Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2017

Opposition Motion—Impact of Carbon Taxes

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I happen to have had the honour of working in the oil sands myself, doing environmental monitoring in the winter of 2009-10. Regarding the oil sands, the total aerial extent of the oil sands is 143,000 square kilometres, of which 700 square kilometres have been exploited and 70 square kilometres have been restored.

In terms of her point regarding pollution from various industrial facilities, what happens in modern industrial societies is that industrial processes keep getting better. I will never argue for environmental processes that cause environmental harm or human health damage.

The trend in modern industrial societies is for both the environmental performance of the economy and environmental quality to get better, and Canada is on that path.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about birds dying and that sort of thing.

I would like to remind him that, in 2010, a Canadian judge found the Syncrude oil company guilty in connection with the deaths of 1,600 ducks in a tailings pond at its oil sands site. I would also like to remind him that most experts around the world are saying that we must put a price on carbon.

Where are the Conservatives getting their information? Is it on the same websites where Donald Trump's team is getting its alternative facts?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the number of ducks that were killed in that incident was 500. A fall flight to North America is 48 million ducks. Therefore, let us put it in perspective.

It is very important that we address real and measurable environmental issues. I know some members will pooh-pooh the issue of birds. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change should engage the Migratory Birds Convention Act and have a really good look at the effects of alternate energy on some of our most vulnerable and endangered species. She is not doing that.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am happy to speak this afternoon to this motion. On its surface, it would seem to be about holding the government to account to commitments for openness and transparency. My two NDP colleagues, who spoke earlier, spoke to that theme of transparency. I have to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for pointing out the delicious irony of a Conservative motion asking for more openness and transparency.

There is another irony in the Conservative debate, and that is the focus of standing up for low-income Canadians. The first two speeches we heard from the Conservatives told stories of low-income people in Ontario who literally had to choose between heating their home and eating, or even being able to afford to keep their home at all. These stories say more about the low incomes of these citizens after years of unreasonably low pensions for seniors and people with disabilities, restrictions on employment insurance, bungled energy pricing, and a complete retreat from affordable housing than they do with any inflated fears about what carbon pricing might bring. Too many Canadians live below or near the poverty line, and we all should all be constantly working in the House to change that shameful record.

While some Conservative speakers have insisted that this is not an indictment of carbon pricing, it is clearly a tactic to attack that policy.

I want to spend much of my time talking not about the costs of climate action but the costs of inaction.

On a global scale, The Economist published an analysis that said that an increase of 5°C would cost at least $7 trillion. That is where we are headed if the world follows the policies of this and previous Canadian governments on climate action. That is more than the capitalization of the London Stock Exchange. Imagine the London Stock Exchange collapsing. That is what we are facing on the global front. Citibank has come up with an even more drastic cost estimate of over $40 trillion over the next 40 years.

In Canada, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy came up with estimates of the price of inaction back in 2011. That price for Canadians was put at $5 billion per year, and would rise to $43 billion by 2050. That estimate has not been updated lately because the previous government disbanded that round table, which did such good non-partisan work on this and other issues. Another thing the Liberal government could do is bring back the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

The federal government does come up with cost estimates as well, although they tend to be hidden as footnotes in other reports, as we have seen today. The latest figures are about $40 per tonne of carbon now, which would rise to $75 per tonne by 2050. These costs are still higher than the revenues brought in by any carbon pricing scheme in Canada.

Many of the costs of inaction are not well represented by dollars alone. The catastrophic fires at Fort McMurray last year, and those in my riding around Rock Creek, British Columbia the year before, forever altered the lives of thousands of people. Floods in Calgary had a similar impact. Calgary faces the opposite effect over the long term as the glaciers in the Rocky Mountains, the sole source of water for that city, disappear over the next century.

Ocean acidification is already impacting shellfish farms along the B.C. coast.

Forests are being devastated by more frequent fires and insect outbreaks across Canada, both driven by climate change. It is hard to come up with a cost for the mountain pine beetle epidemic that killed more than half of the pines in British Columbia in a few short years. Those beetles took off during a long period of year after year hot, dry summers and warm winters. That epidemic changed the forest industry of B.C. forever, hollowing out communities across the interior of the province, and is now threatening the Alberta forest industry.

Now that the salvage operations are over for the beetle kill, allowable cuts will be lowered significantly in B.C. over the next few years, exacerbating the economic impact. We are now facing spruce beetle epidemics in B.C. that are taking advantage of similar climate patterns.

