House of Commons Hansard #294 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Mohamed Aujar, Minister of Justice of the Kingdom of Morocco.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Canada, led by Mr. Bernd Kölmel.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent of the House to table two documents.
The first is the Parliamentary Budget Officer's economic and fiscal outlook from April 2018 and the second is the OECD economic outlook and interim economic outlook, which will show, contrary to the Minister of Environment's claim that we have the fastest-growing environment, that we are not even second or third. In fact, this year Canada has the fourth-fastest-growing environment in the G7.
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination with the biographical notes for the proposed appointment of Stéphane Perrault as the Chief Electoral Officer.
I request that the certificate of nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe has four minutes remaining in his speech.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will resume where I left off just before question period. I was talking about the fine folks in Rimbey. This was in response to one of my Liberal colleagues across the way who, during a question to one of my colleagues, said that everything was fine for him now that he made the switch to public transportation. That is fine for people who live in a community where they can get everything they need within a 10-block radius, but that does not work for the fine folks in Rimbey.
If a mother in Rimbey who is looking after the kids, while her spouse has hopefully maintained a job in the energy sector, which is not always the case, wants to take them to play hockey or soccer, it is not a community where they can take public transit down to the hockey arena. In fact, there are not enough kids in the community or the surrounding area to even have a house league. If people want to take their kids to hockey in Rimbey, Alberta that means they will be playing teams in Blackfalds, which is 45 minutes away. They are going to be playing teams in Sylvan Lake, which is 35 or 40 minutes away. They are going to be playing kids in Lacombe, which is another 45 minutes away. Drayton Valley is an hour away. Rocky Mountain House is an hour away. Ponoka is 45 minutes away. There are no options for these folks. The carbon tax is going to disproportionately affect these families and their kids because the cost of living in rural Alberta, and any other rural community in Canada, is so high.
I would point out that everything we have that is good in our homes, whether we live our entire lives in that 10-block radius in a downtown urban area, is brought to us from a rural community at some point in time. Chances are that the food we eat is not raised or grown within 10 minutes of our house. Chances are that most of it is not even raised within 10 miles of our house. The input costs are the fertilizers that are energy based, the production, whether it is fuel, harvesting, all of it is there. Transportation to the marketplace and the processing, if we are lucky enough to have the processing done in Canada, are all energy intensive. Most of the good things we have in our lives, most of the wealth, and our ability to prosper and pursue careers in whatever we want to do are brought to us by the fact that we have cheap or affordable energy, or at least we had cheap or affordable energy in our lives.
Our quality of life is going to go down in our country because of the cost of heating our homes and putting fuel in our cars for transportation. It will affect every aspect of our lives. We only have to sit in a room and look around. If we were to take everything out of the room that was either made in part from or brought to us in part by fossil fuels, we would virtually have nothing left in the room. In fact, we likely would not even be able to count the walls of the room, because all of that material was brought to us by fossil fuels as well. This is the cost of a carbon tax. It is going to increase the cost of living for every person.
That is the cost to families. Here is the cost to investment. Investors are crying foul right now because they know almost $90 billion have fled capital markets in our country. We have projects in Alberta that have been waiting for four years for provincial approval for an oil sands expansion project. We have over 7,000 kilometres of tidewater pipelines that have been cancelled or killed by the current Liberal government. That is driving up the cost and creating uncertainty. The regulatory environment is changing.
Alberta shares about $20 billion of its wealth every year with the rest of Canada in the form of equalization payments. Tax is collected from Alberta, it goes to the Government of Canada, and it is redistributed. The money that is being redistributed across Canada affects quality of life and services, medicine, hospitals, and education for everyone.
The cost of the carbon tax for Canadian families, businesses, and workers is far too high. I do not know why the Liberal government will not tell us what it will cost.
Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Madam Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a charter statement on Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the remarks made by members opposite. We have been discussing this issue at finance committee for some time. That member's remarks go beyond the pale with respect to energy costs.
What state in the United States has had carbon pricing for the longest time? It is the state of California. Yesterday, it became the fifth largest economy in the world, and it has had carbon pricing in place for a long time.
We have to find the middle ground. I support pipelines, but if pipeline supporters continue to oppose doing the right thing with respect to climate change, we are not going to get them. If environmentalists continue to fight pipelines, then we will never get the carbon policy we need.
For members opposite, let us trump to some common sense and find the middle ground, accept carbon pricing, and push for the need for pipelines to get our resources to market.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way comes from a province that has benefited a bit from equalization payments over the years. He ought to be a bit more appreciative of the fact that Alberta is contributing to that.
