Debates of May 1st, 2018

Opposition Motion—Production of Documents on the Carbon Tax

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. First of all, I can assure her that I am every bit as anxious as she is to have our environmental footprints reduced to a minimum, if not to zero, which would be ideal in my country.

I would like to hear her comments or thoughts on what we heard last week from auto industry giants like GM and Ford, not to get too specific. They said they were going to stop building the most fuel-efficient cars and only make SUV-type vehicles. What does my colleague think about consumer demand regarding fuel consumption?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is the government that should provide incentives to trigger a green shift in the transportation system. Does the federal government have a charging station system? No. Does it have a system for encouraging electric public transit? No.

With regard to energy efficiency in construction, building standards are one of the main factors contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, because it is impossible to keep it all inside. I am not the one saying this, it is Normand Mousseau and the scientists who have been studying this issue for years. They are advising the government, but the government has no plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from home heating and public transit. It lacks the necessary staff. This is a major problem that is part of a global solution that has not yet been proposed by the government.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

As the member of Parliament for the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, located in the heart of the beautiful upper Ottawa Valley, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this place to support the motion from my colleague, also from the Ottawa Valley, the hon. member for Carleton.

There is an old parliamentary saying in Canada that a government is only as good as the opposition. The member for Carleton is doing an outstanding job on behalf of all Canadians. The sad legacy of the member for Toronto Centre of deficit budgets on the backs of our children and their children, and now massive carbon taxes on the backs of their parents and grandparents, is a legacy he should be ashamed of.

It is a method. Carbon pricing will not lower pollution emissions. Carbon taxes will increase government revenues. A tax is a tax is a tax.

There are many things we can do to improve the environment. A made-in-Canada environmental policy, by Canadians and for Canadians, would be an honest start for the government.

Carbon taxes are wrong for the Canadian experience. We live in a cold country, which by its very nature is energy intensive. Carbon taxes are not revenue neutral. No money will be returned to taxpayers. Carbon taxes are not going to save the planet. Adopting carbon taxes in Canada raises global carbon emissions by offshoring economic activity from relatively environmentally friendly places like Canada to places with lax environmental laws, like China.

Data from the World Bank reveals that China and other developing countries produce far more carbon per dollar of economic output, at purchasing power parity, than do western nations, and China shows no signs of decreasing its emissions anytime soon. China is currently building hundreds of new coal-fired plants, which will ensure its CO₂ emissions continue to rise for decades to come. Taken together, these facts mean that every factory pushed out of Canada because of a carbon tax will actually increase global emissions dramatically, and this will continue to be the case for decades to come.

Study after study confirms this fact. For example:

Developed countries can claim to have reduced their collective emissions by almost 2% between 1990 and 2008. But once the carbon cost of imports have been added to each country and exports subtracted - the true change has been an increase of 7%. If Russia and Ukraine - which cut their CO₂ emissions rapidly in the 1990s due to economic collapse - are excluded, the rise is 12%.

In 2003, it was calculated that the world would need to add about a nuclear power plant's worth of clean energy capacity every day between 2000 and 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change, which is 1,100 megawatts of clean power capacity every 24 hours. At the moment, 15 years on, and in the midst of what we keep hearing described as a green energy revolution, we are adding about 151 megawatts, or barely 10%.

The development of small modular reactors, SMRs, is a big opportunity for Canada and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, or CNL, located in the Ottawa Valley, and it is a big win for the environment. A small modular reactor is one that produces anywhere from a few hundred watts to a maximum of about 300 megawatts. A conventional reactor produces about 800 megawatts.

“Modular” refers to the construction style and “reactor” refers to the energy source. Recently, CNL hosted the premiere screening of The New Fire, which was filmed across four continents over the course of 22 months. The New Fire follows a group of young engineers and entrepreneurs who are developing advanced nuclear technology while working to overcome long-standing societal perceptions about nuclear energy and the role it will play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the challenges facing residents living in northern Canada is the high cost of living, which includes the high cost of energy. The high cost of energy in many remote communities reflects the short shipping season and the use of diesel fuel to operate generators. Not only is that expensive, but it is bad for the environment. As a greenhouse-gas-free source of energy, an SMR is an ideal solution to solve both problems.

Energy policies take a very long time and great effort. It takes just as long to undo mistakes, as Ontario residents are now discovering with the Hydro One wind turbine scandal.

By supporting SMR research and development, Canada has he opportunity to get it right the first time. Despite what the Prime Minister and the member for Ottawa Centre tell Canadians, carbon taxes basically amount to useless virtue-signalling. Canadians have come to the conclusion that carbon taxes are nothing more than a green hustle. Carbon taxes are just that: taxes.

Since the member for Toronto and the member for Ottawa are so evasive when it comes to the massive Liberal carbon tax scheme, I am obliged to share with Canadians some of the things we do know about the massive carbon tax scheme. The carbon sales tax will be hidden from Canadians. It is buried in the price of what Canadians purchase, in an effort to shift the blame for rising prices to things like the weather. The Liberals voted to keep the carbon sales tax hidden rather than allowing the carbon sales tax, or CST, to appear on a separate line on Canadians' energy bills.