Finally, there are deep cultural impacts that climate change is having, and will continue to have, in communities throughout the Canadian Arctic. These communities and cultures have developed over millennia, with traditions dependent on seasonal patterns of sea ice. Those patterns are changing quickly, and even disappearing. The effect this will have on Arctic communities is difficult to assess or even put into words.

The price of inaction is astronomical. We must look for ways to minimize these unacceptable costs. Pretty much any economist from any country in the world will tell us that the cheapest way to tackle climate change is to put a price on carbon. That action would minimize the ongoing impacts of climate change, both financially and socially, on all Canadians.

There are other actions that would help as well. One expert I recently talked to told me that efficiency is the best new fuel, so one easy action for the government to take would be to bring back the eco-energy home retrofit program. This popular program ran from 2007 to 2012 and helped hundreds of thousands of Canadians retrofit their homes, lowering their energy bills by 20%, creating thousands of good local jobs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by three tonnes per year for each house. While the program cost the federal government $900 million over about five years, it leveraged more than $4 billion in retrofit investments by Canadian families. When homeowners invest in new windows, insulation, and other energy-saving projects, that money circulates through communities across the country. The program combined everything that the Liberal government likes: leveraged infrastructure investments, carbon emission reductions, and helping the middle class and those struggling to join it.

The Conservatives, who usually champion policies that help the financial bottom line of Canadians, should get behind the price on carbon. Climate change is one of the biggest threats facing Canadians in the global community, and avoiding action now would cost all of us significantly in the long term.

I would remind the government that it promised to be open and transparent with Canadians, and it is beyond time that it clearly articulated how it will address climate change with a real plan. We have heard a lot about real change. Now we need a real plan. Several provinces have introduced measures to help low- and middle-income households adapt to measures to combat climate change, but there is no sign of federal leadership to ensure that fair programs are in place across the country.

We in the NDP want the government to build a just transition to a greener economy, one that creates good jobs across the country. That is what Canadians expect from the government, not foot-dragging.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for an excellent speech. I really appreciate the passion he has for this topic. It came out very clearly in his speech this afternoon, particularly as he talked about the impact of climate change and the cost of inaction. That is something our government has recognized, and it is why we are moving forward in such an aggressive way on this very important topic.

I would like the member's comments on the approach the government has taken with respect to tackling climate change; that is, the collaborative approach we are taking with the provinces. What we are doing is giving the decision-making authority to the provinces, working collaboratively with them, then empowering them to make the decisions as to how they are going to use the revenues they generate from the ways in which they improve their climate change approach.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, in many of these cases the provinces have jurisdiction, but what we need from this government is a sense of urgency and boldness. We heard a lot of talk in Paris that Canada was back and we were going to take action. Then we spent a year consulting Canadians across the country about what to do about climate change. I know I held several town halls in my riding, and members in the House all did the same. Everyone told me “We know what we need to do about climate change. You guys should be doing it”.

That is one thing I would say to the government. I am glad you are thinking about this, but we really have to get going and do it. We should have started a year ago.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that he might want to not use the word “you” and he should direct his comments to the Chair as opposed to the government.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the speech given by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa with the member who just spoke.

I just flipped to the Wikipedia page for the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, because I know he is one of British Columbia's leading bird experts. I found that he has written 12 books on birds in British Columbia.

Since the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa suggested that renewable energy was slaughtering our birds, I thought he might be able to tell me if it is correct that there are far more birds killed by striking office towers in urban centres than are affected by renewable energy, and that the biggest threat to the survival of bird life on this planet is the threat of climate change.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I could go on and on about birds, but I'll try to be succinct.

Yes, there are certain impacts that renewable energy projects have on birds, but we have done a lot of studies on this and we know how we can mitigate that. We know how we can operate wind farms to really reduce those losses, and some of the losses that the member mentioned were from years ago. As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned, it is really the relative numbers of birds that are killed by habitat loss from climate change are very high.

I will also mention cats, which is the one thing that humans have done to this world that really affects birds much more than wind farms ever will, and I know I will get some mail about that.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I should start with a rant as a crazy cat lady.

I respect my hon. colleague so much for the work he has done, the thoughtfulness he has put into his speech, and his understanding of the environment.

I have family members who were highly traumatized by the losses they experienced in the Fort McMurray fire. However, it is very disconcerting to know that people have lost their homes not only due to the actual destruction by the fire, but also because of the toxicity levels. Some people cannot go back into their homes for 30 years.

