Debates of June 13th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon Pricing

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not have the answer to that question. When we debate the budget bill, I would be happy to get an answer specifically to give to the member.

However, I will agree with the member on one thing. She started her question by saying that we could have been talking about a lot of other things. I found it really interesting that the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge basically said the same thing. Meanwhile, Conservatives have only been talking about the carbon tax in every opposition motion they have moved since this Parliament began.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this with great amusement, as well as to the members' references as to why we have not actually been addressing the motion. As the member opposite said, the motion is actually quite irrelevant at this point. I want to talk a bit about what the Conservatives have been doing recently in terms of actually wasting the time and resources of the House; the current motion is another example of that.

I sit on the environment committee, and we repeatedly get these motions from the Conservative Party asking to produce this, to produce that and to produce all the information on the model. I am not quite sure what they do with the information when we produce it. However, it is incredibly costly for the government to produce all these documents, in both official languages, solely to be used for political purposes.

The Conservatives talk about the price on pollution program. First, they spread misinformation in calling it a carbon tax. We know that it is a levy. As reaffirmed today by the parliamentary budget office, the rebate associated with the levy benefits eight out of 10 households across the country. However, the Conservatives repeat time and time again that it is impacting affordability for Canadians. The Conservatives like to scare people and say it is part of the problem and not the solution. They never, ever talk about the real problem that we are facing with climate change.

Liberals know there is an affordability issue. We have been working very hard to introduce measures to help Canadians with the affordability crisis, which was largely the result of the postpandemic economy combined with supply chain disruptions from the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. We acknowledge that there is an affordability crisis, and we have been addressing it. However, the Conservatives vote against every program we introduce to address the affordability crisis. They then introduce scare tactics and motions that say the price on pollution program is the problem, and it is causing all the problems in Canada.

Well, I have said it before and I will say it again: The Conservatives not only need lessons in basic math, but they also need lessons in causality and correlation. Just because things happen at the same time does not mean they are caused by the same thing. The Conservatives do this over and over again. We can look at the price on pollution program, and we can see that when the carbon levy was increased, inflation came down. Do the Conservatives ever discuss that? How do they explain that if, in fact, it is the price on pollution that is causing inflation?

We can look beyond our borders to other countries and see that inflation has been worse in those countries. Some do not have the same kind of price on pollution program we have; they have different programs to address climate change. How does that work, if the price on pollution program is causing inflation and our affordability crisis? Is our price on pollution program here in Canada causing global inflation? Are we that powerful? Does it make that big a difference? I do not think so, and I do not think the Conservatives think that either. I think that they believe it is to their political advantage to continue to say that this is what is causing the problem.

However, let us look at this in terms of what it is doing. Once again, today, the parliamentary budget office reconfirmed that eight out of 10 Canadian households receive more back in the carbon rebate than they pay through the levy. The only households that may not do better through this program, for which it does not address affordability, are those making over $250,000 a year; yesterday, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say the same households were the poor, the ones who needed help. The Leader of the Opposition was arguing that households that realized capital gains of over $250,000 a year somehow needed a tax break. I do not know where the Conservatives have been looking at Canadians and Canadians' wages and their livings, but those people I know who realize capital gains of more than $250,000 a year or who make more than $250,000 a year are generally not the ones lining up at food banks. They are generally not the ones having problems paying for dental care or child care.

When we talk about the Canadians whom the government is helping, we are talking about the Canadians who do need help, not the wealthy and the corporate elites who are making more than $250,000 a year, either in earned income or in capital gains. For the people who earn less than $250,000 a year, who have capital gains of less than $250,000 a year or who perhaps do not have a corporation they are putting their income into at a lower tax rate so they do not pay the normal earned income tax rate, the programs we have put in place over the past year, and I would say since 2015, have benefited them.

The price on pollution will not only address the affordability crisis; it also addresses the climate crisis. Unlike those of us who agree that there is an affordability crisis and a climate crisis, it seems that many members on the opposite side, in fact some of the members who sit on the environment committee with me, do not acknowledge there is a climate crisis.

