Mr. Speaker, the member for Carleton's motion is interesting, but one that seems to miss the point on at least two levels. First, as has been pointed out in the House before, pricing carbon pollution is widely acknowledged as one of the most important tools for combatting climate change. That is because it follows a classic economic principle. If we want to encourage certain kinds of activity, provide an incentive for doing more of it. If we want to discourage an activity such as producing carbon, we create a disincentive so that there is less of it. This is well understood because it just makes sense.
It is certainly understood by the more than 42 countries that have adopted some form of carbon pricing. It is understood by some 25 subnational jurisdictions that have done the same. Indeed, the number of carbon pricing initiatives that have been implemented or planned for implementation has almost doubled since 2013. Among those pricing or planning to price carbon are the European Union, China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Colombia, and California, just to name a few.
In the case of China, that country has tested a cap-and-trade system in nine of its 23 provinces. The plan is to take the system national and when that happens, fully one-quarter of the world's carbon emissions will be priced at one level or another. The opposition increasingly finds itself on the outside looking in, outside of a growing consensus sweeping the globe, outside of the economic mainstream that wants to discourage the production of carbon by pricing it, outside of nation after nation and state after state that know that this is the best, most effective way to reduce carbon pollution.
Nor is it just governments that have seen the wisdom of putting a price on carbon, so too have companies. Indeed, the private sector, that same private sector that the opposition claims to understand and represent, has been calling on governments to price carbon for years. Many are not waiting. By last year, more than 1,300 companies had implemented or were planning to implement internal carbon pricing. That is up from 150 just four years ago.
Why is that? If pricing carbon pollution is so devastating, why are companies jumping on board? What do they know that the opposition does not? They understand the benefits to their businesses. They know that it is the best way of achieving the desired public policy objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is the free market in action. That is how forward-thinking companies are dealing with the challenges and opportunities of climate change. They are turning the genius of free enterprise to finding creative and innovative ways to avoid disincentives. Again, it is just Economics 101.
Our government believes in the free market system. By sending clear market signals, we are unleashing its power to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, spurring innovation and improving our competitiveness.
These clear market signals do something else as well. They encourage companies to look for better ways of doing things including using different sources of energy and using less energy overall. That is critical, because the International Energy Agency has said that we can get halfway to our Paris commitments just by using energy more efficiently.
I would also remind the House that pricing carbon pollution is something that the United Nations is championing. It has challenged companies to "reach the next level of climate performance and to advocate for a price on carbon as a necessary and effective measure to tackle the climate change challenge."
Why is this obvious to everyone but members of the opposition? Why do they not get it? Why do they not see what everyone else does, that pricing carbon pollution must be part of the solution to climate change?
That is the first problem with this motion, it misses the point by missing the boat, by opposing a tool that the world is embracing.
Second, it misses the point by overlooking one of the key features of our carbon pricing proposal, that revenue from pricing pollution will not end up in Ottawa. All direct revenues collected by our government will be returned to the province or territory they came from.
Governments in Canada today are investing carbon pricing revenues in rebates and tax cuts for households. They are supporting competitiveness for industry and investing in climate action, clean technology, and innovation. Those are the kinds of wise investments our government is making today.
We are supporting new electricity infrastructure and smart grids, clean power like wind and solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass. We are building healthier communities and creating new economic opportunities by developing alternatives to diesel. We are investing in electric and alternative fuel charging stations and more energy efficient homes.
Investments like these will take us closer to the future we want: a country defined by innovation, ingenuity, and clean technology. It is a future that is within our grasp, not by clinging to the past but by embracing the future, not by opposing just for the sake of opposing but by recognizing the world has seen the virtues of carbon pricing, and it is pressing ahead.
It has been said that an error does not become a mistake until one refuses to correct it. The opposition has erred in standing against pricing carbon pollution. It is time to correct it.
I invite members opposite to join with us, to join with countries and companies from around the world, and to join with the United Nations to help build a better and cleaner future for our children and the generations to come.