44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/13/24 10:46:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the Liberals think they got ahead of this and cut us off at the pass. However, the fact is that nothing has really changed. The carbon tax cover-up continues, and I will tell everyone why. The Liberals across the aisle have big smiles on their faces, thinking they sure pulled one over on the Conservatives.
I have in my hands the article from the CBC. It says, “CBC filed an access to information request for the unpublished data. [The Minister of the Environment]'s department proactively disclosed the data to CBC and other journalists and posted it online today.” Here is the catch, “CBC's access to information request has not yet been fulfilled.” What else is it about the carbon tax that the government is continuing to hide? Nothing has changed and the Conservative motion is completely in order and appropriate.
We did learn one thing from this article, and that is that the Liberals are going to tax the GDP by $20 billion. It says that the carbon tax, by 2030, is going to cause the GDP to fall by $20 billion, from $2.68 trillion to $2.66 trillion. That is about $1,200 per family across the country.
This is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said he was really concerned about. This is an exchange from the committee meeting on Monday last week.
I asked him the following question, “Mr. Giroux, in your earlier testimony, you said that 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?” His response was, “I mentioned that the government has economic analysis on the impact of the carbon tax itself and the OBPS, the output-based pricing system. We've seen that—staff in my office— but we've been told explicitly not to disclose it and reference it.”
I then asked, “The government has given you their analysis, but they have put a gag on you, basically, saying you can't talk about it.” His response was, “That is my understanding.”
Mr. Giroux went on later to say that the government's analysis confirmed the report that the PBO had already published, and concluded by saying, “That's why I'm comfortable with what we have already published”. In other words, when he said that Canadians are worse off, the government's data confirmed that. I will elaborate on that a little more in a moment.
I followed up with him and asked, “Are you saying the report the government did on the carbon tax, the report that they provided to you, confirms the analysis that you have done on the carbon tax?” Then Mr. Matier, from his office, responded:
Mr. Giroux filed a formal information request to Environment and Climate Change Canada [asking for] the underlying economic impacts related to the emissions reductions that the government published related to carbon pricing back in late March or early April. They provided us with their estimates on real GDP, on labour income, on capital income, and they indicated on the response form that these were confidential and that we could not disclose—
That is the exchange, and so began the carbon tax cover-up, which continues to this moment, notwithstanding the incomplete information that the government has decided to give to the CBC. The Conservatives are going to find out what the rest of that information is, by the way. We are not going to let this go until Canadians know the complete truth about the carbon tax.
The department gave the data to the PBO. The data confirmed his findings, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that people pay more. The Liberals tried to muzzle him from talking about it. The only reason they released these bits and pieces of data that helped make their case that eight out of 10 people were better off was because the Conservatives put them under relentless pressure and embarrassed them into doing something about it. However, they have made it even worse, because providing part of the truth is, in itself, misleading Canadians. They need to put out the whole story.
When we finally see the report, hopefully after CBC's access to information request is granted, we will see what the Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying. I have no doubt in the veracity of what he is saying, that the government's own data confirms his findings that Canadians pay more in carbon tax than they get back. Those were the PBO's findings.
Fast-forward a year, when the PBO announces that he made a slight error when he prepared his report, but that he does not believe it will change his findings. The Liberals seized on that error, seizing an opportunity to attack his credibility. They attacked the PBO, who is an independent officer of Parliament, which is shameful. In fact, they attacked him in committee, and that is when Mr. Giroux said that he had received government data that confirmed his results.
We do not see that in the CBC article. The government held that information back. It needs to release it. We cannot make this stuff up. On November 4, 2015, the Prime Minister wrote an open letter to Canadians, in which he said that the government needed to be open by default. It is a famous letter and it has been quoted in the House many times. Those were high-sounding words.
The problem is, like most things, that it just was not true. Governments that are open by default do not silence independent officers of Parliament, but that is exactly what the Prime Minister did. The government is still doing it, because the information released does not confirm what the PBO told the committee, which is that Canadians pay more than they get back in rebates. That is the truth, and that is what the government needs to own up to.