He has brought up social licence, notwithstanding the fact that he is not talking about the tent cities that are popping up all over California because people cannot afford housing or cannot afford to live there. The Liberal government has said, in concert with the province of Alberta, that it needs social licence in order to get projects approved. How many projects have been approved by the government? Absolutely zero have gone forward. Seven thousand kilometres of pipeline have been cancelled. The Pacific LNG project is gone. Nothing is actually going forward.
There is no leadership from the government other than taxing more Canadians, telling them it is good for them, and sticking it to them. We have had enough.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I am astonished that the member for Red Deer—Lacombe is apparently unaware of the reason why Petronas, a state-owned company from Malaysia, cancelled its LNG project on Lelu Island and why Trans Canada cancelled its energy east project. It had to do with market conditions and a lack of profitability.
We have now had two full days of debate on a carbon tax. I have not heard a thing from the Conservative caucus about whether it is concerned that we are facing a galloping climate crisis. We are facing the kinds of changes that will put our children's future at risk.
I would really like to hear something from those members about the costs of inaction when facing the climate crisis, not just political partisan potshots at the weak Liberal plan that we now see.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Oh my goodness, Madam Speaker. I do not even know where to begin.
It is the uncertainty of the regulatory environment, upstream and downstream emissions being counted in on the energy east pipeline. Even Saudi oil does not have to face that test. No company in its right mind would pursue a project when the government puts such onerous regulations in its path. The companies had to protect their investors, and a lot of those investors invested several billion dollars in the BC government pension fund and in Kinder Morgan. That is a bit of irony.
I am worried about the galloping debt the country and the provinces are accumulating. All of that will be passed on to future generations, and that is unacceptable.
Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Whitby Ontario
Liberal
Celina Caesar-Chavannes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development
Madam Speaker, I want to continue along the line of questioning that my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands started.
Does my hon. colleague across the way not think that Canadians are currently paying for the inaction of the previous government for the past 10 years? Does he not think that people in New Brunswick are currently paying for inaction? There have been ice storms in Whitby in Durham region. Does he not think that Canadians are currently paying for inaction on climate change?
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague wants to table a document which shows how many forest fires will be reduced as a result of a carbon tax and exactly at what point that carbon tax will prevent any future forest fires or any future ice storms, I would be happy to see that document. If she has it, she should table it.
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.
Canadians understand that polluting the air we breathe or polluting the earth and the oceans that feed us has a cost. Simply put, pollution is not free. If we are to reduce the greenhouse gases that threaten our planet and future generations, polluters must pay.
It is also critical that the price be fair and effective. If we did not fairly and effectively price pollution, we would be negligent in our duty as federal lawmakers and it would be a betrayal of our children, grandchildren, and generations of Canadians to come. Putting a price on carbon pollution is central to our government's plan to fight climate change while at the same time growing our economy and building a bright future for all Canadians.
Our shared quality of life and our present and future prosperity are inextricably linked to a healthy environment. That is why our government is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by introducing the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. Pricing carbon pollution is the most effective way to reduce emissions because it creates incentives for businesses and households to innovate, and to pollute less. Putting a price on carbon respects and reflects the commitments we made to Canadians in 2015.
When our government took office more than two years ago, our promise to Canadians was clear: We would invest in economic growth while respecting our shared environment. We also committed to respectful consultation as we worked toward achieving this goal. Let me emphasize that this legislation has not been developed in isolation. It has been developed through collaboration. We worked with our provincial, territorial, and indigenous partners to adopt the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change in December 2016.
The framework includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution with the aim of having carbon pollution pricing in place in all provinces and territories this year. The plan provides the provinces and territories with the flexibility to choose between systems, an explicit price-based system or a cap and trade system.
Thanks to the efforts and the hard work of our partners, a price on carbon pollution is now in place in four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta, covering more than 80% of the Canadian population. Those who suggest that a price on carbon pollution is somehow negatively impacting the financial health of Canadians should know that these provinces, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta, are presently leading Canada in job creation and economic growth.
In addition, all other provinces have committed to adopting some form of carbon pollution pricing and we are confident that they too will reap the benefits that we know go hand in hand with carbon pricing: cleaner air and water and a better quality of life for everyone.
To further support implementation of a price on carbon pollution across Canada, the government is taking steps to ensure that a legal framework is in place for the proposed federal carbon pollution pricing system. In jurisdictions that do not have a carbon pollution pricing system that meets the federal standard, or in those jurisdictions that opt to go with the federal system, the federal carbon pollution pricing system would apply on January 1, 2019, starting at a price of $20 per tonne of emissions.