Some of the questions that are asked in committee and some of the witnesses that they bring are so astounding that I want to fall off my chair. Some of the other witnesses who know the science, know the facts, actually look like they are going to have a problem in committee, and I worry about them because of some of the things that are being said.

We need to have a government whose members all understand that the climate crisis is real and that not taking action is not a possibility; it is not an option. We have to take action, and we know from experts around the world, from experience in other countries and from experience here in Canada, in British Columbia, that a price on pollution program works. In fact, we have been told again that 30% of the reduction in emissions we are putting out will be from the price on pollution program. We have already seen the reduction in carbon emissions due to the price on pollution program, and the data has been presented again and again.

All the Conservatives can do to address that is to say, “Let's see every detail of the model.” In fact, they wanted a spreadsheet. The modelling that is used to look at what the economy would do under a price on pollution scenario or without a price on pollution scenario is so complex and so great that we were told that a mainframe would have to be brought in. The data could not be given to the Conservatives, and they could not start to analyze it themselves.

Nonetheless, they demanded that from ECCC, which has a lot of very important work to do on things like the biodiversity legislation that is being advanced to protect 30% of Canada's nature, and the really important work to do in helping Canadians adapt to climate change. That work is being supplanted by producing more and more documents, in both official languages, and that is irresponsible. For members of the House, a party, to be trying to set us back in that way is completely irresponsible.

I hope that Canadians listening to the debate today will understand that yet another Conservative motion means time being used in the House of Commons, time being used in committee, and time when we would be asking departments to produce documents so the Conservatives can nitpick and try to find little things that they think are not exactly correct. They do this rather than listening to 300 experts from around the world and rather than looking at the science, the facts and the data to see the evidence that not only is there a climate crisis but also that a price on pollution program will help address that crisis and benefit their constituents as well as mine.

We need to support Canadians through the affordability crisis, and we need to support Canadians now and in the future by fighting the climate crisis. That is exactly what our government is doing, and I really wish the Conservatives would get on board and move forward instead of moving backwards.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with amusement, and it brings several questions to mind. First, can the member tell us how much carbon tax she pays on her mansion in Cohasset, Massachusetts? How much capital gains has she paid on the flipping of multiple properties in the Cape Cod area? Did the Liberal luxury tax apply to her—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would ask the hon. member to stick to questions of Canadian policy.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is about policy. It is about the Liberal policy.

Did the Liberal luxury tax apply to your million-dollar yacht? It is pretty hypocritical that you talk about the carbon—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I do not talk about any such stuff. The hon. member is speaking to the member directly and not through the Chair.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty hypocritical that the member talks about the carbon tax and the climate emergency, and yet we realize that her husband made his fortune from the oil and gas industry.

Does the member have any comments on that?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, sure I do. I do not own a mansion in Cohasset, and we have never flipped properties in Cape Cod.

When we were in the energy business, we were one of the most efficient providers of energy in the region, through what was called cogeneration, which was one of the most efficient ways to provide energy. This was in the 1990s before renewable energy sources. Yes, I worked in the industry. I am aware of the industry. I actually have a background in it as well as a degree in finance.

If you would like to talk about my personal life, I can tell you a lot—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

No, I would not.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important, for the record, that the member just accused the Speaker of asking questions about her personal life. I do not think the Speaker is interested in questions like that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Precisely, which is why I rose. I thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know, even in the banter back and forth in the House, how serious Conservatives and Liberals are about the climate emergency. I am wondering how my hon. colleague feels about her government's buying a pipeline that is costing over $30 billion. I know that there is banter about who cares about climate more. Many of the Conservatives are climate denialists, are axing the facts and are still debating whether the world is flat.