We heard a member ask if another member knew what photosynthesis was. Can we maybe go into the depth a little more of the basis for this carbon pricing initiative?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, on photosynthesis and carbon dioxide, we have long passed the time, years and years ago, when all the trees and plants in the world could take up the carbon dioxide we are producing; and that is what is causing this. The carbon dioxide levels are increasing in the atmosphere, we have the greenhouse effect, and the world is warming.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the preceding speaker, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, and in fact, the whole NDP caucus for allowing me 10 minutes to speak in this very important debate.

I have been struggling today. I keep thinking to myself that people who live in glass houses should not keep an abundance of stones. Every time a Conservative speaks, I find myself thinking, “Do you not remember the last 10 years of cancelling all the carbon plans?” There was a very decent, workable plan in place in 2005 and 2006 that was cancelled within weeks of Stephen Harper becoming prime minister. Three different times, Canada's carbon target was weakened. It has been referenced already that Stephen Harper put a cap and trade program into a plan that he never really intended to execute.

I do feel enormous empathy for the parade of environment ministers who suffered under that regime. I think they were all told that they would be able to deliver the plan. The current leader of the official opposition, who was the first minister of environment, said they were intending to reach Kyoto, and the rug was pulled out from under her. John Baird came along and said he had a turning-the-corner plan, that there would be regulations sector by sector. Nothing ever happened, except that we shamed ourselves in the world over and over again by obstructing global negotiations. That is something Canadians do not understand: how much, under the previous government, we did not just stand back, but we got in the way. Those are a few glass houses and stone moments that I wanted to get rid of before proceeding to a review of carbon pricing and what it means.

I did not get the chance to put this to the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa in questions and comments, but he said he had not heard anything about the Great Lakes. I remember distinctly that one of the Harper government budgets spent more money on barbed wire and fencing to go around the Great Lakes to make sure that terrorists were not getting access into Canada across the Great Lakes than for water quality. I just picked up the 2016 budget, and if we go to page 162, and several pages therein, we see there is finally a return to some Great Lakes policy; not enough, I have to say. I was part of the government back in 1986 to 1988 that put together the Great Lakes water quality strategy and a St. Lawrence cleanup plan, but at least there are some millions of dollars for the Great Lakes now.

It is really a rhetorical trick to have framed today's opposition day motion around the idea that electricity prices in Ontario are what we can expect everywhere if we adopt carbon pricing. Electricity prices in Ontario currently are very high, but they have nothing to do with carbon pricing. The only way we could replicate it across Canada is if we could somehow impose on every province the bad energy decisions made by Ontario Hydro for generations in building nuclear plants that created billions of dollars of stranded debt.

If we look at the breakdown of electricity prices for Ontario, and I urge everyone to google it and have a look, the number one price is the cost of generation, of course. Then there is the cost of distribution. The next biggest price, over $1 billion a year, is retiring the debt. This is related not to green energy but to nuclear energy.

There has also been a great deal of nonsense about the B.C. carbon prices and the carbon tax there. I want to put that to bed. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill did not cite a reference on this one. She was referring to the Fraser Institute report, which claims, falsely, that the B.C. carbon tax is not revenue neutral. For those listening who do not know the term “revenue neutral”, it means that for every $1 of tax taken in on carbon, $1 of tax is reduced on small business and individual British Columbians.

It is working very well, and the B.C. finance department has completely rebutted the Fraser Institute, but of course, the Fraser Institute is funded by the fossil fuel industry, the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil. We can examine the source and not be surprised. The finance ministry of B.C. says that the carbon tax has actually not been revenue neutral recently. It is giving more tax cuts than it is getting in revenue. In terms of how British Columbians receive it, it is a very positive thing.

Let me turn to what a price on carbon is and is not. It needs to be said really clearly that a price on carbon is not the magic silver bullet. We put a price on carbon in Canada and we have not reached our Paris targets magically. We have not averted the climate crisis magically. We need a whole range of measures, a whole suite of measures. What a carbon price attempts to do is correct market failure, because in that perfect world on the blackboard of economics 101, everything has an input cost.

We have materials and labour. Pollution is free. It is an externality to the economic equation, but it is not external to real life. It piles up. Whether it is the Sydney tar ponds and toxic waste that had to be cleaned up at a cost of $400 million, or whether it is the future cost of cleaning up the oil sands tailings ponds, or whether it is overloading our global atmosphere with warming gases that threaten, and I am not using hyperbole here as this is actually what is at risk, human civilization itself, this is not a free good, so we have to put a price on it so our free market system can actually pay attention to it. It almost does not matter, in response to the member for Calgary Nose Hill, whether we have elasticity of price or not. There is such a demand for gasoline that we would have to put a huge carbon price on to affect the demand for gasoline.

