# New Schedule 14 (Climate Action Incentive payment)



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

There's a new schedule 14 this year for certain provinces. I was not aware of that, and I'm glad I read the article in the FP since it will save me $255.

https://business.financialpost.com/...centive-credits-to-expensing-your-service-dog


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Yup, free money there so I'll take it!


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

_In addition, a 10 per cent supplement is available for residents of small and rural communities who live outside a Census Metropolitan Area (as defined by Statistics Canada), “in recognition of their increased energy needs and reduced access to clean transportation options.”_

I'm doing searches trying to find out if I'm in a CMA or not. Headingley is not part of Winnipeg and is 5km from the Winnipeg city limit, but I'm guessing that I'm in Winnipeg's CMA and don't qualify as a rural community. My son and his wife probably do, since they are more like 25km from the city limit in Lorette. Does anyone know where to look to see if one lives in a "Census Metropolitan Area" or not?


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

This is utterly confusing. How is this a "Climate Action Incentive" to anyone? Aren't they rewarding the taxpayers of 4 provinces for the fact their governments have not cooperated with the federal carbon pricing policy?


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

I found the Winnipeg CMA and it includes Headingley but not Lorette so my son gets 10% more. Manitoba only has the one CMA, while Ontario has 16. It's not so simple to find out if you are in an Ontario CMA.


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

Turbo tax isn't letting me claim this for some reason.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Onagoth said:


> Turbo tax isn't letting me claim this for some reason.


Maybe a silly question, but you are one of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick?


----------



## Onagoth (May 12, 2017)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Maybe a silly question, but you are one of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick?


I'm in Ontario.....I figured it out though. Turbo tax isn't automatically claiming the credit in the hands of the lower income spouse. Once I checked the box on my wife's return, the credit came in.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

They raised my taxes, then turned around and gave me the money back, which will help to change the weather. It seems to make sense to our PM.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Excellent. As per usual the money flows out of Alberta, but not back in. Surprised Quebec hasn't somehow managed to grab most of this cash.

You're welcome.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> This is utterly confusing. How is this a "Climate Action Incentive" to anyone? Aren't they rewarding the taxpayers of 4 provinces for the fact their governments have not cooperated with the federal carbon pricing policy?


This isn't free money. If you understand what is going on, the Federal government is going to impose a surcharge on fuel in this provinces because they haven't implemented carbon pricing. So this credit is part of the carbon tax program. As the other provinces have something in place, if you are in one of the other provinces, the province should be doing this from their carbon tax revenue. If they aren't, well, take it up with the province, not the feds.

https://www.hrblock.ca/what-is-the-climate-action-incentive-heres-how-it-affects-your-taxes/



peterk said:


> Excellent. As per usual the money flows out of Alberta, but not back in. Surprised Quebec hasn't somehow managed to grab most of this cash.
> 
> You're welcome.


Yeah, no. The money isn't coming from Alberta, it's coming from the residents of these provinces.

Instead of jumping all over this, maybe a little googling of the provincial websites would have been in order:
Alberta: https://www.alberta.ca/calculate-carbon-levy-rebate-and-costs.aspx
BC: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/...hange/planning-and-action/carbon-tax/programs

Or CTV has an old article about this: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/how-carbon-pricing-will-work-province-by-province-1.4147695


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

We live in semi-rural area, but unfortunately won't get the additional "incentive"

Good site allows checking:

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...ion-incentive/qualify-for-the-supplement.html


----------



## AMABILE (Apr 3, 2009)

UFILE on line does not have LINE 449 nor Schedule 14 to allow the claim

I've e-mailed them several times but have not received an answer as yet


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

AMABILE said:


> UFILE on line does not have LINE 449 nor Schedule 14 to allow the claim
> 
> I've e-mailed them several times but have not received an answer as yet


What province are you in. Not every Canadian will see those forms. They don't want the others to feel cheated so they decided to hide the forms to people who live in the excluded provinces. This is a first that I have personally seen but I doubt it would be the last time we see it, if it works.


----------



## AMABILE (Apr 3, 2009)

ONTARIO


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> AMABILE said:
> 
> 
> > UFILE on line does not have LINE 449 nor Schedule 14 to allow the claim
> ...


+1 ... the tax payer has to be in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick for this to be claimed. 




OptsyEagle said:


> ... They don't want the others to feel cheated so they decided to hide the forms to people who live in the excluded provinces. This is a first that I have personally seen but I doubt it would be the last time we see it, if it works.


It doesn't seem new as I'm pretty sure I don't see BC or Alberta worksheets/tax credits when telling the tax software I'm an Ontario or Quebec tax resident.


Cheers


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Well that is weird. I don't use Ufile so I cannot help much. I assume you have already entered your address so it knows that you live in Ontario. Other then that, I guess you will need to wait to hear back from Ufile.