I would ask what my hon. colleague thinks about her government's buying a pipeline.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that the Conservatives are still arguing about whether the world is flat and whether climate change exists. We clearly know it does, and we are taking steps to transition our economy from an oil and gas economy to an economy based on green energy. That transition takes time. We have put in many policies and programs, from electric vehicles to clean energy, capping methane and capping emissions in the oil and gas industry, which is working towards that.

We know that currently Canadians and others around the world are using oil and gas. Our objective is to transition as quickly as possible and continue to move forward to fight climate change.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, the Liberals say they have stopped subsidizing oil, but they continue to do so indirectly.

They are subsidizing big oil through the pipeline project, as well as through all the subsidies to help carbon capture and, basically, to help make tar sands oil cleaner.

Does my colleague think that oil companies really need these tax credits? Will this not just lead to even more greenhouse gases?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of debate around the subject. In fact, the environment committee right now is talking about sustainable finance, the transition and categorizing investments as transition or green.

As I said earlier, we are an economy in transition. Oil and gas has been a major part of our economy. Anything oil and gas companies can do now to reduce emissions helps us reach our goals. Ultimately we want zero emissions. We want a cap on emissions and to get to net zero in every sector of our economy. That is what we are working toward, but there is a transition period and CCUS is part of that transition.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour today of a very reasonable motion that I believe members of Parliament from all parties should support, moved today by the leader of the official opposition.

When making any major decision, it is important to weigh the costs and the benefits. That is true in the private sector, true in life in general and especially true for politicians when we are deciding on government policy. That includes environmental policy, and the Liberals' carbon tax, their hallmark policy meant to address global warming and climate change, should be no exception.

When the Liberals introduced their carbon tax in 2019, it was set at $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalents, a little over 4¢ on a litre of gas. Since then, the Liberals have increased the carbon tax every year so that it now stands at $80 per tonne, about 18¢ per litre. The Liberals say that they will continue to increase the carbon tax every year for the rest of the decade until it reaches $170 per tonne, about 40¢ on a litre of gas.

To look at it another way, if the gas tank of a typical car holds about 50 litres of gas, that means that in 2030, the average Canadian will pay an extra $20 on a tank of gas each and every time he or she fills up the car at the gas station.

However, the carbon tax applies to so much more than just filling up one's tank with gas. It applies to home heating. It applies to heating of commercial businesses. It applies to heating of schools, hospitals and municipal buildings. It applies to farmers who have to heat their barns and dry their grain, which is why the Conservatives have been advocating for the passage of Bill C-234 to exempt farmers' grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so that these costs would not be passed on to consumers.

In fact last winter, Environment and Climate Change Canada was even going so far as to contact pizzeria and bagel shop owners about their wood-burning ovens, to see whether they should be subject to the carbon tax. Fortunately, it did not go through with the measure, but it shows just how wide-ranging and sweeping the Liberals' carbon tax has been on every aspect of Canadians' lives.

It seemed perfectly reasonable that, last April, the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested from Environment and Climate Change Canada its internal analysis of the economic impacts of the carbon tax. When Environment and Climate Change Canada responded last month, there was one sentence in the reply letter that was very troubling. It read, “The data the Department is providing contains unpublished information. As such, I request you to ensure that this information is used for your office’s internal purposes only and is not published or further distributed”.

I see no good reason for the government's analysis of the economic impacts of the carbon tax to be withheld from members of Parliament or from Canadians at large. If we as elected officials are responsible for making the best decisions possible for Canadians, if we are responsible for weighing the costs and the benefits of the policy, then it makes no sense for the costing analysis to be withheld.

This morning, because of today's motion, the Liberal government released at least part of the information. We now know, according to the government, that the carbon tax is costing the Canadian economy $20 billion per year, roughly $1,200 per household. I have to say that it is extremely frustrating that a government that once claimed to be transparent by default is still playing games and blocking access to important information.

