Finance committee  I wish I could give you a very firm answer and that we had very well-specified and good models for predicting and relating quit rates to the prices. It's not always possible, because the past isn't necessarily a good indicator of the future in this case. For example, far fewer

Agriculture committee  Passing it would be a parliamentary decision, so it's not for me to say what message it would send. That's for Parliament or the government to address.

Agriculture committee  I don't see your point, Mr. Lawrence. If this was to go forward, you want to make it as clear as possible. To make it as clear as possible, you can modify it.

Agriculture committee  Then, if the CRA has spoken, you have your answer. As I said, it's the CRA that determines this, so it's not for me to say.

Agriculture committee  That's something I'd have to look at. I can't answer on the spot like that. It needs due consideration.

Agriculture committee  I'm not sure of your question, Mr. Lawrence.

Agriculture committee  I would say that in putting legislation together you have to be very specific. If this amendment was to move forward—and that's not up to me—then it should be clarified.

Agriculture committee  It's not a big deal; it just should be clarified.

Agriculture committee  Again, just to reiterate, I can give you my view. It's up to the CRA to determine finally and once and for all if it is included. However, my view is that it's not.

Agriculture committee  Yes.

Agriculture committee  Yes, certainly, and it would be to reiterate an answer that I provided slightly earlier. That portion will be $100 million at a price of $40 per tonne on carbon, and as the price goes up, that $100 million will go up too. However, that just looks at the total operating expendit

Agriculture committee  I don't recall.

Agriculture committee  Yes, thank you, again with a caveat that it would be up to the CRA to finally determine this. Our view at the Department of Finance would be that yes, it is a bit too vague, and in fact you yourself, in your question, just mentioned that it “could”. It talks about an industrial

Agriculture committee  I don't know that's the specific reason. I think it's probably because the bulk of the fuels used on farms are gasoline and light fuel oil or diesel—

Agriculture committee  One of the considerations that would go into this is that farmers are trade-exposed. There is a limit to how much they can pass prices along, and I think that's reflected in the overall carbon-pricing regime, in which, as we heard at the beginning, the vast majority of emissions