Debates of June 6th, 2017

Carbon Pricing

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Oshawa, for leading this motion today and for all his work on behalf of taxpayers and all Canadians.

Transparency is vital to Canada's free democracy, especially when it comes to spending Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars and making decisions, like on the carbon tax, that would seriously impact their ability to make ends meet and the whole economy.

Today's motion calls on the Liberals to open the books, to do what they promised to do and be honest with hard-working Canadians about the impact of the carbon tax on their lives. The Liberal carbon tax will make things so much worse for families and businesses in Lakeland, across Alberta, and in all of Canada.

Before the Liberals unilaterally announced that they would force the carbon tax on all Canadians, the Department of Finance completed two analyses on how much this tax would cost, its economic consequences, and how it would affect Canadians. Both documents were released through an access to information request, but all the detailed information was blacked out.

Canadians should know what their government is doing with the collection and spending of their hard-earned tax dollars and how the government's fiscal decisions will impact them. However, the Liberals are keeping all this a secret. Obviously, the Liberals are hiding information they do not want Canadians to know. Perhaps the documents prove that the carbon tax will harm Canadians by raising the price of everything for everyone.

A carbon tax supporter, professor Nicholas Rivers, admitted that the Liberals' national carbon tax would increase the price of gasoline by 11¢ a litre, electricity bills by 10%, and natural gas by 15%. It is a burden Canadian families should not have to bear. In fact, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation calculated that the national carbon tax will cost more than $1,000 per person, or more than $4,000 per family of four, annually.

The redacted documents probably show that low-income Canadians, the most vulnerable, will be hurt by this tax the most. Low-income families in Canada spend a majority of their household income on basic necessities, including food, heating, and gas. This tax will disproportionately hit them with cost hikes on essentials.

The Liberals have promised time and time again that transparency is their most important principle. They have created this facade by posting mandate letters online, starting endless studies and reviews, and consulting on consultations, but when it comes to comprehensive, meaningful, internal information that should be available to all Canadians, the Liberals are shutting the books.

In 2016, the parliamentary budget officer said that the Liberals' first budget was “less transparent than [any] Conservative budgets under Stephen Harper and overestimates the number of jobs that will be created”. Fast forward to this year and the same independent parliamentary budget officer chided the Liberals for their lack of transparency on spending.

In the 2015 campaign, the Prime Minister talked a big game about transparency, and in fact, the Liberal Party's campaign website has an entire section entitled: “Openness. Transparency. Fairness. Making government work for Canadians.” The platform says,

At its heart is a simple idea: transparent government is good government. If we want Canadians to trust their government, we need a government that trusts Canadians.

However, the Liberals' actions speak much louder than their words. Hiding these reports goes against the most fundamental promise the Liberals pledged to Canadians for 78 days, and regularly ever since. Here we are, day 596 into their mandate, and it is clear that the Liberals are all rhetoric almost all the time, leaving a trail of broken promises.

The Liberals love to talk about transparency. In fact, they have said the word in one form or another a combined 1,358 times in the House of Commons and at committee since they took office. That is a lot of talk for a party that does the complete opposite.

The Liberals must be transparent about the costs of their nationally imposed carbon tax, especially since much of the information they have presented does not make sense or add up and because the carbon tax will hurt most the very people they claim to care about. The key tenets of the Liberals' argument for the carbon tax, that it would be revenue neutral and would reduce emissions, are actually verifiably false.

The Liberals told Canadians that the tax would be a neutral price on carbon. First, there is no guarantee whatsoever of any so-called revenue neutrality in every province, and recently, the Library of Parliament revealed that Albertans and British Columbians will pay $280 million in GST on the carbon tax over the next two years. The Liberals cannot claim that the carbon tax is revenue neutral when the federal government will collect millions in GST revenues from taxing the tax.

The member for Newmarket—Aurora said, “To characterize something as a carbon tax is not doing that person any justice. We all know it is a revenue-neutral plan. Just because people keep calling something a carbon tax does not make it a carbon tax.”

That is nonsense. It is obvious it is a tax and it is obvious the cost will be passed on to consumers. In fact, the member for Carleton found out recently that internal government documents show that the tax will cascade through the Canadian economy. Since the Liberals are forcing this tax on all Canadians, then Canadians deserve to fully understand what it will cost them.