That is not the point of a carbon price. A carbon price is to make sure there is a signal at almost any level that this will cost something. It is to try to create some incentive, but on its own it is not enough. We need regulations and we need other plans. We need to bring on renewable energy so that we can decarbonize all of our electricity. That is a top priority. Ontario did it first, but others need to do it.

What kind of institutions favour a carbon tax? Looney left-wing ones? No. The International Monetary Fund says that every country needs to put in place a carbon price and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. This was a promise in the Liberal platform that we need to see executed. It has not happened yet. We still have fossil fuel subsidies for liquefied natural gas and dwindling but still in the oil sands. The World Bank also favours carbon pricing and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies. It is the same for the International Energy Agency.

The first carbon price that was applied by any nation was by Finland in 1990, followed by Sweden in 1991. By the way, the carbon price in Sweden is now hovering at around $150 a tonne. Norway applied its carbon price as it began to develop its North Sea oil resources. It was at the point of becoming potentially a petro-state but decided not to go that route. It decided not to let its currency be linked to the money that it was taking in. Norway took in royalties. It also applied a carbon tax. It now has a sovereign wealth fund, so as North Sea oil dwindles, it will have a $900-billion sovereign wealth fund.

Guess whose advice Norway followed when it did that? That was the advice of former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed. If only Albertans had followed the advice of former premier Peter Lougheed, there would be a huge amount of money to adapt to transitions. They would not have put all of their money into the bitumen basket, all of their eggs into the bitumen basket, of shipping out raw bitumen but would have followed Peter Lougheed's plan and had ancillary infrastructure for refining and upgrading.

Today's debate is about the Liberals revealing numbers. Guess what, folks? I do not think there are any numbers, because no one can know yet. In the absence of any federal role on carbon pricing or carbon action under the Harper era, we have a patchwork, because provinces began to take action on their own. Frankly, I am no fan of cap and trade. It is open to fraud and it is a difficult system. But they had nothing else going on, so Ontario and Quebec decided to work with California.

British Columbia brought in the best architecture of a carbon price with returning every dollar collected to reduce taxes across the province. Gordon Campbell would not have been re-elected without having brought in a carbon tax. He fell later on because he never told anyone he was going to bring in a harmonized sales tax, but that is another issue. Carbon tax saved him. HST took him down.

Here we are in a situation where we have a patchwork. The federal government has stepped up and I think the architecture of what it is proposing is very good. It is backfill and infill. The federal government is saying it is not going to tax on top of what B.C. is already taxing, which is already at $30 a tonne, or Ontario and Quebec and California. It wants to make sure there is an even playing field for business certainty to send out that carbon signal.

We need a carbon price that is uniform across Canada, but we do not know that every province is going to design a revenue neutral tax. I wish they would. We do know that the federal government will return to every province all the money it collects from that province if by the time the carbon tax rolls around that province has not designed its own system.

Frankly, all the people in the Conservative caucus who are suddenly concerned that there is going to be an impact by doing something need to think about the situation. There is no hidden report. The report they want was prepared under the Harper administration. If they want transparency, they should help everyone work together to deliver a carbon price that is effective, reduces pollution, and helps us move into a 21st century green economy.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are many things I could say on this topic and that the member and I might disagree on in terms of the specific issue of a carbon tax, but I do want to ask her about the transparency component of the motion, because the motion speaks to the fact that the government should release data about who would be most impacted by the carbon tax. The member and I might disagree about a carbon tax, but at the end of the day, I think we should agree that Canadians have a right to access that information. They can make an evaluation based on the information out there about the pros and cons of a carbon tax if they have all the data in front of them.

Would the member agree that Canadians should be able to see the data about who is paying more or less, vis-à-vis the carbon tax, so that they can come to an informed conclusion?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do believe in transparency. The specific document that the member for Carleton has found and he wants released was redacted because, as I understand it from other media commentary, it includes confidential advice to cabinet. That is the previous cabinet of the Harper government. It was prepared before the election, and who knows what form of tax it is imagining.

Where we are right now, we would have a series of hypotheticals. One hypothetical would be what if Saskatchewan developed its own carbon tax and it decided to go with $50 a tonne and it decided to put that $50 a tonne into renewable energy? The impact on Saskatchewan residents and homeowners would be entirely different than if the Government of Saskatchewan decided to put in a tax of $20 a tonne and make it revenue neutral.

