Finance Committee on May 23rd, 2018

[John Moffet]

That's correct.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay.

This is the response, then, I would imagine, to New Brunswick, because New Brunswick has said it's simply renaming its gas tax into what is called now a carbon tax. This now allows the Governor in Council to look at the stringency of the system being used by New Brunswick.

Is that correct?

[John Moffet]

This says that the main factor would be the stringency of the pricing system for greenhouse gas emissions. The GIC would need to look to the question whether that particular jurisdiction has a pricing system for greenhouse gas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

What we're doing here with this amendment is allowing the federal government to take issue specifically with provinces like Nova Scotia and Manitoba. Again, what we're doing is enabling the government to use the stick, so to speak, if it doesn't agree with a particular province's or territory's approach.

[John Moffet]

Can I answer that question? The actual amendment is designed to limit the Governor in Council's ability to do just what you said, to constrain that discretion from accounting for any factor that the GIC considers appropriate, which is in the current bill—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

It's stringency.

[John Moffet]

—to the primary factor being stringency, so it limits the Governor in Council's discretion, not broadens it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Rather than having many different sticks, it just focuses on stringency as the main factor. Okay. I do appreciate it.

I think we need to oppose this, Mr. Chair, just because of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, but any factor is broader than just this term.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I don't disagree that it's not being limited, but it's like saying you can throw all the toothpicks at them versus swinging a larger bat at someone, which will obviously be more stringent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The federal government is asking for a smaller bat here. Can you imagine?

Is there any further discussion on this point?

We'll vote on this amendment, which I guess we will call LIB-1.1.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Go ahead on your second one.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, it's virtually exactly the same amendment that I will be presenting on page 328. The idea again is to make this consistent to restrict the scope that currently exists in the BIA to focus the attention more. It's to replace lines 20 and 21 on page 328 with the following: “nor in Council shall take into account as the primary factor the”. The first word is part of “Governor”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It has been moved. Is there any further discussion on this one?

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Again on principle, I think equivalency is not being met here. I think that applying the same kind of narrow factor to it is going to allow the federal government to pick on an individual jurisdiction. I disagree with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I see no other speakers so we'll vote on amendment LIB-1.2, the amendment just read.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on amendment NDP-13.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment NDP-13 seeks to delete several lines, starting on line 16 on page 359 and ending on line 6 on page 361, where it talks about the confidentiality that individuals can claim regarding the application of the new Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. The purpose of this amendment is to limit the possibility of requesting confidentiality, for various reasons, in the application of this law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Grewal.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague across the way for proposing the amendment. Respectfully, I disagree.

A confidentiality regime is necessary to provide clear rules on the protection and disclosure of confidential business information based on the CEPA regime but tailored to the act.

The requirement that it request that justification be provided ensures that the minister's decision to protect the CBI will be informed. Authority to share received information with the CRA and the Minister of Finance is important for the proper administration of the act. Therefore, I will not be supporting this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're on amendment CPC-3.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, the next series of amendments the Conservatives have proposed are to have a firmer reporting regime, obviously with a new tax. Having been given very little information by the government, we are forced to rely on other mechanisms to ensure that parliamentarians of the future will be given more accurate information when it comes to what many are calling the carbon tax cover-up. Allowing for a continued discussion on these points, I do hope members, rather than allowing this particular amendment, would allow for sooner reporting rather than later. I hope all of us as parliamentarians would advocate that reporting back to Parliament is a good thing. I would hope all members would support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Francesco, go ahead.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Albas, for bringing that forward.

The amendment reads, “Starting in the year in which the first anniversary”, and I would not disagree, but just respectfully take a different angle, that the OBPS will not be implemented for most of the first year of the acts coming into force. With that, I'll be voting no on your amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault, go ahead.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention.

I had the same thought when I saw these provisions in the minister's report. I asked Mr. Moffet about that, and he was quite clear in saying that the first anniversary would not do much good. For me, this explanation was relatively satisfactory. I don't know if he could repeat why the second anniversary would make more sense than the first.

[John Moffet]

Certainly, I'd be happy to repeat the explanation.

The way the pricing system will work is that the bill would come into force, and then for industries that are subject to part 2 of the bill, they will immediately start monitoring their emissions. After the first year, they will then be obliged to report their emissions for that year. Then, following their report, they undergo a process of true-up, where they have to determine whether they're either over or under their limit. Then they are either issued credits, or they have to acquire credits and submit them to the government.

In other words, for the first year of the bill, the only thing we will know is which jurisdiction the bill applies to and which facilities the bill applies to. We won't know how much money has been collected or how industry has performed under the bill. Did they meet their limit, beat their limit, exceed their limit? Did they submit offset credits? Did they purchase credits from a competitor? Did they make payments to the government? None of that information will be available yet at the first anniversary.

At the second anniversary, all of that information will be available, and thereafter it will be available on an annual basis.

That's why we crafted the bill the way it's crafted, so that the annual report would actually have some substance to it, and that won't be the case until the second year.