Debates of June 13th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon Pricing

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there we go. We just heard the response from one of the hon. members. Hon. members should know that, when another member has the floor of the House, they should wait their turn. We were taught that at a young age.

From east to west, Canada is warming at twice the rate—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear my hon. colleague from Calgary over there, who will be golfing this summer. I wish him the best on the golf circuit.

Canada is warming at a rate twice as fast as the global average, with the north warming three times as fast. The impacts of widespread climate change are already impacting Canadians profoundly, from deadly heat waves to wildfires and flooding, which are all expected to intensify. Last year, the scale of the fires, the smoke, the length of season and the national impacts all contributed to the worst wildfire season Canadians have ever seen. Smoke and ash impacted air quality across North America and beyond.

We must take action now to drive down greenhouse gas emissions and make our communities more resilient to the impacts of the changing climate. We can do that while we are economic leaders. In fact, the Canadian economy next year is forecasted to grow at the fastest pace of all G7 countries.

As I like to say as an economist, our deficit-to-GDP ratio is among the lowest in the developed world at around 1%, versus the United States, which is between 5% and 6%, and some of the European countries, which range from 3% to 5%. Our debt-to-GDP ratio, on a net basis, which is what we look at and how our AAA credit rating is examined, is again very low. Our unemployment rate is very low. Jobs continue to be created. In fact, our economy continues to perform very strongly. We all have our challenges. The world has its challenges today, and we are responding.

Canadians will have a choice in another few months or so. They will have to choose between a narrow-minded, small, less ambitious type of government and a government that has ambitions for its people, has the confidence to invest in its citizens and its industry, and collaborates with labour and industry. Canadians will have to choose between that and a potential government that would bring in an austerity agenda.

Let us come clean. It would bring in an austerity agenda. What would that mean for Canadians? It would mean no dental care for seniors. It would mean cutting the Canada child benefit and raising the retirement age back to 67, when we lowered it to 65.

What does it mean when the Conservatives say they are going to do something with the budget? That means cuts. In economist terms, there is no other word to use. Austerity equals cuts. When the Leader of the Opposition says he wants small government, that means no ambition and no confidence, whether it is domestic or global. It means an austerity agenda would be brought in front of Canadians, but that is not going to happen.

I look at what is going on in the world and, as an economist, I know we need to fight climate change. In fact, our plan is working. Emissions are going down. We are meeting our targets, and we will meet them. We will do that collaborating with governments.

I am an MP who represents a wonderful riding in Ontario. It is nice to see, in the province of Ontario, how we are working with the provincial government to make all of these strategic investments in the auto sector. To every auto sector worker in the province of Ontario and across Canada, there is an opposition party that is not supportive of investing in the auto sector. It is not supportive. It does not believe in that.

Liberals believe in investing in Canadians. The Conservatives do not. That is what smaller government is. That is what an austerity government is. The Conservatives will need to answer those questions in the coming weeks and months because that is the truth. For climate change, putting a price on carbon is a market-based policy. In fact, nearly every one of those members ran on that in the last election, and now they have changed their minds.

The Canadian Climate Institute estimates that, by 2025, Canada could lose $35 billion due to climate change as compared to a more stable climate scenario. This represents 50% of anticipated growth in the gross domestic product for 2025.

The cost and impact of inaction on the lives and livelihoods of Canadians is far too great.

Taking climate action seriously now is critical to cutting emissions, and making our economy more resilient to climate change and more competitive. Our way forward, for now and for the foreseeable future, is to make the transition to a clean, sustainable future as quickly as possible.

We will continue to move forward; we will not go back. That is what I have learned in life, to continue to move forward. We will continue to move forward and build an economy that is more competitive, creates more jobs and creates more wealth, and that is exactly what we are doing.

For instance, in 2021, the Government of Canada adopted legislation that committed it to achieving enhanced 2030 emissions reductions of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels under the Paris Agreement, along with a commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. It is not just Canada going this way.

Some hon. members like to say that China is building coal plants and stuff, but China right now is installing more renewable power than ever. The United States, under the Inflation Reduction Act, is providing incentives for its clean tech industries and attracting investment. Europe is doing the same thing. We are all going in the same direction because that is the way of the future. We know it.