We could ask the Department of Finance to give us a string of hypotheticals, because at this point the government of the day plans to bring in a very weak carbon price at $10 a tonne in 2018, and every province gets to do its own thing first, so we simply would only be able to guess at a series of options.

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

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Green Party is very much in tune with British Columbia, in particular the provincial government and the environment.

I am interested in the member's perspective on the price on carbon and how she feels from a local point of view how British Columbia has moved forward with respect to its policy on the price on carbon.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been astonished by how popular it is. Regarding the carbon tax in British Columbia, and I do not want to make a political comment because it is only through the good graces of the NDP that I am standing here, it was a fatal mistake of the NDP provincially to run an “ax the tax” campaign against the B.C. Liberals when they first brought it in, because British Columbians actually liked it. Because it was revenue neutral, there was more money in our own pocketbooks to decide, “I know the price of gas will go up, so the next car I get will be a gas miser, not a gas guzzler.”

My local airport is the Victoria International Airport, a very well-run and friendly airport, by the way. I parked my Prius in long-term parking on Monday to come back to Ottawa, and I was thrilled to see that there are brand new plug-in electric vehicle chargers for free in the airport parking lot.

We see electric chargers all over the place. I think Salt Spring Island may have the highest per capita ownership of electric vehicles, and it is not people who can afford to buy a Tesla, by the way. They are increasingly affordable cars because people do not have to put gas in their cars at all.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a brief follow-up to my previous question.

The member said the incidence, depending on income group, will depend on how a product is implemented, but I do not think that would be the case if we are talking about a tax on carbon, because a tax on carbon is a tax on carbon. Of course, the rebate could be different. What we do with the money could be different. However, if we charge a particular tax on carbon, that will have the same impact. The way it will impact will depend on what carbon we use, not on other factors. Is that not correct?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, briefly, no, because the impact is very dependent on whether the government is actually taking that money as revenue and keeping it or redistributing it immediately in tax cuts, so the effect on every household's income is entirely dependent. That is why I strongly favour carbon fee and dividend or, at the minimum, revenue neutral carbon pricing so people have more money in their own pocketbooks.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Women; the hon. member for Carleton, Employment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, who represents perhaps the second most beautiful riding in the country.

I want to take the opportunity to continue the dialogue I was having with the leader of the Green Party on some of these questions, but let me start first by introducing those who are watching at home to the topic that we are talking about and the importance of this motion.

This is a motion that deals with carbon taxes, but also more fundamentally deals with the issue of transparency. We had a Conservative member who asked the government to provide information about what the impact of the carbon tax would be on different income groups: for individuals who are very wealthy, what the impact is going to be of a carbon tax; for people who are struggling economically, what the impact is going to be; for those who are in the middle, what the impact will be; and so on and so forth. It is reasonable for Canadians to expect to have access to this kind of information so that they can make an informed decision. We are having a debate in this House about the possible merits and demerits of a carbon tax, but Canadians need to have full information about what the impact will be on their lives so that they can make an informed decision.

I know a lot of the discussion from all sides has been about the merits, and I will get into some of that as well, but the central point of this motion is whether or not members of the government and members of other parties think that Canadians deserve to have the full information. Initially, the Liberals had suggested that this information was not available, that they had no idea what the impact of this carbon tax will be on different people in different income groups. Then they said, “Actually we know, but we are just not going to tell you.” They came up with various excuses for redacting that information.

It is striking because if the government is so confident in this policy, then it should not be shy about giving all the information to Canadians and making its case in a transparent way, but in fact the government has not done that. The Liberals are not sharing this information. We can only suspect it is because they know and do not want to share, that there will be a disproportionate impact of this tax on those who are struggling, and that they are imposing a tax that will hit hardest those people who are worst off. They do not want people to know that, so they are hiding that information. We are saying the government should share that information so that we can have a clear and open debate.

There is one important question that this whole debate speaks to, but before I get to that, I was having an exchange with the leader of the Green Party specifically about the question of whether we can know the differential impact of a carbon tax given that the way in which this carbon tax will be implemented will vary from province to province. The member quite rightly made the point that there may be different rebates in response to the carbon tax, which will impact people in different income levels and the nature and volume of those rebates may vary from province to province. That is all true, but it does not change the fact that setting aside the rebates we can still have a discussion about what the impact of the tax itself will be on individuals in different income brackets. We should have this information.

