Mr. Perkins has suggested that I presupposed where the study was going to land. I didn't do that. I actually referenced the most, I would say, significant piece of scientific research that has ever been done on climate policies. It showed that carbon pricing and pricing instruments in general work in combination with other policies as a mixture to bring down carbon emissions quickly.
I can quote directly from the article, if Mr. Perkins would like, but maybe he's suggesting that I don't have the right to take the floor and motivate a motion that I'm moving in committee. I don't see how that is relevant here, given the fact that the Conservatives do that every time they move a motion. Why would I not be afforded the same right and privilege to speak to a motion that I put on the floor?
I find it strange that they want to gut this motion and don't actually want to study carbon pricing. I find it strange, given how much time they spend talking about it in the House of Commons. It's a little bit strange.
The other thing is that our industry is asking us to do this. Isn't this committee supposed to study things that are relevant to industry? If industry associations, even in the prairie provinces, where I know some of the members across the way come from, want us to study and look at this as a major issue that they have.... They're aligned in asking us to look at the challenges and, essentially, how we can fix the interjurisdictional challenges that they experience—those misalignments that create problems for them within their operations. We want a more competitive industry. They're saying that carbon pricing is what helps them be competitive.
I don't know why the Conservatives would be against this. It seems to me to be a study that we should all be aligned on.
I know the NDP has backed down quite a bit from carbon pricing in general, and its members have said that they're against the carbon tax, but they certainly are not against.... I haven't heard them say they're against the industrial carbon pricing system that we have. In fact, I think Mr. Masse and his party, the NDP, are for carbon pricing. I think they always have been, even though they've backed down from the consumer-facing portion of it. We know they've been supportive. I know that within the circles of very progressive-minded people in this country, the NDP has often cited its leadership on climate change and wanting to raise ambition. It would strike me as very strange that its members would vote against or oppose a motion that would support us looking at how our industry could be more competitive and decarbonize faster.
I don't understand how it could be a major contentious issue here to study this in detail.
The preamble that's in here is really referencing most of what I think is significant about what the rationale is for bringing up this particular study at this moment. I think those elements of the motion should stay in.
I would, respectfully, say that I will be voting against Mr. Perkins' attempt to gut this motion because he's scared to study carbon pricing.