral on households, what about the extra insurance premiums they will have to pay? What about all the other costs that climate change will drive into their homes?

I think both sides need to get serious about some targets, some levels of carbon pricing that are real, not $10, which is half of what the provinces are already doing, and take some real action, because carbon pricing alone will not meet this challenge.

We will also have to have some very serious investments in the public projects we need in transportation to meet the challenge of climate change.