Debates of June 14th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, coming from the municipal sector, I recognized quickly that there were methods to the way we charge people in terms of what their impacts are and therefore who pays for it. I will give an example of development charges.

Development charges are placed on a developer who creates growth-related costs. This then takes the emphasis off the overall population, the taxpayer, and places it on the person who actually creates those growth-related costs. This concept is no different. This is the same by recognizing who is responsible for pollution and pollution-related costs, taking the emphasis off the overall taxpayer and placing it on those who are creating the pollution-related costs.

Therefore, does the presenter not recognize that while he states they want to invest in environmental initiatives, wetlands, infrastructure, water, waste water, drainage for our farmers, health care, all those are unfortunately the bearer of those pollution-related costs? Does the presenter not agree that the direction we have taken will be a proper direction to then alleviate the pressure on the overall taxpayer regardless of what level of government may exact taxes, to then therefore deal with the problem?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of working with my colleague on the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations and enjoy his input very much. We work very well collaboratively.

My colleague commented about the developmental costs at a municipal level, which are the costs for something, but there is an effect at the other end, where people end up with a new bridge, a new road, a new sewer system, or a new water system. All we are asking for is exactly what he is referring to. We want to know what the developmental costs will be. What is the cost of this carbon tax to the average Canadian family, but, more importantly, will there actually be an effect? Will it actually help to do what Liberals say it is going to do?

We asked people at the environment committee and directly asked the question of the minister: What will the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions be as a result of implementing this carbon tax? The answer was silence, no answer. That is not acceptable. We need to know both the cost and effect to know whether we can invest in this process.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, there were five or six things that were somewhat misleading, or perhaps the member opposite just does not know about British Columbia, but there are two things I want to point out.

The member stated that we are instituting this to finance a growing national debt. It is well known that all of the funds collected are being distributed to the provinces, so none of them will go toward the federal debt.

I want to talk about the B.C. case. B.C. first instituted carbon pricing in 2008, so it has had carbon pricing for 10 years. We know that, per person, carbon emissions went down by 16% in British Columbia in the first six years, while it went up in the rest of Canada by 3% over the same time period. Also during that exact time period, British Columbia had one of the fastest growing economies in the entire country.

If I can prove to the member opposite that fossil fuel emissions can be decreased with a carbon price while growing the economy, would he support it?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the point of our motion that we have been debating all day and will be for a few more hours is to simply give us the facts. The government knows what the facts are. It is in black and white in the document, but for us it is black. How can we buy something when we do not know what the cost will be, especially when we do not know what the effect will be?

If my colleague is so convinced that he can simply extrapolate from British Columbia to all of Canada, then let us have the numbers. Let us see what they are.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise today on the opposition motion. Before I start, I would like to comment on the direct words related to the opposition day motion. This is not the first time that members of the opposition have been asking for information related to the proposed carbon tax and the effect it would have on the economy. In fact, in the industry committee, on October 23, 2016, a year and a half ago, I moved a motion that said:

That...the [Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology] conduct a pre-budget study on the effects that the recently-announced Liberal Government carbon tax would have on the manufacturing sector; that this study be comprised of no less than four meetings to be held at the Committee's earliest convenience; [and] that departmental officials from Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada be in attendance for at least one meeting....

Unfortunately, members of the Liberal Party who sat on the committee blocked it and blocked it. After a month of fighting for the motion, eventually it was voted down as something that would never hit the floor of the industry committee.

Now, we fast-forward a year and a half. There has been request after request. The member for Carleton put forward a request asking for information related to the carbon tax: what effects it would have on the economy, what effects it would have on jobs for people back in our ridings, what effects it would have globally on the Canadian economy, and how it would affect our competitiveness versus that of other countries, specifically those to the south.

We have seen the effects of these Liberal schemes before. We have seen them in Ontario, where we have manufacturing jobs running across the border at an alarming rate, specifically in southwestern Ontario. We know what the costs of these types of decisions are. What we do not know is the specifics related to the carbon tax that the Liberal government has put forward.