The member for Vancouver Quadra said that British Columbians are “proud that the emissions were driven down over a number of years by this carbon tax”, but in fact, in every year since 2010, emissions in B.C. have actually increased. They have gone up every year. There has been no significant reduction in gasoline purchases, which should concern proponents on that side, since transportation is the second-highest sector for emissions.

What is worse, resources and other industries, such as cement manufacturing, have been hit hard by the tax. Cement that used to be manufactured completely in B.C. is now being imported from jurisdictions with no carbon tax. Rural growth has stalled. However, the left spins a different tale.

The Prime Minister said just this month that a carbon tax is something “everyone can understand”, but they do not. In a way, they cannot, because the very nature of the Liberals' carbon tax is not transparent. The cost is hidden in the price of groceries, at the gas pump, in the price of meals at restaurants, in heating bills, in annual school board fees required for additional resources for transport, in future municipal tax hikes or service cuts to cover the added costs to their thin budgets, in recreational cost increases, in hikes in refrigeration and heating costs, and in job cuts.

Therefore, this motion calls for maximum clarity for customers on bills, invoices, and receipts to show Canadians exactly how much this tax will cost them. As much as the Liberals and the left want to deny it, this tax will punish Canadians. Just as in the case of the HST and GST, it should be clear to everyone why their everyday bills are suddenly more expensive.

Transparency can always be improved. Throughout the years, access to information requests have been a valuable tool for opposition MPs, journalists, and Canadians to find out information from federal departments on a variety of issues, and on spending in particular. Of course, the Liberals made this a specific pledge in their election platform, which states, “We will amend the Access to Information Act so that all government data and information is made open by default in machine-readable, digital formats” and “We will also ensure that Access to Information applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices, as well as administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts.”

Of course, like so many others, this promise has yet to come to fruition.

The President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible, even announced this past March that any access to information reform would be delayed indefinitely. He then skipped out on the Transparency for the 21st Century conference organized by the Information Commissioner herself. It is just another example of the Liberals saying one thing to get elected and then doing something, anything, else.

The carbon tax will kill jobs, especially in remote, rural, and agriculture- and energy-based communities. I have heard from business owners in Lakeland who are predicting layoffs because they are already struggling to stay afloat. Small and family business owners who may employ half a dozen or a dozen employees but whose businesses are significant to their communities will be forced to make decisions they do not want to have to make: raising operating costs or prices, decreasing output, cutting wages and benefits, or laying off their employees. All Canadians deserve to know how much the tax will cost them in every aspect of their lives.

The Liberals' pattern of breaking promises and blaming others is getting old. Whether they are low income, the poor, middle-class Canadians, families, single parents, seniors, people on fixed incomes, businesses, or charities, all Canadians deserve better.

I support this motion. I thank my colleague. I urge all members of this House to support it too. The Liberals need to walk their talk because, in their own words, it is a matter of trust.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, I will let the parliamentary secretary know that there are only about nine minutes remaining in the time provided for private members' business. Of course, if she needs all 10 minutes, we will get the extra minute tacked on the next time this particular motion comes before the House.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that Canada has worked to put carbon pollution pricing at the centre of our plan to deliver on our commitment to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030. Experts in Canada and globally recognize carbon pollution pricing as an essential tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost and for stimulating investment in green infrastructure and low-carbon technology.

A report issued on May 29 by an international panel of experts led by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Lord Nicholas Stern, former chief economists of the World Bank, concluded that a well-designed carbon price is an indispensable part of a strategy for efficiently reducing greenhouse gas emissions while fostering economic growth. Carbon pollution pricing uses the market to drive clean investment decisions, encourage innovation, and reduce emissions.

Carbon pollution pricing can do all of this for a number of reasons. First, it provides flexibility. Instead of government deciding what actions must be taken, pricing allows businesses and consumers to take advantage of their own least-cost options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to continue to reduce their emissions as long as it is cost-effective for them to do so.

Second, carbon pollution pricing will help Canada to transition to a low-carbon economy. Carbon-intensive goods become more expensive. This encourages consumers to shift their purchases toward less carbon-intensive goods and for investors, industry, manufacturers, and retailers to respond to the growing demand for low-carbon products.

