SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 4:01:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member. I appreciated his speech. He mentioned the PBO and asked why the PBO exists if it gets it wrong. Perhaps he could speak to the difference between fiscal and economic impacts. When I read the fiscal impacts, and that means cash transfers in and cash transfers out, they are in fact positive for 80% of Canadian households. Then when I read the economic impacts, those people who are lining up at food banks are still made better off, even on the PBO's analysis. I would disagree with the PBO here, and I am not the only one; the IMF and others disagree as well. Could the member speak to that?

120 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 4:16:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's mentioning those people in desperate need and the need to help them. I co-chair the all-party anti-poverty caucus, and that has been a major focus of mine since 2015. We know by the numbers that the price on pollution has a very small impact on the cost of living, especially food inflation. Food inflation has been 20% over the last two years, which is a real problem, but the price on pollution amounts to well under 1% of that. Using common sense, what common-sense measure, specifically on helping those in need, would the member like to see that would have an actual measurable impact on those people he ostensibly cares about?

123 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 4:36:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the conversation around pricing pollution, but I want to start with a threshold question that we all have to answer: Do members care to take action to save our planet? Do they care to reduce emissions for our kids? Do they care? If the answer is yes, then we get to a different question, which is how we are going to reduce emissions in the most efficient way. If we want to respect taxpayer dollars, then we reduce emissions in the most efficient way. We hear a lot about common sense from across the aisle. Common sense presumably should be that polluters pay, and pollution, members should know, is a classic market failure. I have heard some people bandying about different economic opinions on what a market failure is. In this case, the cost of polluting is costless to the polluter and is borne collectively by all of us. What is the answer to that? The answer is a price signal. The common-sense answer, very simply, is to make polluters pay. That is what this price on pollution does. We do not want to penalize people or make them worse off. We just want to change the behaviour, so matched with that price, internalizing that negative externality, we make sure there is a rebate and recycle the revenue. I have heard people go back and forth on this. The fact is that, of the 100% of the revenue that goes back to the provinces of origin, 90% goes back to households directly. If there were a motion today that said that 100% should go back to households, I would vote for it for sure. We could improve it, but the fact is that 90% goes back. It is largely revenue-neutral. I heard a question asking if it works. Of course it works. This is not me saying this. If we look at the emissions progress report for 2030, we see more than a steady decline. We see a decline from business as usual. If we had taken no action from 2015 on, or the kind of action we saw under the Harper government, we would have seen emissions rise to 815 megatonnes by 2030. If we look at that progress report, does anyone in the House know what it stands to be with all of the action we have put into place? It stands to be 467 megatonnes, which is not nearly enough and not where we need it to be, but that is a 43% reduction from business as usual and 36% toward our 40% target. We are very close to being where we say we want to be. By the way, a good amount of that is because of the price on pollution. The progress report says that 30% of that reduction in emissions comes from the price on pollution. When we look at that delta of 815 megatonnes down to 467 megatonnes, 23% of that total reduction from business as usual comes from the price on pollution, so, yes, it works as part of a very serious overall comprehensive climate plan. It is easy to care about climate change when we are well fed. I have heard a lot of talk in the House that the price on pollution is making people poorer, the worst among us, and it is hurting those who are already hurting. It is deeply cynical to trade on a real affordability crisis, to trade on the real stress and real struggles of so many people in need, to undermine an effective and efficient climate action that makes most households whole. It does not increase the cost of everything to send people to food banks. I said this when asking a question of a colleague and did not receive a good answer. We have seen 20% food inflation these last two years, and the price on pollution, economists tell us, accounts for under 1% of any inflationary impact. That is not the cause of the affordability crisis. We could have a very interesting debate about interest rates. Maybe the member for Carleton would tell us that he wants to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We have had very interesting debates about interest rates and what is truly driving the cost of living crisis. It is absolutely not, economists will tell us, the price on pollution. We could also have an interesting