It is interesting that the Liberals promised they would be transparent. The Prime Minister promised it in his throne speech. It was actually all through the throne speech that opened this Parliament:

I call on all parliamentarians to work together, with a renewed spirit of innovation, openness and collaboration.

It is not openness when the Liberals black out the results of a request for information.

The speech went on to say:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced.

However, that is what the government is doing. It is silencing the report to the opposition MPs and Canadians overall.

The speech also said:

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

Let us not forget, however, that Canadians have been clear and unambiguous in their desire for real change.

I did not know that real change meant blacking out results that Canadians were asking for.

Canadians want their government to do different things, and to do things differently.

I was not here for any of the previous parliaments, but I can guess that when the government was stating this, it probably was not saying that it was going to black out documents going forward so that Canadians do not know the cost of the decisions that the Liberal government and the Liberal MPs are making on their behalf.

The speech said:

They want to be able to trust their government.

How can they trust a government that is holding information from them that is going to affect every piece of their life? The tax is going affect literally everything.

The speech went on to say:

And they want leadership that is focused on the things that matter most to them.

Things like growing the economy; creating jobs; strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it.

What we are looking for right now is the answer. What effect is this carbon tax going to have, not just on those in the middle class, not just on those who have jobs today, but on those who are working hard to join it, those who are the poorest in society, who find it the most difficult to be able to fill up their gas tanks?

I was in B.C. over the last couple of days, and I took a drive. When I went to take the rental car back, I was amazed. The gas was $1.61 at the pumps, absolutely shocking.

The throne speech said:

Through careful consideration and respectful conduct, the Government can meet these challenges, and all others brought before it.

That is just the opening statement on openness and transparency, which the government committed to in its first act in the House, in the throne speech.

It went on to say:

The Government will undertake these and other initiatives while pursuing a fiscal plan that is responsible [it is not], transparent [it is not] and suited to challenging economic times.

We know that the times are challenging, with all the things going on in terms cross-border disputes. We know that the times are challenging, with all the new taxes that have been brought forward by the government. We know that the times are challenging, when manufacturing jobs are running south. We know that the times are challenging, because we hear it at the door day after day.

There is an entire section of the throne speech called “Open and Transparent Government”. Are they kidding?

[T]he Government is committed to open and transparent government.

I guess I could just end there and we could move on to the questions portion. I could answer every single question with that exact statement, “the Government is committed to open and transparent government”, except when it blacks out documents so that Canadians do not get to know how much the Liberal carbon tax will actually cost them.

The trust Canadians have in public institutions—including Parliament—has, at times, been compromised. By working with greater openness and transparency, Parliament can restore it.

Please explain to me, members of the Liberal Party, how are you restoring the confidence in Parliament when you are blacking out the documents related to questions being asked by the people's representatives?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address his comments to the Chair.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we go further into the throne speech, we see this:

Decisions will be informed by scientific evidence.

The interesting thing here is that this is actually in the portion of the speech that talks about a clean environment and a strong economy. It does actually touch on the carbon tax, or carbon pricing, carbon levy, or whatever the Liberal government would like to call it today.

It says that decisions “will be informed by scientific evidence.” Well, part of that evidence is what the cost is. What are the ramifications and consequences of introducing such a tax?

We have had the opportunity here, for two and half years, to discuss this carbon tax. It was discussed before it was brought forward and while it was brought forward. It has been discussed probably in every committee that functions as part of the House. Certainly, it will continue to be discussed until we have the answers.

The interesting thing is that the Auditor General came out with a report last week that talked about the culture of the government. In the report, the Auditor General essentially states that the government is trying to determine whether or not it is successful by the amount of money it spends. That is not a direct fit to the Auditor General's statements, but I think there is an analogy here, in the sense that the government is trying to determine its success related to the carbon tax by how much it is taxing Canadians, not by the results that will come from it.