Third, carbon pollution pricing will help position Canada to compete in the low-carbon economy. Carbon pollution pricing provides an ongoing incentive to innovate, especially if the price on carbon pollution is expected to gradually increase over time. Canadian businesses and investors know that carbon pollution pricing will foster innovation and create new job prospects. That is why many of Canada's leading companies from diverse economic sectors, such as Suncor, Canadian Tire, and General Electric, strongly support a price on carbon pollution and already account for an internal price on carbon pollution in their investment decisions. Canadian business leaders know that carbon pollution pricing is one of the most economically efficient ways to reduce emissions, stimulate investments in clean innovation, and position Canada to be competitive globally in the emerging low-carbon economy.

Governments across Canada also know and recognize this. On December 9, 2016, Canada's first ministers and indigenous leaders finalized the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The pan-Canadian framework is a collaborative plan to meet Canada's Paris agreement emission reduction target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to grow the low-carbon economy.

Central to the framework is the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution. This pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution gives provinces and territories the flexibility to design their own pricing systems in a way that makes sense for their specific circumstances.

It also sets some common criteria that these systems have to meet to ensure fairness and a price on all key sources of carbon pollution across the country. Under this approach, provinces and territories can put a direct price on carbon pollution, as is done in British Columbia and Alberta, or they can adopt a cap and trade system, like Ontario and Quebec. Ninety-seven per cent of Canadians live in provinces that already have a price on carbon pollution or are working towards one. Every province except one has indicated it will have a price on carbon pollution to reduce emissions while growing its economy. It is only fair that polluters pay and that there is a price on carbon pollution across Canada.

A federal carbon pollution pricing system will apply in provinces and territories that do not have a carbon pricing system in place that meets the national benchmark by 2018. We are in the process of developing this federal option, and on May 18, 2017, we posted a technical discussion paper outlining the proposed design of the federal system and seeking to obtain feedback.

The proposed system applies the carbon price in two ways. The first is a levy on fossil fuels used for heating and transport. The second applies the price to pollution from large industrial facilities. Those that pollute more will pay more than cleaner competitors.

The more a facility reduces its emissions below its limit, the more it can benefit by selling credits to less efficient competitors.

This system will avoid adverse competitiveness impacts by minimizing the total costs paid by industries that compete internationally, while still creating an incentive for companies to innovate to reduce their emissions. Whichever system is implemented, federal or provincial, revenues will go back to the jurisdiction where they are collected

Revenues can be used for different purposes, such as to cut taxes or invest in clean innovation and infrastructure, or they can be given straight back to Canadian families.

The overall approach to pricing carbon pollution will be reviewed by early 2022. The review will include expert assessment of stringency and effectiveness that compares carbon pricing systems across Canada. The review also will also account for progress and for the actions of other countries in response to carbon pricing, as well as recognition of permits or credits imported from other countries. The review will be completed by early 2022 to provide certainty on the path forward.

While we support transparency for consumers and accountability to Canadians, the government opposes this motion for a number of reasons. First, as I have just outlined, first ministers have already agreed to work collaboratively to review and report on pricing carbon pollution, and a federal study would be incompatible with this collaborative approach.

The motion also proposes a Standing Committee on Finance study, including a requirement for a dedicated line item on invoices and receipts. As my hon. colleague outlined earlier, such a requirement is not part of the approach agreed to by first ministers and runs counter to the principle of providing provinces and territories the flexibility to design their own systems.

Canadians know that carbon pollution does not come without a cost. We see the costs of carbon pollution in droughts, floods, and extreme weather events related to climate change.

Our government remains steadfast in its commitment to price carbon pollution to meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement, promote clean growth, and position Canada to compete in the future low-carbon economy. It is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren, and it will create good jobs as we generate clean growth and participate in the global transition to a low-carbon economy.

We understand the clear economic opportunity. The 21st century will be the clean-growth century. We also understand that we need to leave a more sustainable planet to our children and grandchildren.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is one minute left under private members' business.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

How very generous of you, Mr. Speaker. I have a minute; I am not sure where to start.

This motion comes from the Conservative Party, that withdrew from the Kyoto protocol in 2012. Let us not forget those were very difficult times. They were certainly difficult for me and for many of my colleagues in the House of Commons.

Let us also recall that same party eliminated the national round table on the environment and the economy, the only institution that linked the economy with the environment. The Conservative Party did that. It was very disappointing.

The study conducted by the national round table on the environment and the economy showed that not fighting climate change comes at a cost.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Drummond will have a second opportunity to present his speech. When the House resumes debate on this motion, he will have nine minutes.