The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act provides a durable framework of accountability and transparency for Canada's climate action. As an early deliverable under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, Canada published an emissions reduction plan in 2022. There is nothing stopping the official opposition from putting up a plan. Where is the plan? We need a plan for the economy and the environment that go together.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I again hear the hon. member from some part of Calgary.

This plan is an ambitious and achievable road map that outlines a sector-by-sector path for Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, while strengthening our economy with sustainable jobs and clean, industrial growth. It lays out optimal and the most cost-effective emissions reductions. That is everything from the retooling of our transportation sector with zero-emissions sales targets and EV charging stations, industrial policies on batteries and critical minerals, and historic investments in public transit, including zero-emission buses.

As the chair of the auto caucus within the Liberal Party, I have been able to visit a lot of plants and attend the announcement of investments with the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario. For the auto sector and the nuclear sector, it is a very exciting time. We are seeing Ontario workers, B.C. workers and Quebec workers, as well as the supply chain across the country, benefiting from these multi-billion dollar, once-in-a-lifetime investments.

I am proud to be a part of the government that is leading the charge on this and participating with industry and labour.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge says that he is concerned about the economic effect of climate change. Well, I can say that so are the one million people who live in the Fraser Valley, who just received news last week that they will be getting zero dollars out of the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund. We are getting just empty words from the Liberal Party about worrying about the economy and climate change. Why is there no money coming to British Columbia to defend, protect and support the port of Vancouver, the biggest port in all of Canada, which was cut off for nine days due to severe flooding in 2021? Where is the money?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Langley—Aldergrove's area quite well, as a born-and-raised B.C. boy who attended Simon Fraser University in the area.

With regard to any funds directed to the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley, my heart goes out to all the residents who had to experience the impact of climate change. I believe it was last year, if my memory serves me correctly. Obviously, speaking to the relevant minister, those issues of concern should be raised and so forth.

I know the disaster mitigation fund application quite well. The city I live in also applied for it, and I understand the member's concerns. However, we have been there. The Minister of Defence was there, and there have been funds provided to the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley to get the roads repaired and those farmers back to doing what they do.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois are in favour of transparency. It is important to be able to make informed decisions and have informed debates. We are also in favour of this motion because intellectual integrity means a lot to us, unlike some Conservative members from Quebec who have spent the past year fearmongering about the carbon tax and saying it applies in Quebec when it does not.

They tried to tell us that it was terrible, that it was a disaster and that its indirect effects were causing the economic crisis. On the issue of inflation, the Leader of the Opposition constantly quotes the Bank of Canada, which is not just anyone. However, Bank of Canada representatives told the Standing Committee on Finance that the indirect effect of this carbon tax on Quebec was 0.02%.

This means that it costs 20¢ out of every $1,000. I would like my colleague to explain why the government is withholding information if it is so proud of this environmental measure.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Climate change is a very important issue.

Climate change is obviously very real, and I know that in the province of Quebec they are leaders in fighting climate change, much like they were leaders in adopting an early child care plan in the province of Quebec.

I agree with my colleague about transparency, which is very important to me. I am an elected member of Parliament.

I analyze all information so I can make the best decisions when it comes to putting a price on carbon. As an economist, I support market-based measures, and it is one measure.

Putting a price on carbon is very important in the fight against climate change.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link project of the Nukik Corporation made some great submissions in the federal budget, in both 2023 and 2024. One of its recommendations was to increase the investment tax credit from 15% to 30% for indigenous- or Inuit-owned transmission intertie projects in development.

I wonder if the member can explain why the Liberals are only giving lip service and not actually listening to great recommendations by indigenous corporations so that they can be more engaged in combatting climate change.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have much respect for the hon. member for Nunavut. In budget 2024, we put in place, I believe, a $5-billion indigenous loan guarantee, which I think is transformational. I know it was applauded by indigenous organizations and indigenous groups across the country, and it continues the path of reconciliation and a nation-to-nation conversation.

I have, again, much respect for the hon. member for Nunavut.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to discuss some of the government's key actions to combat climate change, cut pollution and drive clean technologies.

In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians. Impacts from climate change are wide-ranging, affecting our homes, our cost of living, infrastructure, health and safety, and economic activity in communities across Canada.

