Evidence of meeting #130 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was carbon.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I will leave it to the departmental officials in the first line to offer whether they can or can't comment on questions that come up from any of the members who are at the table today.
For the members, we are here to look at a specific part of Bill C-86 that has been sent to us, not at broader discussions.
Mr. Warawa may be able to thread this back to Bill C-86 in some form, and I'm willing to hear him, but if the departmental officials feel it is out of line, they can say that. If I need to rule on it, I will, but I'm going to give some latitude here for everybody.
3:55 p.m.
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
Good. We're not talking about an investigation. What we're talking about is Volkswagen pleading guilty to not being truthful about their emissions.
The government has said there's going to be a price on pollution. This is pollution. These are pollutants, fine particulates that have been emitted into the air far in excess of what it should have been. Volkswagen has been fined. It pleaded guilty.
Is Environment Canada—and this is where we deal with the enforcement.... We've been sharing a lot about a vague, confusing program that is not based on science; it's based on what the government is going to do. Canadians want to know if Environment Canada is in the process of dealing with Volkswagen. It's been dealt with in the U.S.; it's been dealt with in Europe, and it appears to Canadians that Environment Canada is doing nothing.
It's a simple question. Is Environment Canada enforcement doing something?
4 p.m.
Director General, Carbon Pricing Bureau, Department of the Environment
Thank you.
My understanding is that the answer to that question is yes. We don't have the folks at the table who are able to speak to that specifically from our enforcement branch, but we can follow up.
4 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Just on that—and I can stop it here for a second—we did invite the enforcement people. I think their response was shared with the entire committee about what they would and would not be able to do, so they have a standing offer to come if we want them to. I hadn't heard back from any of the committee members saying they were interested, given the parameters that were put around what they would be able to speak to.
If we want to invite them, we can, just knowing that, like today, there will be some tight constraints put around where we can go with that conversation.
4 p.m.
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
At an appropriate time, I'd like to move that as a motion. I won't do that right now.
Thank you.
4 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
You still have 20 seconds left. I've stopped the clock for you.
4 p.m.
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
Thank you.
Maybe I'll just close by saying that to get a buy-in, Canadians need to be able to understand what's happening. I think what's being proposed has been confusing, and it doesn't seem fair that there is a tax on a tax in Canada.
Thank you.
4 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Perfect timing.
For our witnesses, if you haven't been here before, I use a card system. The yellow card simply means that there's one minute left on the time. That's a flag to the person asking the question. It gives you a sense of how much time you have left with that particular witness or MP, and then red means they're out of time. If you're in the middle of a sentence, you don't have to stop immediately, but wind it up and we'll move on to the next questioner.
Next up we have Mr. Stetski.
November 6th, 2018 / 4 p.m.
Wayne Stetski Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Thank you.
Thank you very much for being here today.
I'm trying to make it clear in my own mind, and hopefully for others, what the differences might be, if any. If you make $50,000 as income and you live in British Columbia, or you make $50,000 and you live in Alberta, is there any difference in terms of what you're going to get in the way of a cheque or in terms of taxation implications? This is when you're making the same amount of money, but you live in different provinces.
4 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Just to be clear, are you talking about the climate action incentive payment?
4 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
That incentive payment will apply in specific provinces. It will actually not apply in B.C. and Alberta. It's going to apply in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick.
4 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
And the reason it's not going to apply in the other provinces....
4 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
It's going to apply in provinces where the federal backstop will apply and where revenues are not otherwise directly reimbursed to the government of that province, which means, as I said, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick.
4 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
So now I am confused, because in British Columbia, of course, we've had a tax in place since about 2008, I think. In 2007, we got a cheque from the government. In 2008 the tax came into effect. The money went into a green pot, and you could apply for green projects to come out of that pot. I think in the last couple of years the money ended up in general revenue, which is where this money should never go. It should be specifically to improve the environment in some fashion.
This will be brought in, but nobody in B.C. will get a cheque because we got ours in 2007. Is that how this works?
4 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
In a way, you can see that landscape as being composed of three different scenarios, if you will.
You can have the province deciding to have its own system, in which case they're going to directly collect the revenues of that regime and make their own decisions as to how best to recirculate these proceeds to their citizens or corporations.
You have the second scenario, in which the province decides not to have its own system but to ask the federal government to implement the federal backstop, in which case the federal government has said that the proceeds of the system will be returned to the government of that province, and then the province will decide how best to reallocate that money.
The third scenario, which gives rise to this climate action incentive payment, is where a province doesn't want to have its own system, or has a system that doesn't meet the minimum benchmark, if you will. At that point, the federal government will impose the federal backstop. As we're proposing here, it has been decided to redistribute about 90% of it directly to individuals in the form of an incentive payment, and then the residual will be allocated to different funds.
4:05 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Okay, so at this point we don't know what approach British Columbia will take come next year, and therefore whether or not people in my B.C. riding can expect a cheque.
4:05 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Yes, that's going to be a B.C. decision.
4:05 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
It would be up to the province to decide. Okay.
The second part of it is this. Regardless of where you are, if you make $50,000 a year and somebody else makes $20,000 a year, what might that look like in terms of a cheque?