The government purportedly has that information but will not share that information. It will be the same from province to province, because with a tax on carbon there are many different mechanisms through which it could happen. There are many different possible uses of the money by the government. However, a tax on carbon is a tax on carbon. At a certain value, we can know based on likely usage patterns of carbon what the differential implications would be. Again, most of the research would suggest that those who are least well off will actually pay the most when it comes to the carbon tax.

There is an important question in this discussion, and that question is, does big government help the poor? Are those who are least well off better off with a bigger government? That is the presumption of some on the political left, especially of the current government, that somehow invariably more taxes, more programs, more government intervention in people's lives is going to respond to questions of income inequality and is going to help those who are least well off. Frankly, the Liberals say it so often that they may actually believe it, but there is no evidence at all that big government is what people who are struggling economically need or want. In fact, in many cases we can see the opposite. We can see big government intervention policies being worse for those who are struggling economically.

In this context, it is important to revisit the record of the previous government, as well as the current government, when it comes to tax policy. The previous government lowered the GST; lowered the tax rate for the lowest-income bracket; raised the base personal exemption; made reforms to EI, which would have positioned us for significant reductions in payroll taxes; and introduced the small business hiring credit.

What do these tax changes all have in common? They all target those who are least well-off.

The GST is the tax that everybody pays. Raising the base personal exemption means that many low-income Canadians would no longer pay taxes. We took those policies and opened the door for lower payroll taxes. Again, these are taxes that anyone who is employed is going to pay and that max out at a certain point. The small business hiring credit, again, is aimed at cutting taxes in a way that would help people get jobs. These were all tax changes that we made that helped those who are least well-off.

The Prime Minister says, frequently, that Conservatives think that if we help those at the top, that is the way to help society. In fact, it is a fact, and he should know it if he does not, that the previous Conservative government actually did not make any changes to the tax rates for high-income earners. We only lowered the income tax rates for the lowest tax bracket, and we made other tax reductions and changes that stimulated economic activity by actually targeting that tax relief to those who are in the lowest tax bracket.

That is what low-income Canadians, those working hard to join the middle class, as well as those who are in the middle class, need; that is what they want.

What is the record of the present government when it comes to taxes affecting low-income Canadians? It eliminated various tax credits for families; it undid the EI reforms that we brought in; in fact, it is in the process of raising payroll taxes, through the changes that it is making to the pension program; it raised the small business tax rate; and it eliminated the hiring credit.

Already up to now, even before the carbon tax, we have seen the government raise taxes on those who are struggling the most, and its so-called middle-class tax cut provides no benefit whatsoever for those making $45,000 a year or less.

The government's decision to cut back the tax-free savings account maximum disproportionately affects those who are struggling economically. We know that, because of the relative impact of tax-free savings accounts versus RRSPs, tax-free savings accounts are often the savings vehicles of choice for the middle class and those working hard to join it, to coin a phrase, not for those who are on the higher end.

It is really striking, if we compare the realities of the record, that indisputably it has always been Conservatives who have been helping those who are economically struggling. We have done it, not by expanding government, but by lowering their taxes, and it is Liberals who have often, perversely, in the name of economic equality concerns, raised taxes, including raised taxes on those struggling. They have used the money to facilitate their government largesse, which ostensibly includes travelling around the world giving speeches about income inequality. They take from the poor to facilitate opportunities to speak in all kinds of fora about income inequality. I would say this is the height of cynicism, but we had the whole electoral reform flip-flop, so I will say it is close to the height of cynicism.

This brings us, though, to the carbon tax because, again, we see the government bringing in new taxes that target those, we suspect, who are struggling the most and its completely unwillingness to provide any kind of clear information about this at all.

I just want to say, in response to one of the points that have been made, it is important for Canadians to know that many of the Conservatives who the government has cited as supposedly supporting its approach to the carbon tax have actually been very critical of the current government's approach when it comes to carbon taxation. They have suggested other models, but they have not at all supported the government's approach when it comes to this area. I think that is an important clarification. We are the party that is helping people of all incomes but especially by targeting tax relief to those who need it most. It is the current government that is raising taxes for those who actually need the help the most.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's questions that he posed earlier. As the member tries to get a better understanding of the impact that the price on carbon is going to have on Canadians, it is important that the member and the Conservative Party recognize that because it is revenue neutral in terms of Ottawa, that means the price on carbon and the revenues generated by it will be going to the provinces. The impact it has on those individuals living in those respective provinces and territories will differ, as some provinces will put a higher priority on other things with respect to the revenues that are being generated.

