ENVI Committee Report

DISSENTING REPORT FROM THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS REGARDING THE REPORT ON FORESTRY, AGRICULTURE, AND WASTE.

SUMMARY

The Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development were prepared to work with other members of the Committee to create a robust and thorough report on the state of Canada’s forestry, agriculture, and waste within the context of clean growth and climate change. This report includes a number of points of agreement where the Committee has highlighted opportunities for improved management of wetlands, farmlands and forests to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada and increase sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere. However, the report’s reliance on costly programs and recommendations and the report’s endorsement of carbon pricing imply an increased financial and tax burden on Canadians and compels Conservative members of the Committee to withdraw their support of this report. The Report also includes recommendations which potentially infringe on provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

COST UNCERTAINTY

This Report aims to examine the ways in which GHG emissions can be reduced and sequestered in the forestry, agriculture, and waste sectors in Canada. Some who appeared before the committee as witnesses presented compelling ideas that offered ways in which the federal government can work with the provinces and territories, municipalities, industry and individual Canadians to lower or naturally sequester GHG emissions. However, these ideas come with a cost which can disproportionately affect Canadian industries and those who work in them. These costs put pressure on Canadian farmers and foresters which, in turn, can make things more costly for average Canadians. The Conservative members believe that these additional costs have the potential to undermine the competitiveness of Canadian businesses and create undue challenges for Canadian farmers and forestry workers.

The costs associated with many of the recommendations are especially worrisome considering that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and her Parliamentary Secretary have recently been unwilling to appear before this very Committee to discuss matters contained in the supplementary estimates. The Conservative members are concerned that, without a commitment to transparency in how the Minister’s department spends taxpayers money, the implied costs to government imbedded within the recommendations outlined in this report will exacerbate the fiscal challenges facing the federal government and further impair any efforts to balance the federal budget in the short to medium term.

We believe the Liberal Government must use greater caution before embarking upon expensive programs which will worsen Canada’s fiscal situation.

THE PAN-CANADIAN FRAMEWORK AND CARBON TAX

This report relies heavily on the Liberal Government’s Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change (the “Climate Change Plan”), a plan which is intended to help Canada meet its Paris Agreement targets for GHG emissions reductions. The Climate Change Plan is comprised of four pillars, the first of which is a carbon tax. Carbon pricing schemes often transform into cash grabs from revenue-hungry governments which invariably spend those revenues on their own political priorities rather than on the priorities of Canadians. Carbon taxes also undermine affordability for individual Canadians and the competitiveness of Canadian businesses. While this report only briefly mentions carbon pricing, the relationship between this report and the Pan-Canadian Framework makes it challenging to separate the two.

The report includes a section on carbon pricing in the agricultural sector, which seeks to facilitate the selling of carbon credits from forests, farms, and ranches.[1] The report depicts this as an “opportunity” for farmers to participate in a carbon market. While one witness described a carbon-credit system, the application of a carbon tax was also suggested.[2] The Conservative members strongly oppose any form of carbon tax, particularly on an industry as essential as agriculture. It is unfortunate that some witnesses viewed the agriculture industry as needing government intervention. In the words of one witness, “at the end of the day, we’re looking at what behavior needs to be changed here”, implying that Canadian agriculture requires the heavy hand of government to reduce its GHG emissions.[3] Another witness noted that agriculture’s low profit-margin can mean it is susceptible to carbon leakage, namely the threat of agri-businesses leaving Canada and moving to a lower tax jurisdiction like the United States.[4] Regrettably, the Report’s discussion of a carbon tax is not nuanced but is explicit in its preference for carbon taxation.

The Conservative members cannot support a report which encourages the implementation of a federal carbon tax.

JURISDICTIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

While waste management, forestry and agriculture fall under shared jurisdiction in Canada, the federal government’s reach is fairly limited. For instance, jurisdiction for waste management, reduction and recycling policies and programs all fall within the purview of provincial and territorial governments, while things such as interprovincial and international movement of hazardous waste fall within the authority of the federal government.[5] This could be problematic as some of the recommendations in the report appear to fall, at least in part, within  provincial and territorial jurisdiction. This includes Recommendation 16 which references a harmonized national model recycling system.[6] The report also conceptualizes a nationally-harmonized waste management system across Canada that sets out clear and understood expectations for consumers.[7] However, securing broad provincial/territorial buy-in will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. One need only look at the fractured consensus on a national carbon tax to imagine the difficulties the federal government will face in trying to achieve a national consensus on how to apply climate change policies to the forestry, agriculture and waste industries.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the concerns outlined above, the Conservative members of the Committee recommend that:

• - The federal Government use greater caution when embarking on expensive programs that only result in affordability issues for Canadians and a high burden on Canadian taxpayers.
• - The Committee call upon the federal Government to remove the federal carbon pricing backstop.
• - The federal Government respect the autonomy of the provinces and territories to create their own environmental and tax policies.
• - The Committee emphasize the necessity for the federal Government to prioritize provincial and territorial autonomy when proposing a harmonized waste-management system.