Great. Good.
So here we have a situation where, because there's no price on carbon, the polluter isn't paying the full cost, certainly, on carbon capture. Because the government refuses to put a price on carbon, the taxpayer is then on the hook for the research and implementation of the sequestering of that pollutant.
Now, it seems to me that when government is making choices...and the government has made a choice. In its recent billion-dollar fund going out the door, 80% of it landed in this particular research field.
To you, Mr. Whittingham, would it not have been more intelligent, prudent, and acceptable to the taxpayers of Canada to have had a price on carbon rather than having to subsidize this entire scheme?