Now that I have outlined some of the costs of the carbon tax, I think that it is fair for Canadians to ask, “What are the benefits?” The stated objective of the carbon tax is to prevent global warming and climate change, so this question has to be asked: “By how many degrees Celsius has global warming decreased as a result of Canada's carbon tax?” That question is fundamental to the whole issue. Is it half a degree Celsius? Is it 0.1°C? Is it 0.01°C? Canadians deserve to know what we are getting for that extra $20 on a tank of gas.

I would like to read a quote from the government's report entitled “How Pollution Pricing Reduces Emissions”, which was referred to in the department's response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The first line of the report reads, “Every day, we see the increasing impacts of climate change and they’re costing Canadians more and more.”

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order, please.

The member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would sincerely like to apologize. I was just so gobsmacked by the idiocy—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The apology is accepted.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa has the floor.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder what he was apologizing for. Was it for insulting my colleague or not?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I accepted the apology, and we are done.

The hon. member for Regina—Wascana has the floor.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, let me reiterate the quote from the department's report. It reads, “Every day, we see the increasing impacts of climate change”. Right off the bat, one has to infer that the carbon tax must not be working very well if the department's own report is telling us that every day, we we are seeing increasing impacts of climate change.

The report continues, “A price on pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to the more intense wildfires, droughts, and floods caused by climate change.” That is fair enough. If that is the position the government wants to take, then that is fine. All we are asking on this side of the House is if the government could please show its work, all of its work, not just what the minister grudgingly released this morning.

It should not take a full day of parliamentary debate to drag the government, kicking and screaming, into being transparent. The report mentions wildfires, so that raises this question: how many fewer wildfires have we had as a result of the carbon tax? The report also mentions droughts. How many fewer droughts have we had as a result of the carbon tax? The report mentions floods. How many fewer floods have we had as a result of the carbon tax? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I strongly suspect that the effect of Canada's carbon tax on all of these things is infinitesimally insignificant.

However, if Environment and Climate Change Canada has done some analysis and some studies to shed light on these subjects, I, as a member of Parliament, would certainly like to read them, without having to resort to a full day of parliamentary debate.

It is very reasonable for Canadians to ask if there is a better way. I believe there is: technology, not taxes. Canada has tremendous potential for the development and application of new environmentally friendly technologies. At the environment committee, experts shared research with committee members about the benefits of irrigation and how increased agriculture production can sequester more carbon out of the atmosphere with improved irrigation.

In the southeast corner of my home province of Saskatchewan, there is a major carbon capture and storage facility at a coal-burning power plant, which allows for the existing infrastructure to remain in place while storing carbon under the ground instead of releasing it into the air. In northern Saskatchewan, there are massive reserves of uranium, which can be used in nuclear reactors to generate electricity without any emissions.

However, if we are going to plot the best way forward and make good public policy decisions, then we need to have good information on which to base our decisions. That means the government must be transparent by default, as it promised to do years ago. Therefore, I support the motion that would require the government to produce all of these relevant documents.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know there was some harassment going on by the NDP, but I came to the member's defence. It was a wonderful speech.

There has been a statement made around here all morning about getting facts out, and the Liberals are now claiming they can prove that they have supplied the documents showing that emissions are actually being reduced by the carbon tax. Meanwhile, we have an answer. We asked a direct question of the government, of the environment minister. We asked, “does the government measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced from...carbon pricing”, carbon levy, or whatever they want to call it. “Carbon tax” is what we more affectionately call it. Here is their answer, and I think the Speaker would find this very interesting: “the government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing.”

How does the math work? How does the science work? What is the rationale of any Canadian expecting that this carbon tax would have any impact on reducing emissions?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the environment committee.

I think it is important for people to understand that today's debate is about just one small piece of the puzzle we are trying to put together. We have requested some particular documents, and the government grudgingly provided them this morning, but this is a regular occurrence at the environment committee. We are constantly asking the minister and the department to show their work, to show how the carbon tax has been increasing and to show what effect it is having on emissions. They keep stonewalling. We can never seem to get a straight answer out of the government, and it is extremely frustrating for members of Parliament who are trying to do their jobs.