For two years now, the Prime Minister has been misleading Canadians. He has been saying that the PBO found that most Canadians would get back more in carbon taxes than they paid. He said it again, by the way, to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities just a few days ago. It was quite a show. The mayors, the reeves and the councillors were at the FCM when the Prime Minister said that eight out of 10 Canadians would get back more than they paid. They started laughing at him. They booed him off the stage. They know, like Canadians know, it is just not true. He knows it—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 10:57:46 a.m.
- Watch
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.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:08:44 a.m.
- Watch
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.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:21:37 a.m.
- Watch
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.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:22:00 a.m.
- Watch
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.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:23:11 a.m.
- Watch
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.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:25:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we would like to do on this side of the House, but I would like to remind the member that the motion is an opposition day motion, and it seems like the Conservatives' only priority is to fight on how we can produce more carbon and how we can release more carbon into the air.
We are fighting for Canadians and will continue to fight for Canadians. Fighting the important matters on the housing crisis, on inflation or on the cost of living is our priority. We will continue to do that, and I thank my hon. colleague for hoping for the same.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:36:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be patient. I am getting there.
Getting back to carbon pricing, Derek Evans, the former CEO of MEG Energy, is now the executive chair of Pathways Alliance, the largest representative of the oil sands industry. What did Mr. Evans say? He said that the advice he would give to the opposition leader is that the carbon policy will be absolutely essential for maintaining our position on the world stage.
We cannot make this stuff up. The representative of the oil industry is giving lessons to the leader of the official opposition on climate change. He tells him that if we want to reduce our carbon footprint, then pricing is essential. Canada will not be competitive if we do not move forward with carbon pricing in the global economy. The oil industry's representative is giving lessons to the leader of the official opposition. I am not making this up.
My mischievous colleague from Rivière-du-Nord asked the leader of the official opposition a question about Derek Evans. I want to read the response of the leader of the official opposition. He said, “he sounds like another useless lobbyist saying stupid things.”
That is what the leader of the official opposition said about Derek Evans, the same person his party invited to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
I can elaborate on this during questions and comments.
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:42:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at the close of my remarks I was simply pointing out that the Conservatives' motivations when it comes to carbon pricing are to support the oil and gas industry. It was surprising, therefore, to see the leader of the official opposition rise and say that the chief representative of the oil and gas industry is, in fact, a useless lobbyist who says stupid things. I have to wonder whether the Conservative Party is changing its tune.
Have its members had an epiphany? Will they suddenly believe in climate warming and realize that the oil and gas sector is responsible for much of it? That is how I wanted to close my remarks.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:54:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is nice to get a question and an answer at the same time.
I am just going to qualify what my colleague said. Those figures are one of the reasons provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada. These figures should be taken with a grain of salt. Saying that 25 million tonnes of greenhouse gases will be prevented is just a projection. Projections are not necessarily facts. This kind of information needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
This applies to both sides of the House. On the one hand, the Conservatives should accept that the carbon tax has a cost associated with it, but that the benefits ultimately outweigh that cost. A simple cost-benefit analysis would demonstrate that.
On the other hand, the Liberal Party should not want to hide these numbers because it is afraid of how they might be interpreted, nor should it be claiming victory now, when only a few hours ago it did not want this information to be public.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:55:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member spoke a bit about contrasting the government's carbon tax with the cap-and-trade system and which is a more efficient policy. On this side of the House, Conservatives believe in technology and working with industry and innovators to help ensure that green technology and green alternatives can be improved to a point where they are more accessible, affordable and attainable for people across the country, including in northern and rural remote areas.