The time provided for private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to the statement made earlier this day, the House will now resume with questions and comments as it relates to Government Business No. 15. There are 14 minutes remaining in the time period for questions under this question and answer period, part of the 30-minute period as was announced earlier this day.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was quite struck during the previous question by the minister's glowing comments about China with respect to these issues. It is passing strange to hear the government wanting to praise nearly everything about China. Of course the environmental problems that are the result of the problems of the PRC government are, I think, quite well known and easy to see when one spends time in China.

Many countries are pursuing their Paris obligations without carbon taxes. By my count, the majority of countries that are signatories to the Paris agreement do not have and do not have any intention of imposing carbon taxes. Therefore, why did the current government choose to focus on collecting revenue, as being the real objective of its policy as opposed to addressing environmental issues, when clearly many other countries that are part of the agreement are seeking to meet their obligations without imposing new taxes on their citizens?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the member that in putting a price on pollution the federal government will collect no revenues. The revenues will all go back to the provinces and territories should a province or territory not decide to put in place a system of its own. Eighty per cent of Canadians live in a system where there is a price on pollution because of the action of the provinces.

The member asked, “Who has a price on pollution?” Let me inform the member. China is bringing in a price on pollution this year. That is the second-largest economy in the world and the largest emitter. California, the sixth-largest economy in the world, has a price on pollution, with Ontario and Quebec joining on with California. The European Union has a price on pollution. We had a meeting last night with the Chilean president and the Chilean minister of the environment. They are looking at a price on pollution. There is Mexico. I could go on and on. States recognize that putting a price on pollution is the most efficient way to reduce emissions, to foster innovation, and to tackle climate change.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to repeat what I said in the brief minute I had earlier and to talk about the fight against climate change.

I am truly disappointed that we are bringing back a motion to say that we will continue to support the Paris agreement. We support the Paris agreement. Why do we need a motion? What we need is action. We are being told that a price has been put on carbon. That is all fine and good, but what are we waiting for to eliminate, for example, all direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industries?

We are giving $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion per year to the fossil fuel industry instead of investing it in renewable energy and helping northern communities to make an energy transition, so that they need not draw electricity from diesel fuel. Those are the kinds of new measures we are waiting for.

In 2016, we were expecting $1 billion along with the Minister of the Environment's climate action plan. Funding has been postponed not to 2017 or 2018, but to 2019. We are short $3 billion. Yes, we would have preferred a motion that brought about action, not a motion just to say once again that we agree on the Paris agreement. Everyone knows that.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whether the NDP supports the Paris agreement or not, it is important that we consider this motion today. I am sure they support it. However, I think it is important to find out whether the new leader of the Conservative Party and members of the House support the Paris agreement.

Personally, I am a person of action.

I certainly believe in action. That is why I am so proud of what our government has done, working with the provinces and territories. We have put a price on carbon pollution. We are phasing out coal by 2030. We have made historic investments in public transit and in green infrastructure. We are working with indigenous communities to get them off of diesel. We have an innovation budget where we have historic investments in clean technologies because we are going to create good jobs, reduce emissions, grow our economy, and help save the planet.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague might talk a little bit about Canada's role on the world stage in terms of our opportunity with the Paris agreement. I know that there is trillions of dollars' worth of an economy attached to green technologies and the new lower carbon economy. Canada is being seen around the world as the leader in moving that forward, and I wonder if she could talk a little bit about that.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her work in advancing Canadian businesses in the clean-tech world. We have a trillion-dollar opportunity that we are going to take advantage of, and I will give some examples of Canadian companies that are doing great things.

In Burnaby, B.C., General Fusion is developing a process that could unleash the energy potential of fusion, which could power our cities and communities. In Calgary, Carbon Engineering has created a technology to capture carbon from the air and use it to produce fuels. While I was in Edmonton, I visited a Canadian company called Landmark Homes. It produces net-zero homes. They look exactly like any other suburban home, but they actually produce energy so that people in those homes can put electricity onto the grid.

I could go on and on. There are so many examples of Canadian companies that are recognizing the trillion-dollar opportunity of clean growth.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting, the response the minister gave to my friend for Drummond. She said that this is just basically a political game or ploy to try to trap the Conservative Party. Therefore, she is wasting valuable House time to play a political game with the official opposition. What nonsense.