The latest science warns that to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly, and urgently, to hold the global average temperature increase at 1.5°C.

The government is taking this seriously. We have a plan to reduce Canada's emissions by 40% to 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Carbon pricing is the cornerstone of our plan. Since 2019, every province and territory has had a price on carbon pollution. Some provinces, like B.C. and Quebec, have had carbon pricing in place for much longer than that. The question is why. It is because it works.

It creates powerful financial incentives for industries and individuals to take concrete steps to reduce their emissions and invest in clean options. Carbon pricing has proven to be effective around the world and here in Canada. We remain focused on ensuring that it is designed to keep life affordable for Canadians. Over 90% of the federal fuel charge proceeds go back to households via quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments delivered to families by cheque or direct deposit. The majority of households, particularly lower- and middle-income households, get back more through these rebates than the cost of the fuel charge.

We are also working with provinces and territories, as well as other stakeholders, on ensuring that carbon pricing and our credit markets remain effective across the country and drive the big investments needed to decarbonize industry. Most provinces in Canada maintain their own carbon pricing systems for industry, which have broad support across businesses and experts in Canada.

Our federal and provincial systems for pricing carbon pollution from industry are designed to send a strong carbon price signal that creates a powerful incentive for all polluters to reduce their emissions.

For every tonne of pollution reduced by an industrial polluter, either they avoid paying the carbon price or they can earn a credit that they can sell to other emitters. These trading systems are key to protecting industry's competitiveness while still driving emissions reductions, and all proceeds collected under Canada's pricing system for industry are used to further support industrial decarbonization and clean electricity incentives.

We also recognize that many Canadian industries are trade-exposed, competing in the global market. That means that too heavy a hand will just shut down production and lead to carbon leakage, more production by competitors outside of Canada who may face a lower carbon price. That is not going to accomplish anything, not emissions reductions and not economic growth.

Our system, however, as well as provincial and territorial systems for industry, is carefully designed to achieve both. The clean fuel regulations in place since 2022 are another market-based instrument that will accelerate the use of clean technologies and fuels and support good jobs in a diversified economy. In fact, they are expected to deliver up to 26.6 million tonnes of emissions reductions annually by 2030, which is a significant contribution to our emissions reduction target.

We have already seen significant investments in the energy sector as a result of the incentives from the clean fuel regulations. Since the announcement of the regulations, over $53 billion in investments have been announced across Canada in low-carbon industry fuels such as green hydrogen, renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel.

For example, Imperial's renewable diesel complex at its Strathcona refinery near Edmonton is under construction. Once completed, it will produce more than one billion litres per year of renewable diesel from locally-sourced feedstocks. Covenant Energy will start construction of a renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel production facility in Saskatchewan this year, with production expected to start in 2026. Another example, Braya Renewable Fuels, has finalized the retrofit of the refinery at Come By Chance, Newfoundland, right in my riding of Bonavista—Burin—Trinity. I was delighted to attend the opening and the celebration of the first renewable diesel being produced in Come By Chance. It has saved the refinery and salvaged it from closure, and now people in the region are seeing long-term, sustainable jobs for decades ahead.

These companies, and others like them, will be able to create and sell valuable credits for supplying low-carbon fuel to Canada. These are the types of economic investments that the clean fuel regulations are supporting in Canada.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy is achieved in a way that is fair and predictable for businesses. It supports Canadian jobs, as I just alluded to in Come By Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Canada's international competitiveness.

Climate change is arguably the defining issue of our time. Canadians want to be a part of the solution. The government is taking concrete action to cut emissions and to create incentives and opportunities for new investments and technologies.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member has had a chance to read the report that the Liberals just released this morning. Does he believe that a $30.5-billion hit to our economy is going to affect Canadians' everyday lives?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the narrative coming from the Conservative side is very different from what we are hearing. When we look at the investments, for example, the $53-billion investment in clean fuel energy and projects going forward, creating good, sustainable jobs, I am certainly good with that.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague.

How does he explain the fact that the minister made the documents public today after this motion was tabled? Can my colleague encourage the members of his government to learn from their mistakes and to be more transparent?