If the Liberals were determined to create a carbon tax based on a results-driven program or process, they would be telling us what the effects would be. What would be the effects of $50 per tonne? What effect would that have on curbing carbon use? What effect would it have on middle-class Canadians? What effect would it have on those who are the least fortunate in our society to be able to continue living their lives?

It is also interesting that the Auditor General essentially states that the culture of government we see today is one that is driven by marketing, one that is driven by Twitter and Facebook, one that is driven by a 30-second bit on a political show or on the news. That is clearly what we have seen. We saw a minister get off a plane and say, $50 over five years, and $10 per year to the provinces. However, what we have not seen, beyond that marketing, is what effect it would have on the Canadian economy and the Canadian people.

What government members need to do, whether they are cabinet members, backbenchers, or parliamentary secretaries, is force the hand of the environment minister, the Prime Minister, and the finance minister to tell Canadians how this carbon tax would affect them today.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, just to be clear, what the member opposite is asking for is a document that the Conservatives produced for themselves about a policy they were thinking about. It was produced and written before we were even sworn in as a government, which means it has nothing to do with the policies we have introduced. The report they crave is not about a policy of this government; it is about a policy of the government they used to be part of.

I was going to make an access to information request for the Conservatives' climate change plan. However, I realized that not only could I not get it, but they could not even redact it, because it does not exist. That is the problem.

If the member opposite really wants to know what we are doing about climate change and what the price on carbon is all about, I direct him to https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/estimated-impacts-federal-system.html. Everything we have done about our policy is on the web. Everything about your policy exists on a piece of paper that was redacted. As a government, we have released everything.

Could the member opposite please tell me why he wants a document from his former cabinet members?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address the questions to the Chair, because it is not about my policy.

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member missed a couple of slashes: /redaction/blackout/we-are-not-going-to-tell-the-people-exactly-what-the-carbon-tax-is-going-to-cost-them.

I can understand that the member gets very upset when he cannot even get the information from his own government related to the carbon tax that is going to affect his constituents. That is okay. However, I would like to remind the member that your government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I know it is a very passionate debate, but maybe if the member looks at me instead of looking at the other members he will get it right.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that you waited until the end with the previous member, but I will.

If the member looks at the throne speech, I think you will see that the government is committed to an open and transparent government. I would ask all members, including the Speaker of the House, to look at that. We need to be able to see the results from the requests that have been put forward by the opposition members.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind the member to address all questions and comments to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding, Vancouver Kingsway, there is a strong consensus. It is not unanimous, but a clear majority of people are very concerned about the impacts of climate change. Last summer, terrible forest fires, some of the worst since the 1950s, burned so much in British Columbia that there was actually a haze in Vancouver for many days in the summer. We are seeing an early spring runoff now, and there is flooding that is approaching the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, which is a rare event.

The truth is that if we take climate change seriously, we have to take extraordinary steps now in order to avoid a rise in temperature of 2° centigrade by 2050, and by all accounts we are not on target for that.

The Liberals talk a good game. However, they signed Kyoto in 1997. That is 20 years ago. Eddie Goldenberg, who was Prime Minister Chrétien's assistant, publicly stated afterwards that they had no intention of ever meeting those targets. Therefore, Canadians can be rightfully suspicious of their claims now, particularly when we hear a lot of talk but the emissions are not going down.

What does my hon. colleague think it tells Canadians when the Liberals continue to tell them that they want to deal with climate change but there are never any reductions in GHG emissions or carbon emissions when they are in government?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. First, we need to recognize that, in terms of reduction in GHG emissions in Canada, there was a time when that happened. It was under the previous Conservative government, and we are very proud of that record.