By the way, the government would most likely correct it for you when you file your tax return.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> It doesn't seem new as I'm pretty sure I don't see BC or Alberta worksheets/tax credits when telling the tax software I'm an Ontario or Quebec tax resident.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Yes. But Schedule 14 is not a provincial form. It is a federal form.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

AMABILE said:


> UFILE on line does not have LINE 449 nor Schedule 14 to allow the claim
> 
> I've e-mailed them several times but have not received an answer as yet


In UFile, in the CRA Questions section of the Interview, scroll down to the Climate Action Incentive section (after the Elections Canada section) and select your principal place of residence. That will automatically add Schedule 14 and calculate the amount based on where you live and spouse and/or number of dependants. Then you can see Schedule 14 in the Tax Return section.

You can see the definition of the CMAs here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...ion-incentive/qualify-for-the-supplement.html. If you live outside one there will be an additional supplement calculated.

Note I am looking at the volunteer program version (CVITP) of UFile but don't see any reason it would differ in the standard version.


----------



## AMABILE (Apr 3, 2009)

THANK YOU so much - that worked

I missed it , but when I asked for LINE 449 or Schedule 14 
in the help section, nothing came up

also UFILE has not responded to my e-mails that I started sending them since monday 

thanks again


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

Just because your town is outside the city limits you don't necessarily qualify as rural and get the extra 10%. You need to look at the CMA map. For example my town is about 5km outside the Winnipeg city limit and I'm inside the map. My son lives in Lorette which I'm guessing is more like 30km outside and it is also within the map's area so he is also included in the Winnipeg CMA. At first I assumed he would be rural, but I was wrong. All the CMAs are very large and include huge areas outside the city limits. For example, Winnipeg's CMA extends as far north as Lake Winnipeg.

I think a lot of people living away from large cities are going to get this wrong.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

pwm said:


> Just because your town is outside the city limits you don't necessarily qualify as rural and get the extra 10%.
> 
> I think a lot of people living away from large cities are going to get this wrong.


I posted message #12 with the link to CRA site above after reading about that on CBC site (I think). We are in semi rural area but still within a CMA. Even those living outside a CMA (shaded area) may not be eligible if their municipality is listed. For example, Napanee is not in a CMA, but is in a listed municipality (Loyalist), so does not qualify.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

agent99 said:


> I posted message #12 with the link to CRA site above after reading about that on CBC site (I think). We are in semi rural area but still within a CMA. Even those living outside a CMA (shaded area) may not be eligible if their municipality is listed. For example, Napanee is not in a CMA, but is in a listed municipality (Loyalist), so does not qualify.


Yes it's confusing. I do taxes for my sister-in-law who lives in Dutton Ontario, just off the 401 south of London. It's outside the London CMA but I can't see how to determine if it is also a "listed municipality". It appears to be in Elgin County. 

agent99: You seem to understand this better than I. Would you consider Dutton to be rural or not?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

pwm said:


> Yes it's confusing. I do taxes for my sister-in-law who lives in Dutton Ontario, just off the 401 south of London. It's outside the London CMA but I can't see how to determine if it is also a "listed municipality". It appears to be in Elgin County.
> 
> agent99: You seem to understand this better than I. Would you consider Dutton to be rural or not?


I don't know that area. Central Elgin is a listed municipality and it is apparently within the London CMA. The CRA site says these municipalities would not qualify: London, St. Thomas, Strathroy-Caradoc, Middlesex Centre, Thames Centre, Central Elgin, Southwold, Adelaide-Metcalfe. Unless Dutton is in one of those, it seems it should get the extra 10%?

Looking at Elgin County, it is made up of several municipalities. 
Municipality of *Central Elgin*
Township of Malahide
Town of Aylmer
Municipality of Bayham
Municipality of West Elgin
Township of *Southwold*
Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich

Seeing Dutton/Dunwich is not listed on the CRA site, this seems to confirm it would be eligible.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks for the update agent99. It's not easy to determine. That's why I think many people will get this wrong.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Fiscal and Distributional Analysis of the Federal Carbon Pricing System report released by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer today.

Its interesting how the Feds comment or answer questions on the carbon tax in public. While calling it revenue neutral, they are careful to not actually claim that everyone will find this to be the case, using phrases such as, "a typical household will receive higher transfers than average amounts it pays in fuel charges", and "most households will receive higher transfers than amounts paid in fuel charges".

This report quantifies the details, noting that, _"The net benefits are broadly progressive by income group. That is, lower income households will receive larger net transfers than higher income households... 
PBO estimates that households in the top income quintile, or top one-fifth of the income spectrum, will pay between two and three times the gross carbon charge amounts of lower income households,,,
In Saskatchewan, for example, households in the highest quintile will pay a net of $50 in carbon costs after rebate in 2019-20, while those in the lowest quintile will get a net refund of $70 from the government."_

There is also a (realistic?) alternative scenario in Appendix B which demonstrates a less favourable outcome where, "_there will be more households categorized as worse off on net because the rebate will be less than what they pay as carbon cost under the alternative scenario. Furthermore, in Ontario and New Brunswick, only the households in the first, second and third quintiles will receive rebates higher than what they pay."_

So, while that is what the report says, I would never be so crass as to call this a *carbon tax on higher income Canadians*. 
Of course I have full confidence in the Fed's (any Feds) ability to stick to the plan and not pervert this tax in the future. 
And if you believe my closing comments, I have an investment opportunity to talk to you about :rolleyes2:


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

pwm said:


> They raised my taxes, then turned around and gave me the money back, which will help to change the weather. It seems to make sense to our PM.


