Evidence of meeting #163 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 households.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
The amount is fixed for the current year, but the amount for subsequent years will depend on the total amount generated by the carbon tax. It will increase as the amount generated by the government increases.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Since the amount will increase from $20 to $50 over the next five years, the envelope will expand, so to speak. The envelope will be allocated according to very specific criteria.
What criteria are used to determine that households in the lowest income quintile in Saskatchewan will receive $117 more than it will cost them?
3:50 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
The amounts that will be paid in each province do not depend on income, but on the number of adults and children. The amount per adult and per child is fixed.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I would like to ask a quick question.
If it doesn't generate that much money—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We'll come back to you. We're out of time now. We're just over the minute here.
We're going to go now to Mr. Stetski.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you.
I want to start by thanking you for the work that you do and the work that you're going to be doing in costing out platform pieces going forward. I very much look forward to that.
Did you have an opportunity to look across the country at all? I'm from British Columbia, and of course we've had a carbon tax in place since 2008. I've been trying to figure out, as a citizen of the province, whether the federal plan would be more beneficial to me than the provincial plan as it currently exists. Did you have an opportunity to look at the efficiency of some of the other plans that are already in place?
3:50 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
That was not part of our report. We focused on the four provinces that are part of the federal backstop. Two territories, I think, are also part of the federal backstop, but we also didn't look at these two territories because there's a lack of sufficient data for them. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you whether you would be better off in B.C. as opposed to the four provinces that we looked at, because we didn't look at the other provinces.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
When we were doing our study on climate change, we heard from farmers and people in the agriculture industry that there are certainly some reductions in carbon costs to them, but there were also other activities—such as drying grain, for example—that required a different kind of fuel that they were not compensated for. Did you have the opportunity to look by sector or business to see how farmers, for example, might fare under this program?
3:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Do you want to answer that?
3:55 p.m.
Jason Jacques Senior Director, Costing and Budgetary Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I think the short answer to your question is no.
While our model does take into account the detailed information that's been collected by the government around large industrial emitters and intensive users, we didn't specifically look at things on a sector-by-sector basis. The motivation was primarily to look at things in a geographic basis and focus on the actual impact on households.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Is that something you can do? Can you look at something like agriculture in general and decide whether there will be a net gain or cost under the program?
3:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Yes, it's something we could look at.
If I'm not mistaken, the government has stated that it will exempt the agricultural sector. I may be on thin ice here, but—
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
It would be some of it, yes, but there are other parts that aren't exempt.
3:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It's something we certainly could look at.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I appreciate that information.
On the rebates, 80% of families will receive more money than the tax will cost them. You've suggested that for wealthier people, potentially that won't be the case. Is that because of the way the program was designed, or is it by accident?
In other words, is this a progressive tax that benefits poor people more than richer people, or did that happen by accident?
June 12th, 2019 / 3:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I'm not sure whether it was by design or by accident. To be able to answer that with a high level of certainty, we need to ask the people who designed the incentive payment.
Looking at the numbers, I would say it's due to different consumption patterns. Poorer households have less money to spend, while richer households tend to have more people and spend more. They drive bigger cars, drive longer distances, have bigger houses that need more fuel for heating purposes, consume more electricity when the electricity is generated using carbon-intensive sources, and so on. Because of the different consumption patterns, richer households tend to have a bigger carbon footprint, so to speak.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Basically, it's a result of lifestyle, potentially, and not necessarily because of program design.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I know you're not allowed to release information on reports before you release them, but could you just summarize again? I'm quite interested in this report that you're going to be releasing tomorrow. Did I understand that it's a report on how much carbon pricing will have to be in order to reach Canada's GHG reduction targets? Is that what it's going to be?
3:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Yes, that's it exactly. Tomorrow's report will quantify the price that will have to be applied to carbon emissions between 2023 and 2030 in order for Canada to meet its targets under the Paris Agreement. How will a tonne of carbon have to be priced for emissions to be reduced sufficiently to meet the Paris targets?
That's what the report will be about, and it will look at the price that would have to be applied nationally. We know that between now and 2022.... Some provinces have put in place measures deemed sufficient by the federal government, while there are four provinces—and I believe soon to be five—that don't have a regime that meets the federal criteria. For simplicity's sake, and just for illustrative purposes, we looked at the carbon price that would be required to be applied nationally to virtually all sectors except agriculture for the country to meet its Paris targets.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
The timing is unfortunate. I'd love to be able to question that report as well. I guess we could filibuster right through until that report is released.
3:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Well, we will get back to you at the end, Mr. Stetski, and if everybody else respects their time, there might even be a little bit of extra.
We're going to go over to Mr. Bossio, and perhaps Mr. Amos, for the next six minutes.