The next thing Canadians should know about the carbon sales tax is that one pays HST on the CST. Since the carbon tax is hidden in the price of everyday purchases and services, we will be paying a tax on a tax on a tax. The GST, the HST, and now the CST all have one thing in common, apart from being a tax: they are all consumption taxes.

As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am proud to have listened to my constituents' pleas to cut taxes and I voted to cut the GST. More than any other of the many tax cuts brought in when our Conservative government was expertly managing our economy, the tax cut that benefited the poor was our cutting the GST. It is a fact that when the Liberal Party brings in a tax increase using a consumption tax like the carbon tax, the poor in Canada pay more as a percentage of their income, while the member for Toronto's rich Bay Street buddies pay less in carbon taxes as a percentage of their income.

The CST, the GST, the HST: a tax is a tax is a tax.

Our Conservative government of the day was bitterly opposed by the Liberal Party when we cut the GST, and the Liberal Party has been looking for a way to increase consumption taxes in Canada ever since. The wealthiest of Canadians have been steadily increasing their share of the national wealth—think Toronto's single-family housing prices—and now control much more than ever before.

As people like Mike Crawley, past president of the Liberal Party, became vastly richer on the backs of Ontario electricity consumers using a carbon tax scheme, the wealth of middle-class and lower-class Canadians barely increased in real terms, and the poverty rate remained static. After all, was this not what former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall was referring to when he clearly stated on behalf of his party, in a moment of unusual candour for a Liberal, that he was “entitled to his entitlements”?

This is no accident. The fortunate few prosper by influencing public policy to their advantage. That is why working-class people pay most whenever a new tax, like the carbon tax, is dreamt up by the technocrats in Ottawa. Working folks are told to content themselves with the vague hope that a subsidy or a handout will lessen the sting of the latest tax increase. It never turns out that way.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he wants to phase out Canada's energy sector. Carbon taxes are the stick to beat the energy industry. The Prime Minister is denying government funding to groups that do not share his personal values, but the Liberal Party is prepared to provide government funding to extremists, who have been misled about the value of the Trans Mountain expansion and the thousands of jobs it will create. How does the government justify this blatant political favouritism? It is by claiming free speech.

Shutting down the pipeline supports the carbon tax agenda. I really do not know if Liberal MPs understand the irony in that statement. The government has no problem cutting funding to groups that feed the poor, provide summer camp to underprivileged kids, and help refugees integrate into Canada. If they refuse to compromise their values and sign some demeaning loyalty attestation, these citizens are attacked.

However, the Prime Minister funded a group that even said that the sole purpose of the job was to stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which in the mind of the member for Ottawa is the reason she needs carbon taxes, which is to shut down pipelines.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the previous speech opened with a discussion about China not having a price on carbon, but of course, at the end of 2017, it announced one. It has a cap and trade system that has already been piloted in seven jurisdictions in China, which represent 25% of China's GDP, and it has been shown to work now. The initial price was lower, but as it figures out what it needs to do to meet its targets, I am sure it will see the light and have to raise the price.

In any event, with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke having started off her speech with an incorrect statement, I am wondering whether the rest of her speech should be fact checked and whether it changes her view knowing that China has a price on carbon.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had been talking about free speech toward the end. I am pleased that the member opposite was listening to my speech instead of rolling his eyeballs, as he frequently does.

However, since we are talking about China, let us get back to the issue of free speech. Only the Prime Minister could stifle free speech for those who disagree with him and justify funding anti-pipeline protesters in the name of free speech. That is precisely what is happening now. The Liberal Party in Canada demonstrates both causes and effects of this persistent trend.

Carbon taxes will make a select very few rich. The predatory classes, people like the member for Toronto Centre, enrich themselves at a cost to literally everyone else.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, but she has left me a little confused about a fundamental issue in this debate.

My colleague seems to have intentionally chosen not to use the term “climate change”. Instead, she used the term “weather” to describe what is happening.

My question is simple. Does my colleague believe in climate change?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the climate has been changing since the creation of our planet. To use that to justify a new tax is beyond understanding. The unfair carbon tax grab will increase by 500%. Canadians living on the west coast had a taste of how much carbon taxes will take out of their pockets when the price of gas rose to $1.62 per litre. How long will it be before Canadians are paying European prices for gas, $4 a litre or more? This radical, extremist policy of the government must stop. Carbon taxes will not reduce global carbon emissions. They only make matters worse.

What should we do? It is time to stop and put things in perspective. We should begin with the assertion that carbon dioxide is not a harmful chemical in the traditional sense of the word. It is actually essential for all life on earth, for plants to live. The obsession with carbon emissions is allowing many real polluters to fly under the radar.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start with an observation. My colleague started by saying that a government is only as good as the opposition. Suddenly I am quite concerned about the quality of our government.