Second, what the current government needs to do is take a step back and determine what it is trying to achieve in hard measurables. Once it has done that, it should come to the House and explain it to us so that we can have measurables in place to determine whether this has been a success or not.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

Around the world, the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly evident. Sea levels are rising, threatening coastal regions with increased erosion. Extreme events, like floods and wild fires, are becoming more and more common and severe, and in the north, where temperatures are rising at three times the global average, the permafrost is thawing and sea ice is melting. As the climate continues to change, these effects will only become more frequent and more severe.

The government is taking the challenge of climate change very seriously. We have a comprehensive clean growth and climate plan that includes historic investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and clean innovation. It includes phasing out coal, improving energy efficiency, and cutting methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and it includes a national price on carbon pollution.

I am quite proud to say that our plan now also includes putting a climate lens on infrastructure funded by the federal government. I would like to pause on that new green filter for just a moment, because it is a recent development and one that I have been working towards since my first days as a member of Parliament.

In 2016, I introduced private member's Motion No. 45 to this House, calling on the government to take into account the impact infrastructure has on Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. As the MP for Halifax, I represent one of Canada's primary coastal cities, and it is no exaggeration to say that Halifax is on the front lines of climate change when it comes to threats like worsening storms and sea level rise.

At the same time, our government is making an historic investment in infrastructure, $180 billion over 12 years. That is an investment that is going to transform our communities for the better. We also know, at the same time, that infrastructure has the potential to lock in greenhouse gas emissions for years to come.

We find ourselves at a pivotal moment in our history. It is a moment that comes with a remarkable opportunity and a responsibility to get it right. That is why, in 2016, I put forward Motion No. 45, requesting that the government put a climate lens on infrastructure that it chooses to fund. It passed, and I am so glad that this climate lens has now been worked into federal policy as a required part of the bilateral funding agreements being signed between the Government of Canada and all provinces and territories. That means that as part of our infrastructure plan, applicants seeking federal funding for new major public infrastructure projects will now have to undertake an assessment of how their projects will impact greenhouse gas emissions and consider the climate change risks in the location, design, operation, and maintenance of those projects. As a city planner and as the MP for Halifax, I view that as a significant win for our city and for the sustainability and resiliency of communities all across Canada.

I have just outlined some of the measures our government has put in place to protect our environment, but of course, we are here today to talk about putting a price on carbon pollution. Why? We are doing it because pricing carbon pollution works. It is the most effective, least expensive way to achieve our climate goals. It encourages innovation and keeps our economy strong. The simple fact is that without carbon pricing, cutting pollution would be much more expensive.

Canadians know that pollution is not free. Climate pollution leads to droughts and floods and wild fires and extreme weather, and all of these have major costs. Insurance claims from severe weather in Canada have been going up. They are more than three times higher today than they were in the 1980s and 1990s, a trend that is expected to continue.

Pollution also harms people's health, which has personal physiological costs and monetary costs for our health care system. Right now, it is the people most affected by these impacts who are paying the price: northerners; coastal communities; the people whose homes are flooded, as we saw in New Brunswick this spring; or those with asthma or other health conditions worsened by pollution. That is not right.

Carbon pricing, on the other hand, is based on the idea that the polluter should pay. Experts around the world agree. Carbon pricing is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. That is because it is not prescriptive. It allows companies and individuals to make their own decisions on how best to cut their emissions.

In Canada, more than 80% of us already live in jurisdictions with carbon pricing in place. Recognizing that each province and territory has unique circumstances, the pan-Canadian approach would allow provinces and territories the flexibility to choose a system that makes the most sense for them: an explicit price-based system, like in B.C. or Alberta; or a cap and trade system, like in Ontario and Quebec.

To ensure that a price on carbon pollution is in place across Canada, the Government of Canada has also committed to developing and implementing a federal carbon-pricing system as a backstop. This system would apply in any province or territory that requested it or that did not have a carbon pricing system in place by 2018 that met the federal standard.

