Right. We simply have the cost of one program versus a baseline projection, but we don't have that projection with the benefits that are coming from the program in there, so this could easily change.
As we all know, statistics and projections are only as good as the assumptions. We're projecting out to 2030 and we have a 0.5% difference. I would say that for the benefits Canadians are getting from reducing pollution and living up to our international obligations, this is a very small price to pay.
I want to get back to a comment made by the member opposite on the Canada carbon rebate and the idea of energy poverty. I know the member opposite lives in a rural riding. Heating fuel was exempted for the next three years across the country because it's a very expensive fuel and, usually, those who don't have a lot of money use heating fuel, in fact. Their homes haven't been renovated, etc. We've exempted that altogether so there's no carbon levy on this heating fuel.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that eight out of 10 households get more back than they pay through the Canada carbon rebate. If this member is asking for the price on pollution to be cancelled, does that mean that the cheques his constituents are getting for the Canada carbon rebate, which gives them more than they pay, would also be cancelled?