This past weekend, the Leader of the Opposition made a statement that he could meet the Paris targets, but he did not put forward any plan to do so. He said he could do it without any sort of carbon pricing mechanism. Do the Conservatives not have one? Do they not believe they need one, or is it a secret plan?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can understand why the Liberals want to deflect the question and start asking us questions, because there is no reason for them to be hiding the carbon tax other than that they do not want Canadians to know what is really going on.

However, why not take real action against pollution, like stopping the dumping of untreated sewage into the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa River? These are real environmental problems that are not getting attention, because carbon dioxide is so ardently being demonized.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate a motion from our caucus dealing specifically with the carbon tax cover-up. The government has introduced a national carbon tax, which it is trying to impose on Canadians, even in cases where the provinces object. It is trying to impose that national carbon tax, and it knows how much it will cost Canadians, but it will not tell us. Its approach to so-called transparency today is to release documents with all the relevant information blacked out, so we needed a motion today from the opposition demanding that the government actually tell Canadians how much this policy will cost. Canadians have a right to know how much they will be on the hook for with the misguided carbon-tax policy of the government.

I am going to focus most of my remarks today on deconstructing some of the very bad arguments we hear from the government. For example, yesterday in question period, the parliamentary secretary defended the carbon tax by telling us that he has two children. Well, I have three children. The fact that one needs to reference the number of children one has as the basis, somehow, for caring about the future suggests a certain inadequacy in the parliamentary secretary's argument. There are many people who have children who recognize that the carbon tax is a bad policy. That is perhaps the most obvious example of the government's farcical approach to trying to defend its policy.

Every time we ask the government about the carbon tax policy, it tells us that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. That is sort of like asking for the answer to the ultimate question of life and being told “42”. We have asked what this means. What is the justification for the policy? The environment and the economy, after all, are not physical beings. They do not actually have hands, and therefore, they cannot be, in a strictly physical sense, at least, hand in hand. As such, one must infer that the government is trying to be metaphoric in its justification of this policy when it speaks of the environment and the economy going hand in hand. However, for a metaphor to have meaning, it must have a meaning. Possibly the Liberals mean, when they say this, that one can simultaneously seek economic and environmental improvement. This is uncontroversially true. One can seek to improve the environment and the economy at the same time. Also, by the way, a policy can be simultaneously bad for the economy and bad for the environment. In that sense, we do see the government's policy putting the environment and the economy hand in hand, and walking in the wrong direction. Saying that improvement in one area is not mutually exclusive of improvements in another does not actually offer anything substantive in defence of the Liberals' chosen instrument.

References to children and bad metaphors aside, let us ask what the government's basis is for imposing this carbon tax on Canadians. The Liberals tell us, and I think we have already heard it today, that the carbon tax is the only way for us to meet our Paris targets. This is, of course, objectively false. Many countries that are part of the Paris accord intend to meet their targets without a carbon tax, and indeed, Canada reduced emissions before, under a Conservative government, under a Harper Conservative government, without a carbon tax.

The Liberals today are eager to reference Stephen Harper as much as possible. Two can play at that game. Over the period of the Harper government, emissions went down overall. Thanks to Stephen Harper's leadership, emissions went down, or went up by less, in every single province during those 10 years. Thanks to Harper's policies, the environment improved more than our global partners', while the economy was growing faster than our global partners'. Those are the facts, for the record, and members can check them. If people are still playing this drinking game at home, Harper, Harper, Harper.

Leaving that aside, the Paris accord involves nationally determined targets anyway. One further point to make about a carbon tax is that a carbon tax is a policy instrument specifically designed as incompatible with the realization of predictable targets. That is its nature, and a really elementary point about so-called carbon pricing systems, which members across the way know, or should know. The goal of any system of so-called carbon pricing is to commodify carbon emissions as a thing that must be paid for instead of as a thing that can be done for free.

In the real world, the price of carbon emissions is not just a product of that tax. The price of emitting a tonne of carbon is the tax, plus input costs, minus the economic benefit. If the cost exceeds zero or exceeds the alternatives, it will not be worth the emissions, but if the cost is below, then it will be worth the emissions. As such, raising the price through a tax increase increases the likelihood that the emissions will not be economically worthwhile. However, the specific quantity of emissions is not predictable on the basis of that instrument, because the specific price of those emissions will still be determined, ultimately, by market forces, by considerations of the inputs as well as the value of the output. Therefore, the introduction of a carbon tax, by its very nature, provides absolutely no certainty that we would meet the government's Paris targets, or any targets, because that is just not the nature of the instrument. It is to impose an additional cost burden on the emissions, but it is not tied, and cannot be tied, to the specific realization of targets, except in a speculative, predictive sort of way.

