I'm going to agree with Mr. Jaccard, and I'm also going to disagree with him. Regarding his proposal on the carbon tax, you need the right price signal long term so that people can make the right decisions that have a value in terms of addressing climate change in the long term.
I think your concern, Mr. Allen, is if you do that, you would increase the price of electricity, and that increase in one region relative to another would drive jobs away and not allow that industry to continue. That's the issue.
I think Mr. Jaccard's proposal was to increase the carbon tax, so that the investment decision is made based on that, but then you take the money from the tax and provide it back to the end-use customers in that region, so that they are not disadvantaged from that decision. That may actually help to preserve the jobs in the industry in the region.
It also would do something else. In my view, it would actually help promote east-west transmission. Mr. Jaccard is opposed to subsidies or policy decisions, but this is where you have to go.
Today, there is a larger market price or value to selling hydro energy north-south into the U.S., because there's no value put on the carbon, although there are some markets in the U.S. that do put value on it. You can collect more in emission value by selling in the U.S. than you can by selling it in Canada.
So if you put the right prices on it in Canada, there would be an incentive to build the transmission east-west and sell it into the Canadian market, and then take that additional money and put it back to end-use customers, as Mr. Jaccard proposed in his suggestion. The Canadian economy may benefit from this.
Today, there's an unlevel playing field, in terms of going to the largest market and getting value. I'm not saying you need a subsidy, but there is greater value in getting the right price on the emissions, so that you make the right economic decision.
That will bring in more markets in Canada, as well as in the U.S.