Now, the Liberals are going to try to appear virtuous. They are going to say that, yes, they provided the study. That is not true. Some unparliamentary words are coming to mind that I will not say. That is completely false. The Liberals have to be forced to do things. We always have to put their backs against the wall for them to take action. We are tired of that. The public is tired of that.

For goodness' sake, can they not take this work seriously and provide all of the information to parliamentarians so that we can make informed decisions?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, again, the narrative from the Bloc and what we are debating in the House on a regular basis are always very different.

We use the commentary from the PBO and other sources. As the minister alluded to today, we have over 300 economists across the country who support what we are doing with the climate change initiatives and carbon pricing.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I agree with my colleague from the Bloc, that the government has shown itself to be very untransparent and very difficult to get information from, on a number of different fronts.

In the House, we are discussing a lot of things around climate change and climate issues. We have heard the Liberal government claim that it is doing things on climate change, and then it provides loopholes, time and time again, that undermine its own policies and that make its own policies not work.

I have a very simple question. In Alberta, the fire season started extraordinarily early this year. Climate change is real. It is having incredible impacts on communities in my province and across the country. My colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, has asked the government to finally put in place a national wildfire task force to help us deal with these wildfires.

Does the member agree that this is something that is urgently needed and that is long overdue?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, actually, I do agree. It would make an immense contribution to preparing for wildfires, every season.

We saw the disasters that happened, last year in Western Canada and three summers back in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We see fires now that have started in Labrador West, in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen the effects, particularly on the island of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in Atlantic Canada, from major hurricanes and from what is happening.

I firmly believe in climate change. I want to protect the world that I live in, going forward, for my two children, for my four grandchildren and for all my family and friends. I think the member's suggestion is certainly a good one, and I thank the hon. member for that suggestion.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my hon. colleague a question about the Conservatives' approach to dealing with climate change.

The Conservatives say that they are going to use technology, yet in his home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Conservatives stood in the way of creating sustainable jobs. When there are opportunities for Atlantic Canada, Conservatives are opposed to technology and creating new jobs of the future.

What does the member think about that, and how would this have negative impacts on his community?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I can say is that Newfoundland and Labrador is poised to be a major wind energy production province, along with Nova Scotia and others.

We see immense possibilities and a bright future for Newfoundland and Labrador, with other clean energies that we are going to build and implement as we do green hydrogen projects and so on. It is a great example of how we can invest in technology that will benefit not only the economy but also the climate.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take to my feet today and talk about the common-sense Conservative motion to release the secret report, which the environment minister had the PBO hide from Canadians, and to reveal the truth to Canadians.

Before I get to the substance of my presentation, there are two things I want to say.

First and foremost, this will be the last time I have a chance to be on my feet and to wish a Happy Father's Day to fathers across Canada, which is coming this Sunday. My wish for Father's Day is that the Oilers get two wins. I will put on record that it was the first time an NDP member has ever clapped for anything I have said in the House.

Second, I will be splitting my time with the member for Foothills. I am looking forward to hearing his presentation later in this debate.

It has come to light that the environment minister has been gagging the PBO and has not been allowing him to let Canadians see the full effect of what the carbon tax has been doing to our economy. Hurriedly this morning, the Liberals were forced to release some, but not all, of the report. That is why this motion is so salient today, because we would like to see the full, unredacted report released so that Canadians know how much the job-killing carbon tax is crippling our economy. The report states that $30.5 billion is going to be put at risk in our economy because of this carbon tax when it is fully implemented. We do not have to look very far to see the results of what is going to continue to happen.

This all came to light because of some very good work done at the finance committee by one of my colleagues. The PBO stated, “it doesn't change the overall conclusion...as I pointed out...our numbers have been out there since 2022. In that time...the government...has not published anything regarding the economic impact of the carbon tax.” He went on to say, “We know...that the government has these numbers on the economic impact.... They have not published anything....”

Our colleague went on to ask, “you understood that the government had economic analysis on the carbon tax that it has not released. Are you saying that the government has not been transparent with the analysis it has?”

The PBO stated, “I mentioned that the government has economic analysis on the impact of the carbon tax itself and the OBPS.... We've seen that—staff in my office—but we've been told explicitly not to disclose it or reference it.”

Our colleague said to the PBO, “The government has given you their analysis, but they have put a gag on you, basically, saying you can't talk about it.”