The direct revenue from the carbon charges on pollution under the federal system would go back to the province or territory of origin. In combination with other measures under Canada's clean growth and climate action plan, putting a price on carbon pollution will put Canada on course to meet our 2030 emissions target.
Obviously, greenhouse gases know no national boundaries, but that is not, and should not be, a reason to delay action. By putting a price on carbon pollution, Canada is joining 67 other jurisdictions that have already taken this important step to curb greenhouse gas pollution. Together, those overseas jurisdictions represent about half of the global economy and more than a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.
With the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, we are not only meeting our commitment to Canada, we are meeting our commitment to the global community.
Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. We have no choice but to take action. In Canada and abroad, the effects are clear: coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, and dramatic and unpredictable changes in weather patterns, including heat waves, droughts, and flooding. Even in my riding over the last several years we have experienced record flooding in communities like Bancroft, Tweed, Thurlow, and all along Lake Ontario, including the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, while in 2016 we experienced the most severe drought on record since records have been kept in the late 1880s. We cannot just sit idly by when these 100-year weather events are occurring every few years.
Canadians understand that a clean environment and a strong economy go together and that their quality of life today and the quality of life of future generations depend on the decisions that we make today. Protecting Canada's air, water, and magnificent natural areas while creating a world-leading clean economy is key to our overall goal.
Our government believes that carbon pricing will harness the power of the market to drive decisions that will protect our environment and grow our economy. I have great examples in my own riding, like the plan in Marmora to turn an abandoned mine into a 400-megawatt pump storage battery, or a business in Napanee called FireRein, which is innovating with an environmentally friendly fire suppressant that has helped fight forest fires in B.C. Both of these help the environment, and both of them create good well-paying jobs.
We know that climate action is an enormous economic opportunity for Canada. We intend to seize that opportunity because it makes environmental and economic sense, and because it will ensure Canadians have access to the opportunities they and their families need to succeed. The idea is simple. We are putting a price on what we do not want, carbon pollution, and taking steps to encourage more of what we do want, clean innovation and reduced emissions. The government's approach to growing the economy while protecting the environment is working. We have introduced bold measures to help small businesses and have introduced incentives for our innovators and entrepreneurs.
In response to these and other measures, over the last two years, hard-working Canadians have created more than 600,000 new jobs, most of them full time. Unemployment rates are near their lowest levels we have seen in more than 40 years. We are delivering on our promise to strengthen and grow the middle class and offer real help to everyone working hard to join it.
At the same time, we know that economic indicators only tell part of the story. Our shared quality of life and our present and future prosperity are closely linked to a healthy environment. That is why our government is forging ahead with determination and ambition to create a cleaner environment and a more prosperous future for all Canadians.
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Speaker, the premise of today's debate is about taxes, in particular, carbon taxes. I know the Liberals like to use the term “carbon pricing”.
Several times in this House, either in question period or at committee, the hon. member for Carleton has taken the lead in asking the government just how much a tax on carbon is going to cost Canadians. Every time the government is asked, it refuses to answer, in spite of the fact that we believe the government knows what that answer is.
Again, the member for Carleton asked Finance Canada officials, and he received a document that was redacted. The fact is that the information that is in that document is known. The government knows how much it will cost Canadians, but the Liberal Party refuses to release that information. Why?
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Madam Speaker, it really is unfortunate that the other side chooses to play political games with Canadians' lives and with Canada's future. The Conservatives know very well that our government is proposing a price on pollution that is going to be revenue neutral because we are going to return those funds to the province of origin where the revenues were generated. It really is a shame that they do not recognize that not only is there a cost to climate change, but climate change is real, and it needs to be dealt with. There needs to be a plan.
We have a plan on our side, unlike the previous government which had no plan. Unfortunately, the members on the other side have no plan whatsoever to deal with this. It is not just dealing with a price on carbon, but it is also investing in public transit, infrastructure around water and waste water, and increasing emission controls. There are so many different avenues that we are utilizing in order to deal with climate change and our commitments to achieving our Paris targets.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, you can immediately eliminate a policy on the electrification of transportation in Canada from that long list of great concrete measures, because there is no such policy. You did not mention it, and that was wise. It is quite unfortunate because the provinces are taking the lead.
One year ago, the Minister of Transport went to Montreal to announce that the government would create a committee to establish a transportation electrification strategy. That is not happening.
In general, the Liberals' biggest problem is that they have portrayed themselves as heroes. They have all the answers. In this case, what I can tell you is that your biggest problem is also that you do not keep any of your promises. In your platform—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I would remind the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert that he must address his comments to the Chair, not to the member.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, their biggest problem is that they do not keep their campaign promises. Their platform reads as follows:
We will fulfill our G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term.
When will those people stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry?