Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1788
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
Is Justina still with us?
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, great.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, all, so much for being here this afternoon. We really appreciate the testimony. There's a lot of valuable information here.
We've heard a lot from the previous witnesses about the value of biodiversity and the value of the investments we've made in protected areas with the $1.3 billion, which many of you around the table here today actually played a significant part in.
Harvey, it was great meeting you out in Banff and having that tour and talking about the importance of biodiversity there and how much of it exists.
There's that and the $1.5 billion for the oceans protection plan. Those are the investments we're making at this level, and those are in juxtaposition to what is happening provincially, and in particular in Ontario where we see Bill 108.
This is specifically for you, Ms. Ray, because of your familiarity with Ontario and what is happening there, with the cancellation of the 50 million tree program and the province no longer having an environment commissioner, along with their oversight capability.
We have 243 species at risk here in Ontario and now there is this whole pay-to-play type of legislation that we see in Bill 108 for developers and protected spaces. Can you give us a sense of what impact that's going to have here provincially now, and how that's going to really hurt what we're trying to do federally?
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
Let me cut you off there for just one second, though. It's open for business in one sense, but it's actually killing business in the long run because of the impact it's going to have on biodiversity and protected spaces. Would you not agree?
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's why we didn't put him on the list. We don't care for his jersey either.
Voices: Oh, oh!
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you so much for being here today. We've been waiting with anticipation to look at your report and hear what you have to say today. I look forward to hearing the answers to the questions.
This is such an important issue. As we've seen, there is much misinformation out there around the impact of the price of pollution that our government has implemented, with many trying to say that we have it wrong, that it's actually going to destroy our economy and kill jobs and bring an inordinate amount of devastation to the most vulnerable in our society. I'm happy to see in your report that you actually have confirmed what we have been saying all along: that most Canadians will be better off with a price on pollution. They will receive more in the rebate than they will pay out.
I'd like you to break down the numbers a little further. We hear it's not just those who are driving to work, but those who live in rural communities and the higher price of groceries and so on. Can you give us a sense of the different areas used in your analysis to make the determination that eight out of 10 Canadians will benefit more from the rebate than they will pay out in the price on pollution?
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
To recap, you've looked at both the direct and indirect costs of a price on pollution to the household. You have then looked at the average rebate that all households will receive, and based on that, the vast majority, eight out of 10 Canadians, will receive more on the rebate than they will pay out on the price on pollution.
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
I think I'm pretty much out of time, Chair. How much time do I have?
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, I guess I'll leave it there, then. I will pick it up again.
Thank you.
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
I just want to clarify a couple of things from our conversation earlier.
Once again, eight out of 10 Canadians are going to benefit more from the rebate than what they're paying out in a price on pollution. Is that for all provinces in which the federal backstop will be in place?
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
With all the revenue that is raised within those provinces, the rebate will go back to the province in which the revenue has been raised. Is that correct?
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
If I remember correctly, in your report you indicated that for even the wealthiest—the two out of 10 Canadians who will pay more—it would be on average of $50 more.
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
We hear from Conservatives that average Canadians, low- and middle-income Canadians, will be punished by this price on pollution, that it will vastly increase their costs—I've heard $800 and I've heard numbers up to $5,000—and that they will pay above and beyond, but that is not what you found in your analysis.
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
—on that rebate. That's eight out of 10 Canadians. It's a bit misleading, then, to say that this is going to cost Canadians, because they're not including the rebate portion of that analysis.
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay.
This is in relation to where Mr. Stetski was going at the end of his comments about your report tomorrow. I know you can't divulge any of the information in the report, but I want to ask one thing about it.
When you say you're looking at a price on pollution and the impact, or the amount it needs to get to by 2030 in order to meet our GHG emissions, is that taking into account the other 50-plus measures that are in place by government? In other words, will you be balancing that analysis across all measures that are being taken in order to meet that target, or are you using only this one measurement? If so, what is the value in doing that analysis if you're not going to take into consideration all of the measures that will be in place to deal with a GHG emissions reduction?
Results: 1 - 15 of 1788 | Page: 1 of 120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data