The Parliamentary Budget Officer responded, “That is my understanding.”

This revelation is something that should be quite shocking to Canadians. We know that the Liberal government has had a disregard for the rule of law. We saw it bring in the Emergencies Act. It had a disregard for the rights of Canadians when it came to trying to divide us based on a personal health choice. We know that the radical environment minister is an eco-terrorist and has no respect for the law, because he was actually arrested climbing a tower. Therefore, to have such little respect for the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer is not out of character for the members of the government, who really believe, as they are so out of touch, that they can do whatever they want and that Canadians should just go along with it.

Now, we are talking about the long-term damaging effects to our economy. We know that our GDP continues to decrease and that it is one of the lowest in the G7. That is a direct result of the radical fiscal policies, and one might say the wacko policies, that the NDP-Liberal costly coalition has forced on Canadians.

I had the honour to attend the 111th AGM of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association on Monday. We had conversations about this, constantly, because it is getting harder for ranchers and for farmers to try to make ends meet. We know the PBO has also said that by 2030, when the carbon tax is fully implemented, it is going to take $1 billion out of the ag sector alone. It is going to cost the average farm about $170,000 a year. Who can eat that kind of a tax increase? It is going to be harder for farm families to make ends meet and to put food on the table, because if we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who trucks the food, then we tax all Canadians who buy the food.

I really think it is important that we look at how the Liberals have continued to put terrible policies in place that are affecting our farmers. The fertilizer reduction tariff is making it harder for farmers to grow food, as is the carbon tax. We did have a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, that was going to actually lessen the weight of the crushing carbon tax on our Canadian farmers. The Senate sent it back and gutted the bill, and now the Liberals and New Democrats will not let us get this bill passed. There are things we can do, and have tried to do, to ensure that our farmers are able to be better off, but that is just not something the current government is focused on, trying to help ranchers, farmers and producers across the country.

When it comes to the hidden report that Canadians were not allowed to see, I appreciate the member for Whitby, who is famous for saying that Canadians will go through pain because of the carbon tax. He got that part right. Canadians have felt pain all over this country, as we see millions lined up at food banks. That is the type of pain the member for Whitby was talking about. However, he is also the one who actually brought up the hidden report in the first place at committee. I think it is very interesting that we have not heard him speak on this motion, as of yet, but I would love to hear some of the comments that he might have on a $30.5-billion hit to our economy.

We are now saying that the environment minister is unfit to have his job. He should resign or the Prime Minister should fire him, because he purposely misled Canadians on the Liberals' flagship tax policy. I think it is time that he does the right thing and that he resigns from his position as the environment minister. The Prime Minister does not show leadership on this front. We all know that he is flailing in the polls, but it is time for him to actually show some leadership, which he has not done in nine long years, and get rid of the environment minister, who is making it harder for Canadians to make ends meet.

When it comes down to it, $30.5 billion from this crippling carbon tax is going to hurt our Canadian economy, and Canadians everywhere will be out about $1,800 a year, for every Canadian family. That is unconscionable, and it should stop.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague opposite, in his speech, brought up questions around divisive politics and a right to health decisions. Since he brought that up, I am curious to know if he supports his colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock, in trying to roll back a woman's right to choose, as well as in rolling back equal marriage rights. Does he support his colleague?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we always can tell when the Liberals or the NDP members are in trouble because they go back to more divisive policies. If the Liberals have been in government for nine long years, why have they not brought in the law?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I regularly see in the House and at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that my colleague is very interested in the cost of the carbon tax and its secondary impact.

Is he also interested in the cost of climate change and its secondary impact? We, of course, have to take into account the effects of any policy that we put in place. Does he, in good conscience, believe that we also need to calculate and compare what the cost would be if we did not have a policy? For example, if we did not have a climate policy, what would the secondary impact be on international trade and a host of other factors? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is really a straw man argument. People ask what the cost of doing nothing is. The carbon tax is not actually an environmental policy because it has done nothing. It has taken money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians and has made it harder for them to put food on the table, but the carbon tax has done zero when it comes to the environmental part. It is a tax policy, not an environmental policy, and the Liberals and the NDP have not made one environmental target. This is all about redistributing wealth and taking money out of the pockets of Canadians.