There are other instruments that are, perhaps potentially, more predictive. For example, a cap and trade system fixes the quantity of emissions that are allowable without imposing a direct tax, although, of course, it leads to increased costs. It is another way of imposing those additional costs on the consumer. However, with a cap and trade system, the nature of the instrument fixes the quantity. Imposing an additional tax through a carbon tax shifts the economic calculations businesses make, but it provides no certainty on the impact on emissions. The government's argument that this is designed, by its nature, to allow us to realize the Paris targets is just wrong on its face in terms of the structure of the policy instrument.

The other point to make is that carbon taxes are generally imposed on relatively inelastic goods, such as home heating fuel. One cannot exactly turn the heating fuel off to avoid the carbon tax if it is -30°C outside. That is what economists would call an inelastic good, and generally speaking, our consumption of it is relatively inflexible. Members are pointing out through helpful heckles that, of course, there are things we can do to impact our energy use over the long term. Those things, frankly, are economically advantageous, regardless of whether there is a carbon tax. The real goal of the government should be to give people the capacity, perhaps through tax cuts, to make those kinds of investments in installations. There is no argument that by increasing taxes, people will do something that would have been economically advantageous for them anyway to reduce their heating costs, which is why, vis-à-vis the carbon tax, we are talking about consumption that is relatively inelastic.

Any time a tax is imposed on a relatively inelastic good, there is a high level of cost and economic hardship, yet we are likely to see a relatively lower actual reduction in the use of the thing that has a tax imposed on it. That is another reason this is a bad argument for a bad policy.

Another argument we hear from the government is that we have to something; the opposition wants to do nothing, and the government wants to do something. The government saying that it should do something and talking about the cost of doing nothing avoids the argument about which policy instrument one should actually use.

I think all of us in the House believe that action must be taken. Conservatives champion a different set of policy prescriptions that do not involve imposing massive new taxes on Canadians. However, if we are going to talk about the cost of doing nothing, perhaps we should also talk about the cost of doing the wrong thing. In the name of achieving one objective by choosing a policy instrument that is totally inadequate and totally ineffective and that raises revenue for the government but does not aim effectively at the end one is trying to achieve, one is not any further ahead. Doing the wrong thing in the name of doing something to solve a real problem does not get us any further toward solving the actual problem.

Winston Churchill once said that it is not enough to say that we have done our best: we must know what to do and then do our best. The point we need to debate in the House, which the government continuously avoids, is not whether we need a response to the challenge of climate change but whether this particular policy instrument is the right one. Not only are the Liberals imposing taxes on Canadians, and are not willing to tell us how much that tax will cost Canadians, but they have no credible, rational justification for what they are doing. They are simply eager to impose taxes, new taxes, more taxes, all kinds of taxes, on Canadians every step of the way, even though they have no sense of how this will align with the objectives they have set out.

The government should stop its new tax grab on Canadians. If nothing else, the Liberals should at least tell us how much it will cost. They should end the carbon tax cover-up. They should share the information so that Canadians can debate what is going on. Therefore, this motion needs to pass.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost speechless that the member opposite has missed the past decade in the province of British Columbia, where our experience with a carbon tax provided the lowest personal tax rate in the country, and the economy grew. It was either first or second in the country. Awareness of climate change grew. Fossil fuel consumption fell. The clean-tech sector grew.

I would like to know if the member has a clue about what climate change is costing Canadians, and how he could argue with British Columbia's outstanding record in that regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the parliamentary secretary's question, let us be clear that over the last 10 years, despite having the highest carbon tax in Canada, emissions have continued to rise in British Columbia. British Columbians pay among the highest costs for gas anywhere in North America. There are real, substantial costs associated with this measure. The member is shaking her head. These are objective facts and numbers. The facts are there. Emissions have gone up, while the goal of what the Liberals are talking about is for emissions to go down.

I think we see in that question a rerun of some of the bad arguments that I have already responded to, this idea that we have to do something; ergo, we must elect this particular policy instrument, even though there is nothing in the policy instrument that is specifically designed to give us clarity around what targets would be realized.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's comments to be completely mind-boggling.

My colleague said that there is a cost to inaction, but it also costs money to do things right. When the Conservatives were in office, they did practically nothing for the environment or to fight climate change. There are even some Conservative MPs who refuse to admit that global warming is real and that we must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thousands of scientists who are part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, are saying that we need to reduce our carbon footprint in order to reduce our ecological impact. They support carbon pricing.

As Gérald Fillion, a Radio-Canada journalist who specializes in economic affairs, said, and I quote:

In principle, carbon pricing should generate extra revenue for the government, create changes in consumer behaviour, and encourage smart investments to promote sustainable development. Carbon pricing is a long-term commitment, and its short-term repercussions should not stop us from thinking about future generations.

We must therefore look beyond today or tomorrow and instead focus on the future, so that we are able to leave future generations a planet that is healthy from an economic, environmental, and public health perspective. We need to make investments, but these will result in economic spinoffs. Some companies have understood that and are already developing green innovations. They are able to create jobs and make a profit.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the action that was taken by the previous government, let me be very clear that emissions went down under Stephen Harper. It was the first government under which emissions went down. Emissions went down or went up by less in every single province. That cannot be attributed to the actions of just one province. Emissions either went down or went up by less in every province across the country during the Harper period as compared to the previous Liberal period. That is very clear in the record.