debate about social welfare in this country. We have increased the Canada child benefit significantly. We have brought hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. We have increased the Canada workers benefit. We have increased the GIC for seniors. Do members know what provincial governments have done, largely Conservative provincial governments? They have not increased welfare and disability supports in line with the rise in inflation. I am standing here in Ontario, and the member could tell me what the Ford government has done to make sure disability payments keep pace with the cost of inflation, but Conservatives have done next to nothing. Do we want to talk about the real cost of living crisis and what drives that cost of living crisis? We could talk about food inflation. We could talk about interest rates, and we could talk about the lack of provincial action in their areas of responsibility. What we should not talk about, if we care about facts in the House, is the price on pollution. Much has been made of the PBO report. I wonder sometimes, listening to the debate in the House, whether anyone has actually read this report, so let me quote from it. On a fiscal basis, “most households will see a net gain [versus] the...fuel charge...and related GST”. As well, “The fiscal-only impact...is broadly progressive.” Hang on. What is this about? The PBO says it is going to cost us more. I am going to be absolutely fair in this, and there is a real debate we should have because what the PBO actually says is that, on a fiscal basis, for the cash-in, cash-out money that households pay and get back, 80% of households are, in fact, better off. What the PBO goes on to say is that, when one takes into account GDP impacts from the price on pollution, we see modest GDP reductions, though they are significant on a household basis, so most households are worse off if one includes fiscal and economic factors. They do not say that about low-income households so, again, trading on food banks and offering no real suggestions for helping people out of poverty is completely incorrect, even in the PBO's analysis. Let us focus a little more on whether the PBO is right. Fiscal analysis is easy. It is money in and money out. On an economic basis, I would say they are wrong. It is not gospel. We have this from the American Economic Journal, for example, on the macro impact of carbon pricing: “We find no evidence for a negative impact on employment or GDP growth but rather find a zero to modest positive impact.” There is also this, from the IMF, from June: “Countries that do not recycle revenues experience a substantial economic downturn while countries that recycle revenues only display a muted impact on economic activity.” For those keeping track at home, Canada recycles revenues. Worse, and this is fatal, let me quote the PBO as well. I wonder how this is not part of the conversation: “The scope of the report is limited to estimating the distributional impact of the federal fuel charge and does not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of climate change.” Maybe Conservatives could explain to me why we would consider the negative economic impacts of one side of the ledger of the price on pollution, and the fiscal impacts are better for households, but we would not consider alternative scenarios. We hear about “technology, not taxes”, but that is going to cost households more. It is going to be paid for by taxes or, worse, if we do not take into account the real economic costs of unchecked climate change. Let us be absolutely clear. If one does not have a serious climate plan in this country, and the federal Conservatives are not interested in a serious climate plan, we are going to see unchecked climate change. Let us return to costs. We have Conservatives who have no plan. Since I have been in Parliament, they have had no plan, except for Erin O'Toole, who was promptly ousted. Why was he ousted? For having a plan, and “technology, not taxes” is not a plan. What does the price on pollution do? The price on pollution says to consumers that it will be more expensive to pollute. Consumers will seek out cleaner alternatives and businesses will respond by innovating to meet consumer demand. If one does not have that price, which is internalizing that negative externality, businesses are not going to innovate. We are not going to see serious climate action from the private sector. If one wants technology, not taxes, it is going to be left to government subsidies alone, and where do government subsidies come from, Conservative friends? They come from taxes. If one wants one's taxes to go up, then axe the tax.

1579 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Mar/19/24 4:46:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, 90% of the dollars go directly back to households. On the revenue neutrality, 100% of revenues go back to provinces of origin: 90% goes to households directly and the other 10% goes into businesses, municipalities and— An hon. member: It does not. Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: Mr. Speaker, there is that other 10%, and there is a credible debate to be had as to whether that 10% should be allocated the way it has been allocated. I would argue that, if there were a vote in the House, and members are free to bring forward the motion, I would vote for 100% revenue neutrality, but when they want to axe it entirely, it is a joke of a motion. I will vote that down every time.