Would the member not agree that focusing on technology would be a more efficient way to find green alternatives than the current government's carbon tax approach that is just making everything more expensive and punishing people for heating their homes, putting gas in their tanks or just trying to feed their families?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:57:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it gives me the opportunity to demonstrate how the Liberal government is like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. On the one hand, it is acting in good faith, it is making amazing plans for the transition and it wants to tax carbon, but on the other hand, it is still giving tens of billions of dollars to the most polluting industry in Canada. That is a serious problem.
Is this greenwashing? We are not sure.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 12:14:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I feel like I am being asked to make commentary on something that was going on inside the member's head. I do not know really what the question was, but then I never quite do.
Let us talk about getting out more than what one puts in. Let us talk about Pathways Alliance and what they get out of Canada with putting less in. That is the question, I think, we should be asking the Liberals. Why do they continue to give Pathways Alliance such a free pass, when it is making $68 billion in profits and it has made it clear that it has no intention of lessening its emissions unless we pay for it? It wants us to pay 70% of the costs of this carbon capture scheme, which even it admits does not work. That is it. We put in a lot more and we get out a lot less from those guys.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 12:42:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very sad to hear the member say that. The truth is that the real impact on the economy is terrible, minus $30.5 billion until 2030. There will be a direct impact on family households of $1,800. If everything were perfect with the Liberal carbon tax, we may have seen the real impact of it. However, based on the evaluation made, not by the Conservative Party, the Fraser Institute or L’institut économique de Montréal but by the United Nations, especially scientists around the world, after nine years of the government, Canada is 62 out of 67. I am sorry folks, but it does not work.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 12:58:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is continuing to mislead people about what the report says and what the carbon tax does to Canadians. This whole discussion is about the economic impact of the carbon tax, and eight out of 10 Canadians are not better off when we measure the economic impact. They are poorer. The GDP reduction proves that this is harmful to the economy, and the PBO has been clear all along that the economic cost of the carbon tax does not make Canadians wealthier.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 12:59:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives just will not stop talking about the carbon tax. In their own way, they are tearing it apart. However, a lot of economists say that this measure will help reduce GHG emissions.
Can the Conservatives be even a tiny bit positive or constructive and tell us how, without a carbon tax, they would reduce greenhouse gases? All I am asking for is a teeny tiny practical example of what they would do to reduce greenhouse gases.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 1:01:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the member. It seems to be implied that the carbon tax is somehow making a significant impact on climate change. We heard from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent earlier that Canada ranks very poorly in its performance on emissions, so I do not accept the premise that the carbon tax is a solution to the problems that she has outlined.
I would also say to her and her colleagues that there was a time when NDP members were actually quite serious about transparency in government and about the functioning of Parliament. They seem to have abandoned that while they support the Liberals, who will suppress information from an officer of Parliament and refuse to disclose information that is the property of Canadians.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 1:12:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really liked the theatrics from the member opposite. I am really confused, though. He made several statements about misinformation. He talked about how the documents proved that greenhouse gas emissions were actually reduced. The member can agree with me on that one. However, I am quite confused here, because we asked an Order Paper question back in November: “[D]oes the government measure the annual amount of emissions directly reduced from the federal carbon price...?” I do not even know how the member would know this. The response was that the “government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by the federal carbon pricing.” I will repeat that in case the member did not get it. It says the “government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by the federal carbon pricing”, more affectionately known as the carbon tax.
Can the member respond to that?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 1:15:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said that a report was tabled. Once again, this is not a report. This is data. It is literally data sheets, Excel spreadsheets.
The member asked a question about funding big oil. We do not have fossil fuel subsidies anymore. We do have initiatives to help with things like carbon capture. Do I think that carbon capture is the long-term solution? Absolutely not. Do I support the idea of carbon capture in the interim? I know how much fossil fuel we need and depend on right now; if there is an interim solution to get us to another place, then I support carbon capture.
However, I reject the premise of the question. It suggests that we are continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, but we are not. We phased it out earlier than in the original timeline we had.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 1:28:27 p.m.
- Watch
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?
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
