House of Commons Hansard #331 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was billion.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, the motion we have been presented with today calls for an economic analysis of the carbon tax. I would submit, however, that what is needed is a far more macroeconomic analysis of the climate change question. This should include, for example, the costs of climate inaction, particularly the increase in insurance premiums and the health costs associated with pollution-related risks. This is nowhere to be found in the Conservatives' motion, however.

I would like to know whether this is because, according to the Conservatives, there is no cost associated with climate inaction.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the question from the member, what we are talking about here today is a very fundamental obligation of a government to the people. That obligation is to always tell them the truth, and this motion is trying to get at the truth.

It is time for the government to stop stonewalling Canadians, stop gaslighting Canadians and tell us what the data says. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said it confirms his results. Where is that data? Bring it here. Table it right now.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, once again, we have an “axe the facts” day.

I want to know some facts. I want to know why the leader of the Conservative Party is avoiding getting security clearance at a time of foreign interference. I want the facts on that, instead of another day where the Conservatives spin and axe those facts.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB

Madam Speaker, I am sure it says in the Standing Orders somewhere that the question should be about the motion. I will leave that question for another day.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, does the member have any explanation for the reflexive secrecy? How on earth could it possibly come to the Parliamentary Budget Officer having to resort to ATIPing the government to get information from them? Secrecy by default is the Liberal government's M.O.

Does the member agree?

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB

Madam Speaker, I do agree with the member's statement.

The reality is that the truth does not help the Liberals. The Liberal government has been lying to Canadians for two years. It is a tangled web that gets woven when it lies to Canadians for two years, and its own data comes out and shows that it has been lying—

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He is specifically saying that members of this House are lying. He cannot say that.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, on this point of order, I listened very carefully to the member, and he did not accuse a member of Parliament of lying, which would be against the rules. He pointed out that the government has not told the truth, and the government has lied in its—

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I think I have heard enough on the point of order. I would just remind members not to use the word “lying” in the House. It causes disorder. This has clearly caused disorder. I would ask the hon. member to rephrase his response.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB

Madam Speaker, that is all fair, but the truth is that the Liberal government has not been telling the truth to Canadians.

The Prime Minister has misled Canadians for years. The Liberals have data that shows he has been misleading Canadians. That is what this is about. The Liberals need to come clean. They need to give out all the data now so Canadians know the truth about the carbon tax.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Laurier—Sainte-Marie Québec

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Surrey Centre.

This morning, Environment and Climate Change Canada published data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on carbon pollution pricing relative to the national and provincial gross domestic product for the years 2022-30. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am happy to table this data in the House, along with a Statistics Canada study called “Aperçu de l’incidence des tendances météorologiques extrêmes au Canada sur la rentabilité de l’assurance des propriétaires et les consommateurs”; as well as another report, by the Canadian Climate Institute, called “Damage Control: Reducing the costs of climate impacts for Canada”. While I am at it, since Canada introduced its first-ever nature accountability act this morning, only the second country in the world to do so, I would also like to table “Toward a 2030 Biodiversity Strategy for Canada: halting and reversing nature loss”.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I appreciate the member is tabling documents that we have not had a chance to see, but I will accept them. However, would the member table the documents on how much the toll fees for TMX are going to be and how much taxpayers are expected to cover off?

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay's request that the minister table a report is not really a point of order; it is more of a point of debate. The hon. minister knows that he can table reports at any time, so there is not an issue with his tabling reports.

The hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the data published today does not represent a comprehensive economic overview of the impacts of carbon pricing. Instead, it is background data related to a specific request from the PBO, which was then used to develop some of its analysis.

The Government of Canada has a collaborative relationship with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It always has collaborated and always will collaborate fully with the PBO's requests, including by providing the PBO with all specific documents and information that respond to its requests.

It should be recognized that the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays an important role in our democratic institutions. He assists all parliamentarians, be it in their day-to-day work or in long-term research, in order to enhance the quality of parliamentary debate and to promote greater transparency and budgetary accountability.

Unlike the Conservatives, who have a history of muzzling scientists, on this side of the House we value science.

Environment and Climate Change Canada estimates that the fuel charge and industrial carbon pricing system together will account for almost 80 million tonnes, Mt, of greenhouse gas pollution reduction in 2030, compared to what would have happened without the carbon pricing. That represents about one-third of the currently projected total emission that will result from various actions being undertaken pursuant to the 2030 emissions reduction plan. If members take the time to look at the data that is being tabled today, that was requested for us by the PBO, they will see that according to the PBO we know that greenhouse gas emissions have already gone down by 25 million tonnes per year because of carbon pricing.

A full economic assessment of carbon pricing cannot be done without considering the benefits of reducing pollution and the cost of not taking action, which is something, unfortunately, that the Conservative Party continues to ignore. Currently, climate change costs Canadian households an average of $720 a year and is set to rise to at least $2,000 a year by 2050. Canadians are already feeling the cost of climate change through losses to communities and livelihoods from wildfires, floods and hurricanes.

