Mr. Chair, I never said that I supported the tax nor that I was opposed to it. I said that we have to ask ourselves the question and that the most important thing was to tackle climate change. That is what will bring about a change in society. The tax is precisely something...
I agree with Mr. Allen that we must consider this. This is not something that we can just throw out spontaneously. You can't simply be for or against it. I agree with him, and several countries are studying this. Why don't we take the time to study this rather than coming to a decision right now? I do not think we have to have a clear precise opinion on this motion immediately. This is a very complex subject and we have to look at what the consequences of a carbon tax would be.
Should we do as Quebec, as British Columbia, or as Europe is proposing? There are so many ways of acting. What are we talking about when we talk about a carbon tax? We do not know, but we are about to vote for or against!
To claim that we actually have enough information to support or oppose the motion makes no sense. I am against the motion because it does not give us a true picture. The motion does not deal with climate change and it does not focus on the environment. In my opinion this is simply playing political games. The motion is trying to make us believe that this would lead to a horrible situation and that families will suffer, etc.
However, it does not say that there has to be a change in society or in attitudes. However, big countries like China are actually tackling that first, that is, an attitude change. But that is not stated.The effects of the tax are being talked about first.