We do not hear a desire at all from other members to discuss the policy instrument in question. We agree that a response to climate change is necessary and that one was taken under the previous government. However, they immediately jump from saying that we should take action on climate change to saying that we should impose new taxes on Canadians. The record and history show that it was Conservative governments that actually reduced emissions. They had a sector-by-sector regulatory approach that was effective, and was continually in the process of being expanded to ensure that we had binding sector-by-sector targets. That allows us to actually realize our targets, unlike a carbon tax, which has no relationship to specific targets.

The member from the NDP said something quite revealing, which I think we should highlight. She quoted an economist who said that this would free up revenues for government. Yes, I agree that a carbon tax would give government more money to spend on things it wants to spend on. There is a philosophical difference there in what is desirable. We believe that by giving money back to people, giving them more autonomy and control over their own lives, they will very often make good and environmentally responsible decisions. Therefore, we should look for policies that leverage that to its greatest possible extent. However, if the goal is to free up more revenue for government, then a carbon tax is what she would want. Our goal is to give more money back to Canadians and actually take action on the environment.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

Hopefully, the information that I am going to lay out in my remarks will address many of the issues and questions which the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raised. There might be some that I will not get to, but maybe in questions and comments I will have a chance.

Canadians know that pollution is not free. We see the cost in droughts, floods, and extreme weather, but also in the effects on our health. Canadians expect action on climate change because it is the right thing to do for our kids, our grandkids, and as global citizens. Taking strong action to address climate change is critical and urgent. We are keeping our promise to Canadians. We are putting in place better rules to protect our environment and build a stronger economy.

Pricing pollution is widely held as an efficient way to reduce emissions at the lowest cost to businesses and consumers and to support innovation and clean growth. Carbon pricing sends an important signal to markets and provides incentives to reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency measures. That is why carbon pricing is being adopted by countries around the world and is a central pillar of our national plan on clean growth and climate change.

Over 80% of Canadians already live in a jurisdiction that has a price on carbon pollution: British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. Last year, those four provinces led the country in economic growth.

In October 2016, the Prime Minister announced a pan-Canadian carbon pricing standard that gives the provinces the flexibility to implement the type of system that makes sense for their circumstances. We have been clear and unequivocal that we will return all direct revenue from the federal carbon price to the jurisdiction from whence it came. That revenue can be used in different ways including, for example, to provide assistance to households and businesses, and to invest in programs and technology that reduce emissions.

New analysis from Environment and Climate Change Canada confirms that a price on pollution across Canada would significantly reduce carbon pollution while maintaining a strong and growing economy. The study found that carbon pricing could reduce carbon pollution by up to 90 million tonnes across Canada by 2022. That is the same as taking 26 million cars off the road a year or shutting down more than 20 coal plants.

Carbon pricing will make a substantial contribution to Canada's 2030 target, but it is not the only thing we are doing to cut emissions. Canada's climate plan includes many other measures that work together with carbon pricing to reduce emissions. Pricing carbon pollution is one of the key actions being taken to put Canada on a course to meet its 2030 targets in combination with a complementary clean growth measure under Canada's clean growth climate action plan.

In addition to pricing carbon, the federal government is making other significant investments to help Canadian businesses and workers participate in the $1 trillion in opportunities offered by the world's transition to a clean growth economy. In June 2017, we launched a low-carbon economic leadership fund to leverage investments in provinces and territories in projects that will support clean growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, industries, forestry, and agriculture. We launched a low-carbon economy challenge in March that will provide more than $500 million for projects that will generate clean growth and reduce carbon pollution. Provinces, territories, businesses, municipalities, not-for-profit organizations, and indigenous communities can apply. I cannot wait to see the types of brilliant ideas that Canadians will bring forward, including those from the Happy City St. John's project which received over 1,000 recommendations in the first 10 days of its #SmartCityYYT initiative.

The Government of Canada is also investing billions in green infrastructure and public transit and, through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, in green bonds from Export Development Canada which are using innovative financing mechanisms to support climate investments and help new technologies become mainstream. Business owners already know that pricing carbon makes sense. According to a report from the carbon disclosure project, the number of companies with internal plans to price their own carbon pollution shot up between 2014 and 2017 from 150 to almost 1,400. The list includes more than 100 of the world's largest companies with total annual revenues of $7 trillion. It just makes sense.

Canada's five major banks, along with many companies in the consumer goods, energy, and resource development sectors, also support putting a price on pollution as members of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, which includes 32 national and subnational governments, 150 businesses, and 67 strategic partners globally working to support and accelerate carbon pricing around the world.

A recent study ranked Canada first in the G20 and fourth in the world as a clean technology innovator, up from seventh place in 2014. Last year, 11 of Canada's clean-tech companies ranked in the top 100 worldwide.