To estimate the economic benefit of emissions reduction, the Government of Canada uses a value known as the social cost of carbon. It quantifies the damages at $294 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in 2030. Canada's current social cost of carbon is the same value used by the United States government. Using that metric, the avoided cost for climate change in the year 2030 associated with the projected emissions reduction benefit of carbon pricing is about $23.1 billion per year. The social cost of carbon analysis is a core part of climate policy assessments used by many countries, as it reflects the reality of the growing impacts of climate change on current and future generations and is a standard methodology internationally recognized for estimating the benefits of reducing emissions.

Abandoning carbon pricing without replacing it with other actions would forgo those benefits, and replacing it with more costly policy measures would significantly and unnecessarily increase the cost to Canadians, which is another thing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has publicly recognized a number of times. In fact, a report from the Ecofiscal Commission concluded that carbon pricing would grow Canadians' incomes on average by $3,300 in 2030 relative to an alternative policy approach.

The increased costs of climate change are well documented.

For example, the Canadian Climate Institute document I referenced earlier tells us that by 2030, the annual costs of climate change impacts on Canada's GDP will be in the order of $35 billion. What is more, numerous studies have shown that the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of implementing measures to combat climate change.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his commentary and remarks, which I greatly appreciate.

A little later I will get back to the tabling of the documents, but basically, we feel that the documents released this morning are only partial. They are not complete, and they do not get to the bottom of the matter. That is why we often ask the minister to tell us precisely what the true effect is of the carbon tax in terms of directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is what we would like to know.

As for the real effect and the effectiveness of the carbon tax, I would like to table a document. Since the member tabled a number of documents, I am sure he will not mind if I table in the House a document entitled Climate Change Performance Index, or CCPI. As he knows very well, this document was presented at the last COP, which he attended. According to the CCPI, after nine years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62 out of 67 countries for greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberal policies are not working.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I have two things I would like to say.

First, we were asked to table the documents requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that is precisely what we did this morning. The data we are presenting to the House are those the Parliamentary Budget Officer had asked us for.

Second, while I know why my colleague likes to cite this CCPI report, the next time he talks about it I would like him to let the entire House know the reasons why Canada's performance is not improving. He knows full well what these reasons are, or at least I hope he does, because he often talks about this. I also hope he has read the document.

If Canada's performance is not improving, it is due to fossil fuel production. Consequently, we need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, and that is how our performance will improve.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I listened to it carefully.

I have two questions and observations for him.

First, we saw in the last budget that his government is continuing to invest in the oil industry. Does he really believe that these industries are in genuine need of help, when other people have much more need for government support than they do?

Second, he talked about documents this morning, but the reality is that the following was sent to the Parliamentary Budget Officer: “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”.

On such a crucial issue, what information was not in the public's interest to know? Why wait until this morning to release the documents?

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague probably already knows this, but Canada is the only G20 country to have eliminated government subsidies for fossil fuels. We did that last year. No other G20 country has done so. In addition, we did so two years ahead of the 2025 deadline. We even committed to doing more and eliminating indirect subsidies that are provided through Crown corporations like Export Development Canada, or EDC, and the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC.

As for the second part of her question, she correctly read an excerpt of the letter from the deputy minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, requesting that the Parliamentary Budget Officer simply be careful. We needed to make sure that we did not violate any privacy laws by providing this information. We checked, and the information is now public.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, the fundamental problem with the Liberals' carbon pricing schemes is that the government, under the present minister, gave $34 billion for the TMX pipeline. We now have record production taking place at Imperial. Cenovus is going to increase from 150,000 barrels a day. We are expecting a 500,000-barrels-a-day increase from the bitumen sands, which cause the highest greenhouse gas emissions on the planet.

How is the minister telling consumers that they should pay more when they go to the pumps when he is giving free money to big oil to continue the emissions that have risen in the oil sector year in, year out, and are now being subsidized by the government's pipeline?

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, I said it in French, but I will say it again in English and remind the member that Canada is the only G20 country to have eliminated fossil fuel subsidies last year. The numbers he is referring to precede 2023. That is the first thing.

Second, we need to tackle climate change pollution coming from all of the sectors, including the oil and gas sector in Canada. That is why we have already put in place regulations to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector by at least 45% by 2025, next year. We will ramp those up to at least 70% by 2030. That is also why we are putting in place a cap on oil and gas emissions.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 13th, 2024 / 11:10 a.m.

Surrey Centre B.C.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, Canadians are at the front lines of the climate crisis. Climate change manifests itself in our lives on a daily basis. It has already forced and will continue to force us to adapt and to change how we manage our businesses, organize our lives and interact with nature. With warmer temperatures comes more intense and frequent weather events everywhere on earth and here at home. At the global level, it has been estimated that, between 2000 and 2019, extreme events caused damages averaging around $143 billion, or around $16 million per hour.

Here at home, Canadians have first-hand experience with severe weather events such as hurricanes, storms, flooding, extreme heat and wildfires, which are now more common, more severe and more disastrous than ever. These kinds of weather events have major impacts on property and infrastructure, cause environmental damage and threaten lives and basic food security and water security. The impact of extreme weather events on Canadian communities is not limited to one given place. There are changes across our country and severe weather from coast to coast to coast.