Would the member not agree that if we really wanted to get the impact that they are trying to better understand, one of the things they might consider is to start talking with some of the provinces to find out what they plan to do with the revenue that is being generated? We know for sure that there is a general consensus of all political parties that a price on carbon is the right thing to do. That is what Canadians want us to do and that is what this national government is doing, but there is a role for our provinces.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians watching this will notice that at no point in today's debate do members of the government actually want to speak to the transparency issue. That is very clear. They actually do not want to because they cannot provide explanations of why, even though they are so convinced of the rightness of their position, they do not want to provide that information to Canadians.

I think members can hear in the questioner's comments just how slippery this term “revenue neutral” has become because revenue neutral used to mean that the people would get the money back. Now, “Oh, it is revenue neutral for Ottawa because we are taking money from people and it will go to a different level of government.” This redefinition of language to justify new taxes is consistent from the government, but certainly is troubling for many Canadians.

It is interesting talking about what is happening in the provinces. In Alberta, we have a province that has imposed a carbon tax that was not discussed in the election. If we talk to the people, we will find that these carbon taxes are very unpopular and very often imposed by provincial governments that do not talk about them before elections and are not listening to the objections of people on the ground. We are seeing that in Alberta as well as in Ontario.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

When it comes to climate change, the clock is ticking. Let us cross our fingers that it is not too late to prevent the earth's temperature from rising more than 2°C, since that would have irreparable consequences.

I know that the effectiveness of putting a price on carbon is up for debate. However, since the government is all talk and no action, what does my colleague think about the fact that this small measure will not even allow us to meet the targets and objectives that the Liberal government has set? Is this just more smoke and mirrors?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, in terms of climate change and in terms of these targets, it is a matter of public record that the previous government was the first government in Canadian history to lower carbon emissions. We did that while the economy was growing. If we look across the board at the different provinces, in every single province if we compare our record to the record of the previous government, emissions went down or they went up by less than they had under the previous Liberal government.

That impact of the policy that we implemented was evident across provinces and it was clearly evident internationally. Some would say it is just because of the global economic downturn, but the fact is our economy grew while our emissions went down and global emissions were growing at the same time, even though Canada was one of the countries least affected by the global recession.

I think it was because we had a policy that recognized that there can be economic growth while reducing emissions, but we have to be smart and targeted about how it is done and there have to be sector-by-sector intensity-based regulations that still allow economic growth and do not encourage businesses to shut things off and go to other jurisdictions, that they encourage business to invest here in Canada but also help us to advance ourselves economically and environmentally.

We had a record. It was working. We will happily put our record against the record of any Liberal government in terms of addressing economic as well as environmental issues.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to participate in debate in this place, although whenever a debate includes the subject of the Liberals' national carbon tax, it typically becomes almost a circular discussion.

Even on this side of the House, I have memorized the Liberal talking points on the topic, which can basically be summarized as the Liberals saying, “We are taking action on the environment after the previous government's inaction”. Here is one thing about those Liberal talking points. We all know that the Liberal government is using the very same targets for greenhouse gas reductions as the former Conservative government. In other words, when the former Conservative government took action to set those targets, the Liberal government agreed with them and now is using them. That is fact. That is not opinion. That is the problem with the entire Liberal mantra on carbon taxes. It is all smoke and mirrors.

Let me explain. Not long ago, the Liberals made hoopla announcing that they were ending coal burning power by 2030, despite the fact that most provinces already do not utilize coal power or are already on the way to doing precisely that. It sounded like the Liberals were taking action, yet quietly, the Liberals turned around and gave extensions to the two provinces that use coal power to continue doing so after the year 2030. In other words, that announcement was also all smoke and mirrors.

As I mentioned recently in the debate on the comprehensive economic trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, the Liberals say that they are taking action and leading the way with this carbon tax, but none of our major competitors, not the United States of America, not China, not India, and not Mexico, are following our lead with a national carbon tax. When people are not following us, we are not leading the way. In other words, we are going at it alone. Put another way, claims of leading the way are simply more smoke and mirrors.

I would like to take this discussion a step further. I am from British Columbia, where it is well known that B.C. led the way with a provincial carbon tax. Let us take a moment to talk about that, now that we have some empirical evidence to look at the outcome. I hear talking points from the Liberal members saying that they value evidence-based decision-making. It is curious, when they will not share the evidence with this place as to what the costs will be. It puts Parliament at a disadvantage, and they will not even admit that they are blocking that information. When the government does that, it does a disserve to every Canadian. Why? It is because we are their representatives. If we are to have a fair discussion about this, it should be sharing that information, something this motion calls for.