135 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Mar/19/24 4:48:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my last two budget submissions, I spoke to excess profit taxes. We have seen them on banks and insurance companies. We have seen them from U.K. Conservatives on oil and gas. It is absolutely a conversation we should have in the House. U.K. Conservatives were, I think at one point, models for Conservatives here until they lost their way, but if U.K. Conservatives have put this in place, then there is no reason we cannot have that debate and put it in place here as well.

92 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Mar/19/24 4:49:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there is a comprehensive climate plan. It touches on many different areas. The price on pollution is responsible for a huge number of emission reductions when we look at the plan up to 2030, and it is responsible for between 23% and 30% of the overall plan. If we were to axe the tax, it would cost a lot to replace those significant emission reductions. That is if, on a threshold question, someone cared. If they do not care, then they should be honest about it and say they do not care. As to what we are doing otherwise, there are many different things. There are investments in public transit. There are investments in clean tech. There are rules on methane emissions. Yes, there are rules forthcoming, regulations that are being debated right now, around an emissions cap on oil and gas.

150 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Mar/19/24 4:50:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question because the answer is no. In fact, the Financial Times had an article the other day that said that insurance premiums are a hidden carbon price and that we are going to pay for climate action one way or the other. What I would put to my Conservative friends is, if we are going to pay one way or the other, surely we want to harness the power of the free market and pay as little as we possibly can.

87 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 5:52:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks and the amendment. It follows from the debate we had at second reading. I was clear at second reading when I said that the core of this bill is the plan. We need legislation passed in this House to ensure that all future governments take every step possible to prepare for the next pandemic and, ideally, take steps to reduce pandemic risks to prevent the next pandemic. The review body, the advisory body, was not intended to have some searching, backward-looking accountability function. It was intended to ensure that experts come together to learn lessons and inform the plan. In conversations with colleagues subsequently and even at second reading debate, I was clear that this was not a hill I was going to die on. The core of this is accountability to Parliament for every future government to ensure that every three to five years, which I said I was open to as an amendment too, the government comes back and tables the plan and improves the plan. This would ensure we are doing everything we can, knowing that the costs of prevention and preparedness pale in comparison to the human and economic costs, the costs we just lived through and the costs that our kids are likely to live through in relation to the next pandemic. To be clear, I do not subscribe to all that my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway has said. I do not suggest that this is a whitewash. The idea was for experts to come together to inform a plan. However, I am nothing if not pragmatic, and I would like this bill to pass. I think it is incredibly important that the core of it passes and that we see serious thought go into a whole-of-government approach. We talked about that. This bill sets out specific ministerial responsibilities to inform the plan. The bill is informed by and worked on by the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystems and its report on preventing the next pandemic. It is informed by UNEP's report on preventing the next pandemic. It is informed by the Independent Panel's report on pandemic preparedness. The core of this, the most important part of it, is that there is a plan in place, tabled in Parliament, to prepare for and prevent the next pandemic, that future governments ensure that plans are tabled to improve upon those efforts and that there be accountability to this House. It is not that PHAC and the government would do this work separately. There would be accountability to the Canadian public on an ongoing basis. We know, having seen what took place post-SARS, that there was a lot of good work to make recommendations and some good work to implement those recommendations, although not fully and by no means completely, and then the public lost interest. We moved on to other things and were not as prepared as we could and should have been. This bill would remedy that. It would ensure that every future government takes these serious obligations as seriously as they should. I certainly accept the amendment. I do not accept the characterization of the advisory body, but if removing the advisory body and that particular review is what it takes to get the core of the bill passed, that accountability to Parliament on a pandemic preparedness and prevention plan, then so be it. Let us get the amendment passed and let us get this bill to the Senate.

590 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Mar/19/24 6:44:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. In accordance with Standing Order 43(2)(a), I would ask that all periods of debate for Liberal members be divided in two.

32 words