Government Operations committee  Unfortunately, I don't have these numbers on hand. I remember we conducted a study a few years ago to estimate how much provincial health spending was covered by the Canada Health Transfer. One of the conclusions I remember well was that the definition of health care or health services had evolved over time to cover more services, which can affect the amount to be determined to reach a specific target, in this case 35%; all that to say, I don't have the figures on hand, unfortunately.

Government Operations committee  That's an interesting question, and I'm glad that you're asking me that, because it's a question that gets raised very often. My mandate is to estimate the cost of government proposals. The carbon tax is a government proposal. The cost of climate change is a relatively new area, and we have tried to estimate the cost of climate change under two scenarios: the scenario where all commitments are fully respected globally and the scenario where only actions that have been implemented are implemented—nothing more.

Government Operations committee  The analysis is typically a cost analysis, which is what I have been mandated by Parliament to do. I'm estimating the cost of proposals. If further analysis is deemed feasible and required, I'm sure there are lots of think tanks out there that are more than happy to do the cost-benefit analysis, and if the government itself has a cost-benefit analysis, I'm sure it would be more than happy to disclose that.

Government Operations committee  It's income growth that will be lower than it would otherwise have been, so that's what we refer to when we say it's a negative impact. It's not necessarily that their absolute level of income will go down, but the net impact will be a reduction compared to what it would be in a scenario in which there wouldn't be a carbon tax.

Government Operations committee  Yes, they'd experience, on average, income growth slightly faster than what will happen with a carbon tax. That's presuming that there would be nothing else that would replace a carbon tax.

Government Operations committee  That's compared to what it would be in a scenario in which there wouldn't be a carbon tax, so it's not necessarily “losing”, but it's lower growth or lower income growth than would otherwise be the case. In that sense, yes, you could categorize it as “losing” compared to what you would have in a scenario in which there was no carbon tax.

Government Operations committee  That's the case for most income quintiles, except for those in the bottom 20% of income quintiles. It varies by province. It depends on the specific economic fabric, income distribution and household composition, but generally speaking, yes.

Government Operations committee  I'm not certain about that. Reducing the carbon tax or eliminating it would certainly have economic impacts, but I'm not convinced that it would do anything with respect to productivity. It's not something that we have looked at—the productivity impact, or not, of a carbon tax. I think there are many factors that come into play when determining productivity and the increases in productivity of specific sectors.

Government Operations committee  Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. We're pleased to be here to discuss our report on the government's expenditure plan and main estimates for 2024-25, published on March 7, 2024. With me today are our lead analysts on the report, Jill Giswold and Kaitlyn Vanderwees.

Government Operations committee  There are two elements to that question. If one looks at the fiscal impact, which is the amount of the carbon tax paid directly and indirectly and the GST that applies on these embedded or direct carbon taxes paid minus the carbon rebate, most families are better off. We estimate that to be around 80%.

Government Operations committee  No, it's not something that we are currently looking at. I think it would be more within the bailiwick of the Auditor General.

Government Operations committee  It's generally accepted that a carbon tax is an efficient way of letting players in the economy determine the best way for them individually—as individuals or corporations—to reduce their emissions. However, we estimated a couple of years ago that as a country, if we were to rely solely on a carbon tax to reduce our emissions to meet the Paris targets, or even exceed them, the carbon tax would need to be increased significantly and get close to $300 per tonne, as opposed to the maximum of $170 per tonne that it's scheduled to reach in 2030.

Government Operations committee  No. That's a whole different category of issues. The government has introduced a number of tax credits to stimulate green energy, the use of hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage, and we have not tried to measure the impact of these in terms of jobs and economic activity because they are separate measures.

Government Operations committee  It's clear that there would probably be some carbon border adjustment if Canada were to do nothing on climate change, but it's very difficult to determine exactly what these costs would be in the absence of more information as to the timelines for not doing anything. It's also difficult to determine with a high level of certainty what the response would be from our trading partners if we were to do nothing when it comes to climate change.

Government Operations committee  I think that would probably be a slightly different issue. The government has a zero emissions vehicle mandate, so even if we were to move away from a carbon tax, while it would probably mean that internal combustion engines would be slightly less expensive to operate, there would probably still be a need for electric vehicles, given the zero emissions mandate that the government has announced and will be putting in place.