Companies such as Winnipeg's Farmers Edge are developing cutting-edge technologies that help farmers waste less energy and increase their profits. St. John's start-up, Mysa, makes a sleek, smart thermostat that links up smart phones to help Canadians save money and make their homes more comfortable. Power HV, a new company incubated at the Genesis Centre, supported by ACOA and Memorial University in my hometown, has created a more efficient, smart bushing that could save 20 tonnes of carbon equivalency per year, if used in electrical transmission. Other innovators are working nationwide to seize this opportunity to protect our environment, create new businesses, create new middle-class jobs, and help our industries compete globally.

According to the World Bank, jurisdictions representing about half the global economy are putting a price on carbon. That does not include China's national system, announced late last year, and which I mentioned earlier in the debate. Our approach is going to ensure that Canadians are well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition that is currently under way.

Carbon pricing is the most effective way to reduce emissions. It creates incentives for businesses and households to innovate and pollute less. Carbon pricing brings down emissions while driving investment in energy efficiency and in cleaner, less polluting energy sources up.

Our approach is that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. That is what we are doing every day to help protect our kids, our grandkids, and to help Canadians prosper. The party opposite does not share that vision. That party spent a decade ragging the puck on climate action, and notwithstanding what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said, taking credit for a recession or for Ontario's coal reduction is not really emblematic of what that party did on climate change. Canadians deserve better. Our government is using the best tools in our tool box, and that includes a carbon price. Canadians deserve a serious, smart and thoughtful plan to protect the economy and protect the environment, and that is exactly what we are doing.

If I have a couple more moments, I would like to reflect on some of the other issues that were raised.

The previous speaker mentioned not being precisely sure about exactly what the results of a price on carbon are going to be. It is an iterative approach. People understand, and I am sure the member opposite agrees, that the supply and demand law of economics is a law. It is not deviated from and it has an effect.

When we set out the initial price on carbon, it had a tracking toward 2022. We are unsure exactly what the price on carbon would be for future years, but by examining what happens in the marketplace, by measuring the effects on business, on consumers, on changes in attitudes, and on seeing the additional economic growth that comes from investing in new technologies that reduce our emissions, we can see exactly what the appropriate price trajectory should be to ensure that we make our 2030 commitments.

Just because we do not know ab initio exactly what the right path will be, it is through investing and taking the time to measure the outcomes in an evidenced-based way that we can see precisely how, where, and when the prices should go to get our reductions down to our 2030 targets. I believe the members opposite understand that, but I do appreciate the comments they raise. They are interesting and they are thought provoking. It points to the fact that we need to do more.

We need to be open and transparent with Canadians throughout the process of carbon pricing, throughout the process of measuring the outcomes of businesses, the conduct of consumers, and seeing which provinces perform better based on the nuanced approach that they take in their own individual circumstance to price carbon. We are likely to see that some provinces fare better and others worse, and that best practices can form. We can see whether or not industries need a bit more support to remain internationally competitive and maybe consumers need to do more or vice versa.

However, this is what an iterative approach means. This is what an evidence-based approach means. I believe the members opposite understand that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a bizarre situation in which the government claims to have priced out the appropriate cost of the carbon tax and knows how much revenue it will generate, but it does not want to show us what the impact would be on Canadians.

The finance committee is taken up with the budget implementation bill. It is an omnibus budget bill in which 200 pages deal with how the carbon tax would work. We were told it would be very simple, but 200 pages of legislation is anything but simple. An inordinate number of exemptions and exceptions are contained within it.

All we are asking for in the House today is to simply get all of the information. The member for Carleton has produced a redacted document from the Government of Canada. We heard this morning at committee from officials of the Department of Finance, who said they have done modelling on the impact on Canadians and Canadian families. This information exists.

I thought this was all about evidence-based policy-making. It is an unfair conversation when the government has all of the information but will not share it with members of the opposition so we can make a judgment call on whether this is the right way to proceed and whether the details of the bill are correct.

Why does the member support a government that refuses to reveal the full amount of information that the Department of Finance has?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in my comments I mentioned that it is really up to the provinces and their home jurisdictions to determine what they are going to do with the revenue they generate from their price on carbon. When the federal government implements the plan, it is going to return the money to the provinces. The provinces may very well determine that they are going to pay that money back to their constituents. They may determine that they are going to use that money for other initiatives, or they may determine that they are going to invest it in other clean energy jobs that grow the economy.

From the perspective of the federal framework at this stage, it is impossible to know precisely what the net end-to-end economic cost or benefit is going to be. We do not know precisely what the provinces are going to do with that money, and we need to take the benefits into account.

As I mentioned at the end of my remarks, over time, through an iterative approach, we will get an opportunity to see how this is playing out. We will see the quantum of reduction in emissions we get per dollar of tax, or per dollar of price on carbon, and then how consumers are behaving. Best practices will develop from that.