We have seen how carbon pricing has worked in British Columbia. Over the past decade, B.C.'s carbon price has reduced emissions by between 5% and 15%. Meanwhile, provincial real GDP grew by more than 17% from 2007 to 2015, and per capita gasoline demand dropped 15% over that period. B.C.'s growing clean technology sector now brings in an estimated $1.7 billion in annual revenue.

In 2017, B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, the four provinces with carbon pricing systems in place, were also the top four performers in GDP growth across Canada. Anyone who says that carbon pricing hurts economies is not basing their arguments on science or the evidence but rather on ignorance and fear.

Consider this. People may have seen recently that the Government of Canada released a report showing that carbon pricing could reduce carbon pollution by up to 90 million tonnes across Canada by 2022. That is like taking 26 million cars off the road for a year or shutting down more than 20 coal plants.

At the same time, the report also found that GDP growth would remain strong with a nationwide price on carbon pollution. Canada's GDP is expected to grow by approximately two per cent per year between now and 2022, with or without carbon pricing. Regular changes in energy prices have a much bigger impact on the GDP than our carbon pricing plan.

We do know that carbon pricing will affect the price of fuel and other goods and services. Today the opposition is asking what it will cost families. Here is an example. The Government of Alberta has calculated the cost of its system. The direct cost for a family of four is about $500 per year. However, that is not the whole story, because if that family makes less than $95,000 a year, it will get a rebate of $540. That is right. It will actually come out ahead because of carbon pricing. About 60% of Alberta households receive a full or partial rebate to offset the cost of the carbon levy.

External studies have come up with a variety of estimates for what carbon pricing might cost. What these studies tend to agree on is that actual costs depend a lot on how provinces and territories design their carbon pricing systems and how they reinvest carbon pricing revenues back into the economy. Some households will face costs, but others will come out ahead financially, depending on the choices in each jurisdiction.

The Conservative opposition knows that, despite all this misdirection and pointless droning on on this point. It knows that the federal government has asked the provinces and territories to confirm the details of their systems by September, and it knows that wherever the federal system applies, all direct revenues will be returned to the jurisdiction of origin.

What the Conservatives may not know, and what they do not seem to care about, is just how expensive inaction on climate change could prove to be. Estimates suggest that climate change could cost Canada $5 billion a year by 2020 and as much as $43 billion by 2050.

With that in mind, I would like to conclude my remarks with some reflection on a quote earlier this month by Steve Williams, the CEO of Canada's largest oil company, Suncor. He was speaking in Calgary, right in the heartland of Canadian climate change denial, and he was talking about the current Conservative political discourse around climate change.

He said:

It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and economics have taken on some strange political ownership, why the science of the left-wing is different than the science of the right-wing....

Climate change is science, hard-core science.

He is right. There is no good reason why all members of this House cannot work together, agree on climate science and agree on the evidence that carbon pricing works and move forward to protect our planet for our kids. This does not have to be a political partisan spectacle. I will continue to work, as will this government, to make sure that one day, before it is too late, we will all see that we have no other choice.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague indicated that a number of the provinces are working in a situation where there is already carbon pricing. I want to remind him that the number of provinces that are in agreement with the carbon tax policy is rapidly decreasing.

My colleague said that anyone who says that a carbon tax will negatively impact the economy is working out of ignorance or fear. I want to remind my colleague that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the carbon tax would take $10 billion out of the Canadian economy by 2022. Does the member opposite think the Parliamentary Budget Officer is working out of ignorance and fear?

He also said that the carbon tax is the most cost-effective way to cut emissions. If that is true, all we are asking is this: what is the cost, and what is the reduction in emissions?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I also mentioned in my remarks that climate change will cost the Canadian economy $43 billion a year by 2050. Of course pricing carbon pollution has a cost, but that cost is put back into the economy, growing the economy and funding innovation in the green economy as we go along. The fundamental responsibility this generation has to future generations is the possibility of making the polluter pay for the damage being done to our communities.

