Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start by quickly addressing something my colleague from Saskatchewan, Mr. Steinley, said during his intervention.
The purpose of a price on pollution is to ensure that pollution is no longer free. If my colleagues across the way disagree with that sentiment, that is a conversation for us to have. Furthermore, a price on pollution is also designed to incentivize innovation and make sure that it is a critical component of decarbonization. It does not, as Mr. Charlebois quite emphatically expressed a couple of moments ago through the data and studies that he has undertaken, pass costs on at the retail level.
Mr. McCann, you said this is complex. I imagine the axing of a tax, therefore, would not be a silver bullet that all of a sudden ensures that we see a stabilization of food prices.
Do you share the view, Mr. McCann, that Mr. Charlebois expressed earlier during this committee that the price on pollution is not contributing directly to retail costs on food?