44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 29, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/29/22 11:19:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a Conservative motion that is interesting, to say the least. I really want the people who are listening to us today to read and understand the wording of this motion. It is very interesting, and I will explain.
The motion reads as follows:
That, given that the cost of government is driving up inflation, making the price of goods Canadians buy and the interest they pay unaffordable, this House call on the government to commit to no new taxes on gas, groceries, home heating and pay cheques.
This motion is really interesting in that it represents the definition of populism. Populism is using issues that people are rightly concerned about, such as inflation, and proposing bogus solutions to achieve a goal that is not described in this motion. This is simply an attempt to downsize government and prevent it from doing its job while also manipulating people and taking them for a ride to feed their fear of, or concerns about, the carbon tax. I wanted to read it out loud and demonstrate just how little sense this motion makes.
The cure for populism is education. Therefore, I would like to give a lecture similar to the one I would prepare for a college student enrolled in economics 101. I go into much more detail with my master's students.
Economics 101: What is an externality? An externality is when a cost or a societal effect is not included in the price, the price being a market indicator, of a good or a service. This externality is often incurred on goods and services for which there are environmental impacts that have not been quantified or taken into account in the price. The role of the state in these cases is actually to identify the externality and include it in the price.
That is exactly what the government is trying to do with its carbon tax. I will go into a bit more detail on the carbon tax. It is one of the necessary means to address climate change.
Let us go back to basics. What is climate change? I am looking at my friends over there to be sure they understand me clearly. Greenhouse gases, namely methane, CO2, nitrous oxide and ozone, are gases emitted by human beings that have an impact on people through climate change. The effects of climate change have been studied extensively for the past 20 or 30 years. We know all about them now. We can measure their impact on people. A few years ago, I was a co-author of a study on the impact of climate change in Quebec. We know that climate change has real, tangible costs.
First, there are infrastructure costs because of floods and storms. Today our thoughts are with our friends in the Magdalen Islands and eastern Canada that were hit hard by a big storm, hurricane Fiona. Hurricanes are stronger now because climate change intensifies them. Shoreline erosion is also an issue that has a major economic impact.
Then there is the thawing permafrost. When the land thaws, infrastructure built on the ground, such as housing, collapses. Look at what is happening to our first nations friends.
Those are direct, tangible, quantifiable impacts of climate change.
There are also health impacts, including those caused by the emergence of zoonoses. What are zoonoses? They are diseases spread by animals that are vectors for disease, for example Lyme disease or the Nile virus. These diseases came from the south because temperatures are rising. There are also allergies. Our Conservative friends really like to talk about productivity and efficiency. When people have allergies, which are on the rise with climate change, they are less productive at work.
Finally there are heat waves. That is very important. Every year, heat waves cause the deaths of seniors in their homes. The Conservatives constantly talk about seniors. That is real. Older individuals are dying because of climate change and their lives have value.
The cost of these consequences is quantifiable, and it comes out to millions of dollars. Climate change has a cost for society. This cost is not included in the price we pay for gas.
Now that we have addressed the problems, let us talk about solutions. Economists have given us solutions many times. One of them is the carbon tax. Another is the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances implemented a long time ago in Quebec.
In 2014, Quebec linked its system with California’s. They did not link their system with any other Canadian province, but with California. They had to go south of the border to find people who cared to do something about climate change. That was in 2014, eight years ago. Maybe we were a little ahead of the curve in Quebec. This is not the first time I am saying that, and it will surely not be the last.
Quebec has assumed its responsibility in the fight against climate change. I will give a small but very important example to show how well these measures work. In 2015, Quebec reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.8% over 1990 levels. It works. The government must be able to implement measures to fight climate change.
The government needs to take action. Once again, the carbon tax is one of the measures it can use. However, we are happy that it does not apply to Quebec and that we can stay on the right track with the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. There are plenty of other means, but it is obvious that tax measures are the best way for a government to change people’s behaviour. That is a well-known fact; there is a lot of literature on the subject. I would be more than happy to send my colleagues a ton of papers. That might help them learn more about this very important topic.
Let us talk about the social cost of carbon. This cost does not reflect the market value of a tonne of carbon. There are now markets like Quebec's cap-and-trade system and the European carbon exchange that set a certain price. The social cost of carbon is higher. The U.S. has estimated the social of carbon at $51 per tonne. A very recent study in the journal Nature suggests that the cost should be roughly $180 per tonne. That is much higher than the estimate currently being used. The carbon tax is a start. It is nothing compared to the real cost of climate change.
The social cost of carbon is very difficult to measure. As I have already said, it can vary widely. Surprisingly, a tonne emitted in China has exactly the same impact as a tonne emitted in Canada. However, it is difficult to establish its value, which is why a range is used. This value is established by models that predict the impacts of climate change today and in the coming years. Everyone agrees that the next few generations are pretty important.
The government has a duty to take climate action. Everyone needs to come to an agreement on this, once and for all. Let us stop using issues like inflation, which concern the public and rightly so, to justify measures that stand in the way of the government taking climate action.
The Bloc Québécois has proposed some real solutions to combat inflation. I gave the example of seniors. The Conservatives go on and on about how much they care about seniors, but they do not have much to say when we propose increasing old age security.
We are also proposing that we build more social housing. The government should be investing 1% of its revenue in social housing.
We have a number of solutions, but one very important one on which we should align with the Conservatives is the free market. Why do we not hear them talk more about protecting and, most importantly, increasing the power of the Competition Bureau? As my colleague mentioned earlier, companies are getting rich at our expense. We must fight oligopolies and monopolies that are artificially making our prices too high.
These are measures that would truly help Quebeckers and Canadians. This is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing, while the Conservative Party proposes bogus solutions.
1404 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 2:55:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, certainly the issue of affordability for Canadians is one that concerns every member of the House. This government has acted to ensure that we are addressing the affordability issue.
With respect to the price on pollution, if we asked 100 economists, 99 will tell us that it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions and incent innovation. It is a market-based approach. Market-based mechanisms are something the Conservative Party used to believe in and, certainly as recently as 10 months ago, every member on that side of the House campaigned on putting into place a price on pollution.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 4:59:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. I was interested to learn that he used to teach economics.
I apologize, but I will have to stop for a moment because I can hear the interpretation in my earpiece.
As the member mentioned, many economists have said that broad-based tax cuts would lead to inflation. People are frustrated about having to pay more for their rent and their groceries while rich CEOs rake in huge profits.
Would my colleague agree that a better strategy would be to tax companies that increase the prices that Canadians pay at the grocery store and at the pumps?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