As a planner, this is very much like a development charge. When we assess developers in a community for the cost of the impact on that community of their new development, that is not a cost borne by the taxpayers at large. It is borne by the person who is creating the cost to the community. That development charge is paid to the community for the benefit of all. That is the core intent of what carbon pollution pricing is all about.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague is so proud of this carbon tax, why will the government not just release what it is going to cost the average Canadian family? He keeps saying that a cost-benefit analysis has been done on this, that the cost will be x and the benefit will be y, and the y will be more than the cost, or the benefit will be more than the cost. If that is indeed the case, why will the government not release these numbers and make the argument that the cost is going to be high, but the benefits will be even better?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague heard me say in my remarks, it is not knowable what the cost will be yet, because many jurisdictions have yet to devise a system. There is a deadline in place, in September, when all the jurisdictions in Canada will have to have their pricing schemes in place. Otherwise, that will be backstopped by a federal process, but we cannot know those costs until that deadline arrives.

I would add, to revert back to my development charge analogy, that as with development charges, for carbon pricing or pollution pricing, there are some things we know the cost of, such as carbon capture and so forth, but there are many things we have a very hard time putting a figure on, like the impact on the health of our children, for example, or on the ecosystems around the world. These are things that are going to emerge as we understand what the jurisdictional programs look like. At that time, we will be able to understand the cost and the benefits much more clearly.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, hearing the other side talk about their record on climate change, I wonder how many times one can close a coal plant. The largest reduction in greenhouse gases was a direct result of the provincial government in Ontario closing coal plants. They can only be closed once. They cannot be closed more to get better results. Once it is closed, it is done. One has to move on to another coal plant. By the way, they opposed closing them in Alberta.

The other major contributor to the climate change reduction under the Conservative government, which they like to take credit for, and I am prepared to blame them for it if they wish, is that they had a recession. In fact, they often say it was a global recession, so do not blame them. They loved the recession so much, could the member explain why he thinks they might have wanted to try making a second recession happen just as they were leaving office?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, a very positive and unexpected result of the recession was a reduction in carbon. Of course, that was a wonderful silver lining to an otherwise very dark and grubby-looking cloud.

We know that the way we are going to grow our economy and protect our environment is by working on them hand in hand, in step together. The efforts we have across the board, through the infrastructure investments, through the green filter, through investing in green technologies, through the oceans protection plan, and now through a national price on carbon pollution, will work in concert through a whole-of-government approach in a way that every single Canadian has a part to play as we protect our environment for our kids and continue to grow this economy. That will be the legacy of this government.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, carbon pricing is key to any credible climate plan, because it is a cost-effective way to significantly reduce pollution while driving clean innovation and creating new jobs. A price on carbon creates a powerful incentive to cut pollution. It encourages people and businesses to save money by making cleaner choices, such as better insulating their homes or upgrading to more efficient equipment. Carbon pricing is a foundation of Canada's clean growth and climate action plan.

Four out of five Canadians live in a jurisdiction that is already pricing pollution today. By ensuring that all parts of Canada price pollution to the same standard, we will help ensure that we drive down our emissions and grow our economy. The clearer, more consistent, strong, and predictable the price signal, the greater its effectiveness in driving the choices that contribute to the transition to a low-carbon economy.

There are three main carbon pricing systems in Canada: cap and trade, a carbon tax or other form of charge on fossil fuels, and a hybrid system. The federal carbon pollution pricing system will use a hybrid approach that consists of two components: a charge on fossil fuels that will generally be paid by fuel producers or distributors, and a performance-based system for industrial facilities. It will be considered to be a regulatory fuel charge, as it will be aimed at changing behaviours. Putting a price on carbon pollution will create an incentive for businesses and consumers to make lower-carbon choices.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to give the member an opportunity to correct the record. He said it is a “carbon tax”. His government has been consistently calling it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a question for debate and not a point of order.