LOL truly! Impose a punative tax, then refund it - is like sending the kids to bed without supper for misbehaving, then letting them order delivery pizza.

I would go for the option of not getting any rebate if the money could be put into a fund to help communities affected by flooding, fire, etc. Let's face it, Canad could lower to zero CO2 emmissions, and we'll still see the effects of climate change. I honestly don't have much faith in the trend being reversed, but perhaps we can mitigate the most severe effects.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This is explained pretty clearly by the federal government:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...cing-pollution-how-it-will-work/manitoba.html



> On October 3, 2018, the Government of Manitoba announced that it no longer intends to establish and implement a carbon pollution pricing system. *Therefore, the federal carbon pollution pricing system will apply in Manitoba*.


Normally, the provinces would have established their own carbon pricing system and used the proceeds. Because in this case the federal government is using their system (in the absence of a provincial system in MB/ON/etc), the federal govt is also returning the proceeds back into the province as would have been the case if the province had done this as they were supposed to themselves.

I think this is pretty easy to understand. I think it's good that the federal govt has required carbon taxing to discourage excessive carbon emissions. They gave the provinces the chance to run their own carbon pricing systems. When provinces failed to take care of this, the federal govt made it happen but did so without depriving the province of the proceeds, which is a very fair compromise. National carbon pricing is a good measure to discourage high emissions using an economic incentive... this is a method that is even endorsed by billionaires and industry leaders, as the best known approach to discourage harmful and unhealthy activities that produce long term harms to the country.

For example, billionaire Ray Dalio writes about this logic in his recent essay:


> b. Raise money in ways that both improve conditions and improve the economy’s productivity by taking into consideration the all-in costs for the society (e.g., I’d tax pollution and various causes of bad health that have sizable economic costs for the society).


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> I think this is pretty easy to understand. I think it's good that the federal govt has required carbon taxing to discourage excessive carbon emissions.


Any carbon taxation costs for excessive emitters will just be passed down the supply chain, ultimately to the consumer. This will result in higher prices for just about anything that needs energy to be manufacturted, stored, and transported. Even stores and businesses will pass down their increased operating costs. In some cases the consumer may be incentivised to reduce their consumption. I believe, human nature being what it is, anybody that can will simply demand a higher wage to compensate for the higher cost of living ( unions in particular are good at this ), and just keep on doing exactly what they were before. The federal climate action incentive payment will be treated as a windfall with no change in behaviours.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

It won't change my behavior in any way.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

pwm said:


> It won't change my behavior in any way.


Nor anyone else's. 

What will happen is the large bureaucracy that must be created to collect and then re-distribute a portion back to taxpayers will be a waste.

I can't think of a dumber idea.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> Nor anyone else's.


Maybe not for you, but it does affect others. People change their behaviour in response to factors like high gas prices. It changes the kinds of cars people buy, commuting choices, and even the choice whether or not to own a car.

Government policies in these areas, if implemented properly, can shape behaviour.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

James, they are giving me back the gas tax via the CAI, so it doesn't cost me any more to drive in the end. How could that influence my behavior?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

pwm said:


> James, they are giving me back the gas tax via the CAI, so it doesn't cost me any more to drive in the end. How could that influence my behavior?


The CAI rebate will be forgotten within a few weeks, but the gas prices will be reminded to you every fill up. 

I am not a fan of the carbon tax, but I agree, increased prices is the best way to reduce demand. The main reason I don't care for a Canadian carbon tax is, to extrapolate further, the best way to deal with higher prices is cheaper supply. We humans don't just sit there and take it. Cheaper supplies are produced in areas with cheaper costs and in this case a country without a carbon tax now has a cost advantage over us.

So I have no problem with increasing prices in hopes of curving demand but in this case it will also include losing jobs.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Fiscal and Distributional Analysis of the Federal Carbon Pricing System report released by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer today.
> 
> Its interesting how the Feds comment or answer questions on the carbon tax in public. While calling it revenue neutral, they are careful to not actually claim that everyone will find this to be the case, using phrases such as, "a typical household will receive higher transfers than average amounts it pays in fuel charges", and "most households will receive higher transfers than amounts paid in fuel charges".
> 
> ...


Good research. Funny, it confirms what my gut reaction was when I read or heard the very loose and optimitisic way our government was showcasing it. Doesn't apply here in NS anyway. We simple have been paying more for electricity, vehicle gas, N gas home (few) and for home fuel (oil-most folks) I think 1cent/ltr, 1% on electricity so far. No credits or rebates to pull away in the future etc. This makes more sense to me anyhow. User pay, no big administration needed, raise it as appropriate. And I read if correct we're a leader in progress to targets (exceeded 2030 already), mainly due to cleaning up electric going renewable that customers paid very heavily for over the past 10 years +. 

Maybe I'm wrong but carbon tax seems like another method of wealth distribution as much as to affect carbon.


----------