When looking at the financial impacts of extreme weather, we see that six of the 10 costliest years on record in Canada were in the last decade. With 24 catastrophes, double the yearly average, the total insured losses for 2023 alone due to extreme weather were the fourth-highest in Canadian history at $3.1 billion. For example, 2023 was the most severe wildfire season Canada has seen to date, and for certain periods of time, smoke from Canadian fires blanketed much of the country and most of the northern and northeastern United States, exceeding air quality health standards. We all remember pictures of the New York City sky that was bright orange because of the smoke travelling from fires near our homes to south of the border.

A study has estimated the health costs of last year's wildfires for a single week in Ontario to be $1.28 billion due to changes in ambient air quality resulting in adverse health effects. In B.C., I am assuming it would be very similar after what we saw in the Okanagan and the interior. Sadly, 2024 could be a repeat of last summer. Current forecasts and conditions indicate that the coming wildfire season has the potential to be above average once again. Pre-existing dry conditions from the fall of 2023 and winter of 2024, combined with a high probability of warmer-than-normal conditions across the country this summer, contribute to predictions of above-average fire severity this summer, especially in the west.

Aside from the forecasts and the broader seasonal outlook, we can see that the 2024 wildfire season has already begun. As of May 27, there were 81 active fires across the country, with 14 of them out of control. Some people will say that the real season has not even started yet. In the east, the Atlantic is bracing for the upcoming hurricane season. Predictions for the upcoming hurricane season are for 17 to 25 major storms, category 3 or higher, eight to 13 of which could become hurricanes, and four to seven of them could become major hurricanes.

There is a high confidence in these forecasts generated for this year. Warmer weather in the Atlantic tends to increase the number of hurricanes in a particular season. Current water temperature in the Atlantic is very warm in the tropical zone, which will be a major contributor to this year's hurricane season.

As we all remember, hurricane Fiona in 2022 turned out to be one of the most significant and impactful tropical storms to affect Canada in many decades. It was particularly large, resulting in damage across all four Atlantic provinces and in parts of Quebec around the Gulf of St. Lawrence, including Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Many Canadians are asking, “Is that what climate change looks like?”

It is not as simple as attributing a single weather event to human-caused climate change. The evidence is clear that Canada is experiencing more frequent and more intense storms. Climate change is leading to intense disasters not only here at home but also around the world. We know climate change brings the possibility of more frequent exceptional weather. Canadians are clearly seeing that stable climate they used to experience is over.

Strong weather prediction and environmental services, as well as systems that provide early warning of potential impacts, will continue to be critical going forward as Canada is to face more frequent unprecedented weather. Such measures are critical for robust emergency preparedness and responses to events like hurricane Fiona and Canada's historic 2023 wildfire season.

They also complement the significant steps the government has taken already to adapt to a future climate. For example, Canada's national adaptation strategy presents a comprehensive blueprint to strategically reduce the risks that come with climate change impacts. We need to adapt better, be prepared for severe weather events, transform our infrastructure and economy in a changing climate, and enable Canadians to prepare for future risks.

What does adapting to climate change involve at home? First, it is about informing people. Canada's world-class weather and environmental prediction services are becoming more important than ever in the face of unprecedented weather. They support decision-making at all levels of society, including for provincial emergency management and response efforts, and they increase climate resilience.

We have learned many hard lessons in recent years due to historic, costly weather events. In the wake of these experiences, we must show that, by working together, governments, organizations and citizens can build climate resilience. Together we must do more. We must do it faster. We must invest in transforming our infrastructure, our economy and our relationship with nature. We must do these things to fight climate change and to enhance our abilities to prepare and adapt to unprecedented weather. The Government of Canada will always be there to help Canadians in need.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, I was just wondering, and maybe the member knows, maybe the government has shown him, how many emissions have been reduced by the carbon tax directly.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, I believe that 25 million tonnes have been reduced per year, which has been the biggest reduction with a carbon tax since, I believe, the 1990s. I think it was the Oilers' last win, if I am right. However, this has been the biggest contribution to the reduction of carbon from our atmosphere that has ever happened in the history of this country. It is definitely more than what happened under the Harper government.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep harping on the fact that they abolished subsidies to the oil companies. However, former minister Catherine McKenna said that the carbon capture tax credit “should never have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that.... We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits”.

I will spare my colleagues the rest of the quote, but I would like someone to explain to me how the carbon capture tax credit is so different from the subsidies the Liberals are supposed to have abolished.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, it is very clear how they are different. One is subsidizing the production of oil, which emits carbon, especially in the process of production and also when it is burnt.

The other is a subsidy in order to capture any carbon that is used in the process and store it so that it does not get into the atmosphere but goes back into the ground or some other place where it will not harm the atmosphere. I think it is a very important subsidy; it is counterintuitive to say that it is not important. It is equally important as doing a lot of the other ones to reduce the production of carbon. We also need to sequester carbon from production, away from the atmosphere.