Logically, I would expect that provinces that determine to pay back that money will see a double benefit. Not only will people be paying the tax if they use too much carbon and create too much pollution; they will, on the back end, actually receive money back and realize a better net benefit. There is a double whammy there. They will get a double benefit if the money is returned to their pockets through some other type of tax reduction initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I shared the enthusiasm of the member for St. John's East that the current government has a climate plan. It does not have a plan. However, nothing makes me more sympathetic to the Liberals' attempts to deal with climate change, which is a current crisis, than hearing the Conservatives take strips off them for the few things they are doing.

I heard the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan claim that emissions went down under the Harper years. That is true, but I do not think former prime minister Stephen Harper wants to take credit for the global economic collapse, which was the only reason emissions went down at all. They began to go right back up as soon as the economy recovered. There was no sector-by-sector regulatory approach. It was a series of press releases.

The current Liberal government cannot claim credit for targets that meet the Paris Agreement when we have not updated our target in light of the science. The Paris Agreement was negotiated six months after Stephen Harper set the current target to 2030, which is unchanged under this government.

Will my colleague join me in encouraging the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Prime Minister to update Canada's carbon target so that it is consistent with the Paris Agreement we signed?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would note is that in addition to the recession, initiatives were also taken by individual provinces, such as Ontario with the reduction of coal.

With respect to the issue at hand regarding setting the targets in order to meet our goals, most Canadians would agree that we need to commit to what we agreed to in the Paris climate agreement, and that the current initiative we are proposing on pricing carbon does not, as designed, go the entire way. It needs to be buttressed with other available efforts we are making to reduce emissions through innovation, greening of government, and the other laundry list of initiatives that I mentioned during my comments.

If the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands feels that is not enough and we need to do more, the science over time, between now and 2030, will bear that out.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this important element of Bill C-74 today. Our government has made it very clear that it believes the economy and the environment go hand in hand. Bill C-74 is proof of that.

We now have abundant and consistent evidence that our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting pollution by fairly taxing carbon is helping grow our economy and Canada's middle class. Our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions will also reduce pollution in the air we breathe.

Protecting the environment is everyone's responsibility, and our government is stepping up. With Bill C-74, the government will reduce emissions by enacting the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. Pricing carbon pollution is the most effective way to reduce emissions. Pricing gives Canadian businesses and households an incentive to innovate more and make day-to-day choices that pollute less. Our government made that promise when it came to power over two years ago. We need to invest in growth while respecting the environment we share and helping to protect it.

The government's plan is to grow the economy in a way that strengthens the middle class and helps all Canadians succeed. What have we achieved in this regard?

From the time we took office, over 600,000 jobs have been created, most of them full-time. The youth unemployment rate is near its lowest on record. Since 2016, Canada has led the G7 in economic growth, and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, which is our debt relative to our economy, is not only on a downward track but is projected to be near its lowest level in nearly 40 years.

We have energized the economy by investing in our communities and in our people. Small businesses are a key driver of our economy, accounting for more than 70% of all private sector jobs. That is why our government is supporting and investing in small businesses and helping hard-working business owners grow their businesses. Growth means more jobs, healthier families, and more vibrant communities.

We lowered the small business tax rate to 10% as of January 1, 2018, because we understand how much small businesses contribute to Canada's economy. As of January 1, 2019, the rate will be lowered to 9%. Canadian business owners and innovators will now save up to $7,500 a year in federal corporate taxes to help them do what they do best: create jobs.

By 2019, the combined federal, provincial, and territorial corporate tax rate for small businesses will be 12.2%. This is the lowest rate in the G7 and the third-lowest rate among OECD countries. Canadians deserve to be confident that their hard work will result in better opportunities, that they will have equal opportunities to grow professionally, and that they will be successful. We want Canadian business owners and Canadians as a whole to be confident in these things, and a lower small business tax rate will only support this goal.

I am talking about economic measures because I believe that it is possible to work on the economy and the environment at the same time, as the government has shown. I remind members of the Canada workers benefit, which is an improved version of the working income tax benefit. With this benefit, low-income workers will have more money in their pockets and people will get more support to find work. For example, a low-income worker who earns $15,000 could receive up to $500 more in 2019 than the amount he or she would have received in 2018 with the old benefit. Our government also wants to encourage more people to join the workforce. The workers benefit provides real support for more than 2 million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class. The improved benefits in 2019 will bring about 70,000 Canadians out of poverty.

The investments we have made in Canadians, in our communities, in our economy, and in our environment are making Canada stronger and creating meaningful opportunities for all Canadians, and that is our objective. That should be our focus every day here in Ottawa. We have created prime economic conditions to help our businesses grow, do well in Canada, and be competitive in foreign markets.

We have done this by providing support through such organizations as the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service, the Business Development Bank of Canada, Export Development Canada, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

The Business Development Bank of Canada serves 49,000 Canadian entrepreneurs and has committed $29 billion to small and medium-sized businesses. We are redoubling our efforts on the international front to make it clear to our international partners that Canada is the best place in the world to invest.

