Thank you very much, Mr. Longfield. This is a very interesting question and one thing that doesn't get talked about enough, in my humble opinion.
On that, it seems I agree with the new head of an Alberta oil sands group who, in a CBC article, “wants clarity from Poilievre on industrial carbon pricing”—that's the title of the article.
I'll read you the first paragraph of that article:
Conservative [Party] Leader Pierre Poilievre needs to clarify where he stands on industrial carbon pricing, says the new head of a major oilsands group that aims to bring the industry's emissions to net-zero largely through the potential construction of a massive carbon-capture project that relies on carbon credits [derived from carbon pricing].
In fact, we can point to a number of very large projects that have taken place in Canada. This is according to the companies themselves. You don't have to take my word for it. There's an $11.5-billion investment by Dow Chemical in Fort Saskatchewan, where part of the funding is based on carbon pricing; Port of Argentia's $4 billion in Newfoundland; Dofasco Steel, which is closer to your neck of the woods, with $1.8 billion in Hamilton; and $74 million for SMR development in Saskatchewan. All of these projects are partly being funded through carbon pricing. If we get rid of this, it is estimated that taxpayers would be on the hook—if we wanted to fund those projects directly—for $20 billion to $48 billion.
The Conservatives say they're in favour of technology. These are all technological projects taking place in different sectors: steel, SMR, energy savings and the chemical sector. Are they telling us that their technical strategy is to put Canadian taxpayers on the hook for an extra $20 billion to $48 billion? We can do that at no extra fee to Canadians by using carbon pricing.