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.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
That's not a point of order, but nice try.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
We can absolutely make that request.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Maybe we can get unanimous consent to make that request.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Just quickly, before you do, for any of the departments, if you have additional information you think would be of use to the committee in the discussion we've had, you're invited to send that in through the clerk.
What is your point of order?
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you.
What I intended to say—and I'll read the blues when they come out—was that was what was “complex” and “confusing” was the provisions of Bill C-86 that the committee has been asked to study, not the price on carbon.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you.
Mr. Stetski, you have six minutes.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
I have a couple of quick questions, and then maybe I'll give a few minutes to my friend Mr. Bossio for future considerations.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
I'll start by quickly asking you to answer Mr. Lake's question about where the name came from.
Director General, Carbon Pricing Bureau, Department of the Environment
I can't speak to the name, but what I was going to give by way of example is an indication of where this incentive might lie, just going back to the principles of how price signals work.
I'll give again a coarse example, one not borne out by specific numbers. If a household received a carbon action incentive payment of $500 one year, they would have an incentive if that same household invested, for example, in some energy efficiency measures that year. Again, this goes back to basic price signals and the consumer and business choices that are made based on a price signal.
In that first example, let's say they received $500 and their costs were $500, again, hypothetically. If they make some investments to reduce their emissions so that the cost to them is $400 the next year, they still get $500. There is, then, a continual price signal incentive.
This kind of underpins the logic of putting a price on pollution: the more you reduce, the more you save.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
I'll have to be very quick with my question.
Is the bonus, let's call it, for greenhouses across the board for whatever is grown in that greenhouse? I'm just wondering whether it applies to cannabis greenhouses as well.
Director General, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
It applies to any plants grown in a greenhouse.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Okay.
Just quickly, there are four provinces this would apply in, where 90% goes back to individuals and 10% goes into a green fund. Have you estimated how much that green fund might be worth in any of those provinces? I'm curious as to the magnitude and what might be available for green projects.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Yes, we have an estimate.
November 6th, 2018 / 5:20 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Can you send us that information? I'm going to run out of time, and I made a promise to Mr. Bossio.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Sure.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you so much, Wayne. I appreciate this opportunity.
I'd like to follow up on some of the questions from Mr. Lake and Mr. Warawa.
Administratively, because we picked such a simplistic plan, if you compare the mechanism we're using around the price on pollution with other mechanisms that could be used, is this not actually more cost-effective from an administrative standpoint than a regulatory regime, with the enforcement regime around it?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I would say that's probably a fair statement with respect to the fuel charge. I mean, we're using common approaches. With respect to the climate incentive payment, using the tax return and the Canada Revenue Agency experience in delivery is a very effective mechanism. I would say that this is probably a fair statement.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
Once again, with respect to the price on pollution being complex, I don't see much complexity. You're putting a price on pollution and you're rebating 90% of that directly to individuals, and 10% is going to the MUSH sector and to small businesses. Am I missing something? To me, that doesn't really appear to be overly complex from a pricing mechanism standpoint. The pricing mechanism itself is not that complex, really, to understand.
Would you agree with that?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Yes, I would agree with that.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
They're saying, “This is not going to make a difference. It's really small numbers and you can't really do anything with that.” It's as simple as buying a programable thermostat, or putting weather stripping in your windows, or unplugging your appliances, or doing better planning when you're going out to shop. These are all ways that people can reduce their emissions and save money.
Is that not correct?