The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development met to study industrial carbon pricing, hearing from eight witnesses representing a range of perspectives on the policy's economic and environmental impacts.
Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation argued that industrial carbon pricing makes life more expensive, drives jobs to the United States, and fails to reduce global emissions, calling for the complete elimination of all carbon taxes. He cited polling showing 70% of Canadians believe costs are passed to consumers and warned that sectors like fertilizer, steel, and oil and gas face competitive disadvantages against the U.S., which has no national carbon tax.
Tim Weis of the Pembina Institute defended industrial carbon pricing as Canada's most important climate policy, noting it has enjoyed support from industry and successive governments in Alberta for nearly two decades. He argued that costs are minimal—comparing the effective price on a barrel of oil to the cost of a Timbit—and that the policy drives innovation in carbon capture and renewable energy, while warning that recent provincial changes in Alberta have undermined its effectiveness.
Margareta Dovgal of Resource Works Society criticized the federal output-based pricing system as built on assumptions that constrain production rather than enable growth, arguing it disproportionately harms oil and gas extraction by excluding it from favourable treatment given to other trade-exposed sectors. She recommended reforming the system to reflect actual trade exposure, raising the large emitter threshold to 100,000 tonnes, and conducting a transparent competitiveness review with provinces and industry.
Nicolas Gagnon of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation focused on Quebec, noting that the province's carbon pricing costs households roughly $575 per year and that the cost is projected to double by 2030. He highlighted that Quebec's own budget acknowledged inflation impacts from carbon pricing and that both candidates in the CAQ leadership race promised to reimburse farmers for the tax.
Charles Séguin, an associate professor at UQAM, argued that the federal benchmark should focus on emissions coverage and reductions rather than price, given Quebec's cap-and-trade system covers over 75% of emissions and is linked with California. He recommended a 10,000-tonne threshold for small emitters, warned against using temporary ecosystem offsets for fossil fuel emissions, and suggested extending systems beyond 2030 to reduce the impact of banked credits.
Dale Beugin of the Canadian Climate Institute described industrial carbon pricing as Canada's most important climate and clean growth policy, noting it can deliver more emissions reductions by 2030 than any other policy. He argued that current systems are not working to full potential due to oversupply of credits and diluted incentives, and recommended establishing a minimum effective price of $130 per tonne by 2030, as proposed in the federal-Alberta MOU, to fix carbon markets.
Etienne Rainville of Clean Prosperity explained that industrial pricing is not a carbon tax but a system where facilities only pay on a fraction of their emissions, with compliance costs often a fraction of headline prices. He gave the example of cement, where facilities can generate credits rather than face costs, and noted that similar systems operate in 38 jurisdictions covering 58% of global GDP, while calling for harmonization across Canadian provinces.
After the testimony, the committee briefly debated adjournment when bells rang for a House vote, and ultimately agreed to adjourn the meeting.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.