Let us go back to British Columbia. In 2008, at the time the B.C. carbon tax was introduced, basically 100% of the cement used in British Columbia was manufactured in British Columbia, and why not? Concrete is not exactly a lightweight, inexpensive product to import and transport from other jurisdictions. What happened when B.C. produced concrete that was subject to a carbon tax in 2008? It became more expensive. In fact, by 2014, British Columbia-produced concrete accounted for only roughly 65% of all concrete used in British Columbia, because cheaper concrete was being imported from jurisdictions with no carbon tax.

Because of this, the British Columbia government is now providing financial subsidies to the B.C. concrete industry. Of course, now we have the B.C. pulp and paper sector looking for similar carbon tax relief. It should also be pointed out that B.C. greenhouse growers have also secured B.C. carbon tax exemptions, not unlike many of Ontario's worst industrial polluters, which have also received extensions and exclusions from the Ontario cap-and-trade way of pricing carbon.

We all know, in every one of these situations, that these exemptions or subsidies are being provided to protect jobs and support local economies, but we must not overlook who we are protecting these jobs from. It is simple. It is from ourselves.

Here is the thing: while governments give exemptions and subsidies to these industries and corporations, the costs of all of these subsidies are being paid by taxpayers, who will also have to pay a carbon tax, if they are not paying it already. Of course, that is why we are all here today with this motion.

How much is the Liberal carbon tax going to cost Canadians? We do not know, because the current Liberal government refuses to come clean and share that information. Again, I say “evidence-based decision-making”. I guess the Liberals believe in evidence-based decision-making when it comes to their cabinet-making decisions, but they do not empower their own members of Parliament.

I felt embarrassed for those members when I asked them earlier if they thought it was fair in a modern western democracy that Parliament does not have the same information to debate the merits of one of the most important public policies the government has pushed ahead. They simply ignore and deflect. They talk about something else. It is not good for democracy and it is not good public policy.

They say that the Liberal carbon tax will be revenue neutral. If it is really revenue neutral, why then do the Liberals refuse to release the data that demonstrates that? Seriously, let us all be logical about this. If it were truly revenue neutral, the government would be releasing that data. We all know the reason why that data is being withheld from Canadians.

We can look at the theory of a carbon tax: put a tax on burning carbon so that it becomes more expensive and people will not be able to afford to burn it and thus will use less of it. Guess what? In Ontario, we now hear about something called energy poverty, where people can no longer afford to turn the heat on to stay warm in the winter or to cook their own food.

Global News ran a story of a 76 year-old man who was without heat and power for three months in a home he had occupied for 45 years, because of Liberal energy policy producing poverty. CTV ran a story of a senior citizen who had to sell his beloved truck just to pay the hydro bill.

Now, this is the Ontario energy poverty that Liberals want to bring in all across Canada with this new carbon tax. No wonder Liberals are hiding the data that show the true cost of what the Liberal carbon tax will cost Canadians.

Let us keep in mind that, while big corporations get exemptions, subsidies, and handouts, there is no relief for everyday Canadians left paying the bill, like that 76-year-old senior I referenced in Ontario. Is it any wonder that the same people responsible for devastating the Ontario energy policy are now working in the inside circle of the Prime Minister?

Before I close, I would like to add one final thought. Recently the Prime Minister stated that he believed that Canada needed to phase out the Alberta oil sands. Of course, that was before he decided to say while visiting Alberta that he misspoke. I mention this because, while the Prime Minister is forcing his carbon tax onto Canadians, at the very same time he is borrowing money to give to corporations like Bombardier so that it can develop a new luxury corporate business jet that will do nothing but burn carbon, and lots of it. Clearly, the Prime Minister sees a bright carbon-burning future at Bombardier, just not in Alberta. Once again, it is Canadians who will be footing that bill.

Given that we are literally seeing daily examples of the devastation of Ontario energy poverty in action, I submit that the current Liberal government has a moral duty to disclose the true cost to Canadians of this Liberal carbon tax. However, I believe that the Liberals are afraid to come clean, disclose the true costs, because they know that the price is something Canadians cannot afford, which is what Ontario energy poverty has shown us.

As every member in this place from Ontario well knows, people in Ontario are hurting due to Liberal-created energy poverty. I ask that we think of them tonight. I ask members opposite to consider their responsibilities. Even if members have the title “parliamentary secretary” added to their official titles, they are also members of this place and their job is to hold the government to account. Is it fair to Canadians whom they represent to not have that information so that they can listen to both sides of the debate and make their views known to their members of Parliament?

I ask that we think of those Canadians and support this motion.