What is even more interesting is that the motion is brought forward when the Liberal government is completely stalled in its legislative agenda. The Liberals cannot get anything through, yet they bring in this motion.

I find it interesting that the minister would be so much against the principles and traditions of the House that she would offend the Wednesday tradition, the Wednesday principle, where a motion is not put on notice prior to giving all parties the opportunity to discuss this in caucus. This motion was put on notice last Thursday. It is now being moved on closure prior to tomorrow's caucus meeting and being voted on tonight.

Would the minister not agree that this is all just a political game, as she just said?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with what the member has said. I have great respect for Parliament and I have great respect for our planet. The reason we are bringing this motion is to show the world that Canada is absolutely committed on climate change.

I have a very simple question for the opposition members. Do they or do they not believe in climate change? Do they believe it is real? Do they believe that we need to be taking action with the rest of the world?

I have three kids, and I got into politics so that I could do important things like protect the planet, create good jobs, foster innovation, and grow our economy. I hope the members will support the motion.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a weird day here today. We have had the Liberals stand up just a few hours ago and say that they unanimously approve of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Of course, the Conservatives have too. They have joined together in probably one of the biggest assaults to our environment that we can have. They are pushing for the Keystone XL pipeline. They are pushing for the energy east pipeline. This is so inconsistent with this whole idea of climate change and trying to fix the environment.

How does the minister balance this? How does she on the one hand vote for a giant bitumen pipeline to the west coast and on the other hand claim that she is trying to help the environment?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the environment and the economy go together. We understand that we need to be moving to a lower carbon future, but that is not going to happen overnight. I realize this in my work, and members can follow my Twitter feed where they will see this debate playing out. There are some people who believe that we need to move immediately to not using any fossil fuels, that we should move overnight. Meanwhile, there are others who think we should do nothing.

Our government understands that we need to take serious action to tackle climate change but at the same time we need to get our resources to market in a sustainable way. As the Prime Minister has said, we would not have carbon pricing without pipelines. We would not have pipelines without carbon pricing.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is just preposterous that the minister is in here pretending that she cares what any party thinks about what the government is going to do. She has already been on television everywhere saying that regardless of what everybody else thinks, the government is going to continue with its ill-thought-out plan. One of the sad things is that when it comes to history, if we do not learn from the mistakes of history, we are doomed to repeat them.

I would turn her attention to Australia, which implemented a carbon tax, found it drove the price of everything up, found that even though it was leading in this kind of technology, the rest of the world did not come along, even though they said they were going to, and so Australia abandoned ship on it. Is that what the present government will do?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that we worked with provinces and territories. We worked with indigenous leaders. We worked with labour. We worked with environmentalists. We worked with business. We worked with youth. We worked with all Canadians to develop our made-in-Canada climate plan. It is a practical plan. It is a plan that is going to reduce our emissions. It is a plan that is going to grow the economy, and it is also going to ensure that we have a sustainable planet for our kids and grandkids.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I remind hon. members that during this 30-minute period, the questions are given almost proportionately in the majority, the far majority, to opposition members.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are saying all the right things about climate change, but, unfortunately, they are not doing the right things.

Putting a price on carbon is one thing, and the NDP agrees with that and thinks it is necessary. Still, we have to get serious. All of the experts agree that, in the proposal before us now, the price is so ridiculously low that it will not make a difference and will not enable us to meet the Paris agreement objectives that we set with the international community.

Why are they saying one thing but doing another so as not to hurt big business and their oil industry friends too much? They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the opposition member say that putting a price on carbon makes sense.

We have taken many additional measures because we know that we need to tackle climate change head on. As I said earlier, the economy and the environment go hand in hand. We will not stop using oil overnight, but we are on the path to a cleaner, healthier world. We are working toward that, and we will continue working with businesses, environmentalists, the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, and all Canadians to work out a plan to tackle climate change while creating good jobs and growing our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question.

Will the Minister of Environment and Climate Change recognize that the Paris targets adopted by her government and the entire planet were the same targets established by the previous Conservative government?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. It is one thing to set targets, but it is another thing altogether to have a real plan.

Otherwise, they are a cynical ploy that make no difference and do not take the serious action on climate change that Canadians expect and deserve.

We have a plan. We are going to implement it. We are working with the provinces and territories because we know climate change is real. We know that we have an obligation to our kids and grandkids. We know we have a trillion-dollar opportunity that we are going to take advantage of.