Why? It is because we have a workforce that is diverse, highly skilled, innovative, well educated, and hard-working. We have a wealth of natural resources. We have a modern, efficient infrastructure, because we have invested in that infrastructure and will continue to do so. We have a sound financial system, recognized across the world as a beacon of stability and efficiency because it is built on a foundation of sound regulation. Finally, of course, in budget 2018 it has been quite clear from the get-go that we in Canada believe in gender equality. We believe it strengthens the economy. When we say all working Canadians deserve the opportunity to earn a good living, we include Canada's talented, hard-working women.

All of us fortunate enough to live in this wonderful country could easily add to that list, but the essential message I want to convey is that Canada's fiscal house is in order, and that means we are resilient to shocks and uncertainty.

We want Canadians to feel confident about the future and to be better prepared for what the future holds. Yes, the government is doing that in part by making investments and taking action to protect Canada's water, air, and natural areas for our children, our grandchildren, and future generations while also creating a clean world-class economy, as I just mentioned.

Everyone knows that climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time, although to judge from some of the speeches from the opposition side today, it sounds like some people still need to be convinced.

In Canada and abroad, the impacts of climate change can be seen in coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, and increases in heat waves, droughts, and flooding. Our shared quality of life and our present and future prosperity are deeply connected to the environment in which we live.

I would like to underline that our approach to putting a price on carbon pollution has been collaborative from the start. The government worked with its provincial, territorial, and indigenous partners to adopt the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change in December 2016. The framework provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to choose between two systems: an explicit price-based system or a cap-and-trade system. Carbon pollution pricing is in place in four provinces, namely Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta, covering more than 80% of Canada's population. These provinces are also leading Canada in job creation and growth. All other provinces have committed to adopting some form of carbon pollution pricing. Under Bill C-74, the direct revenue from the carbon charges on pollution under the federal system would go back to the province or territory of origin.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand and benefit all Canadians now and for future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his detailed and well-informed speech. I can assure him that the NDP is going to applaud the federal government's initiative to finally put a price on carbon. Ontario and Quebec have had carbon pricing for a long time. British Columbia implemented it 10 years ago, and its economy has been doing very well, thank you.

However, the Liberal government is often inconsistent, saying one thing and then doing the opposite. If it is serious about fighting climate change and really wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I would like the member to explain why his government continues to subsidize oil companies with $1.6 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we, on this side of the House, are keenly aware that we must implement a set of measures if we are to significantly slow the progress of climate change and ensure that Canada is a more responsible player with regard to the environment than it has been in the past 10 years.

The previous Conservative government had a hard time even admitting that climate change exists. To judge from the opposition speeches I heard today, that still seems to be the case for some opposition members, even though we have seen the impact of climate change over the past 10, 15, and 20 years. I noticed, for example, that insurance claims in Canada in the past decade increased from $400 million to $1 billion.

Our estimates indicate that pricing carbon pollution will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 million to 90 million tonnes by 2022. That is the equivalent of about 23 million to 26 million cars. That is one part of the plan. The other part is about investing in green infrastructure, supporting green innovation and companies with emissions reduction plans, and supporting public transit, among other things. We have seen it in Montreal, where he is from, and in Quebec City, where I am from. It is my hope that, with help from the federal government, Quebec City will build a streetcar that lives up to the people's expectations.

Thanks to the federal government's desire and drive to invest, to take its environmental responsibility seriously, and to take action on climate change, we are seeing positive outcomes like this that will ultimately help us meet Canada's environmental targets.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating this important issue of a carbon tax, and the question is what it will cost the average Canadian family. The confusion is why the government is hiding that information.

I am going to ask the hon. member one question right from the front line about gasoline. I am from the greater Vancouver area, and gasoline is approaching two dollars a litre. We have heard that the Liberals will have that gas tax go up even higher if necessary, to two or three dollars a litre, or whatever it takes to make sure Canadians stop driving their cars. How high will they make that tax? How high do the gas prices have to go before they are happy?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of incomprehension on the other side in terms of what the goal is when we put a price on carbon pollution. The goal is that is that it permeates through society so people and businesses make greener and more innovative choices.

In terms of what it would cost, it was clear in committee from the officials from Environment Canada that it really depends on what the provinces choose to do. He mentioned British Columbia. In British Columbia, there has been a price on carbon for the last decade, and we have seen an economic performance that is absolutely staggering. The GDP grew by 17% from 2007 to 2015, and gasoline demand dropped by 15% over the same period. That is something he should applaud. British Columbia has been a leader in that field and has shown the way in many respects for the rest of the country.

The comments I heard from the other side even less than an hour ago about whether climate change is real are beyond me. No wonder they do not understand the rationale behind putting a price on carbon pollution or how good it will be for Canadians of today and for future generations, who will be able to have a clean environment in which to evolve.