You are here

Q&A - Question 7

7. Transportation:
Transportation is one of Canada’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.

a) Would you do as Norway did (well over $1 trillion US collected so far) and use carbon taxes for social and environmental initiatives (green spending and compensation for those who are disproportionally affected by a CO2 levy)? Explain.


The federal price on pollution is putting more money back in the pockets of Canadian families as well as investing in social and environmental initiatives.


A quality public transit system is essential to making our cities and towns run. Municipalities are already investing in making their transit systems better and more environmentally friendly. Now they need a Federal partner to help.

A New Democrat government will modernize and expand public transit in communities across Canada, and ensure that federal transit funding flows with an emphasis on scaling up low-carbon transit projects, like zero-emissions buses and electric trains, with the goal of electrifying transit and other municipal fleets by 2030.

A New Democrat government will modernize and expand public transit. We will also support creating high frequency rail along the Quebec-Windsor corridor and expand rail service options to other regions in partnership with the provinces and territories. We know that Canadians want to do their part to reduce emissions when they travel that’s why our plan will make it easier to get and use a zero emissions vehicle.


The PPC would eliminate the carbon tax.


Would I do as Norway did? …and still does. Yes!

This will be a debate for soon after I’d take office if elected. Norway is a country, Alberta a province of Canada. Once this discussion comes up, a can of worms is opened as to who gets to claim how much. A form of the Alberta Heritage Fund will need to be implemented / regenerated. By transitioning to renewables, the increased value of the sector will provide the means. By sticking to the fossil fuel sector as it is now, there will be no reserves to be built up.

Building a pipeline will, upon completion, turn the oil sand sector into a drain on Alberta’s / Canada’s economy.


No. While Canada and Norway are both great nations, we are also different. Clearly, there is much Canada may learn and adopt from partners such as Norway, but policies and legislation for Canada are best-produced by Canada’s Parliament and representatives elected by and accountable to Canadians.

There are observations that Canadians should note as we observe the Norwegian carbon tax and its 28-year history. Norway’s GHG emissions have increased since they introduced their carbon tax in 1991. Also, “extensive tax exemptions” in Norway’s carbon tax regime contribute to the “relatively small effect” that the tax has achieved.

b) How would you approach the ‘elephant in the room’  - people who travel a lot by air, which greatly increases carbon emissions?


Finally, we do not want any elephants in the room (species at risk). I believe that personal actions are important as we strive to lessen our carbon footprint. My family has switched to EVs (Nissan Leaf and Hyundai Kona) and has decided not to travel by air for vacations although we will do so for family emergencies or business. This may not be possible for everyone, but we all need to do what we can to “walk the talk” when it comes to the environment.


I am not reluctant to have the open dialogue on this issue. I personally only fly long distance like international or in winter when weather is pretty bad. I prefer to drive for the most part when I have to travel as it’s affordable, cheaper and have lower carbon emission. I believe we should all do our part and be mindful at every step of our life about our carbon foot prints. Second step to have the open ended conversion among each other to have this much needed discussion.


The PPC does not support the carbon emissions myth. Therefore air travel remains a choice.
However it is bewildering to many of us, as to why air travel or any travel linked to fossil fuels is acceptable for the elite few who do not practice what they preach, such as our own, David Suzuki. It appears that the carbon emission issue applies only to those who cannot afford to buy their own jets. Elitisms reigns in this new world order. Nothing has changed.


Severe discouragement and reduction is essential! 

We have to re-think tourism and business travel. No topic on the environment should be the “proverbial” elephant in the room. As true politicians, everything must be above board.

The only item not debatable is the change in climate, and the threat to our health now, and our life later, as a result.


I believe that when we assess the value and cost of an activity such as flying, it is important to consider necessities. For instance, I fly frequently most of the year because the House of Commons calendar requires me to be in Ottawa for about 25 weeks or more of the year.  I am also expected to be accessible to the constituents of my riding during that time requiring travel back to the riding during longer sitting sessions of the House of Commons. So, while it is necessary for me to fly to be at work in Ottawa, perhaps there is a way that Parliament’s operations could be modernized in a way that would allow me to do more of my work right here in the North Okanagan-Shuswap and this could reduce the amount of flying for Parliamentarians.

Canadians today are more mobile than previous generations which means there are a lot of grandparents, parents and children crossing Canada’s skies to reunite. Canada’s population is aging which means more and more of us are retired and have more time to do things like visit family. This factor of having time could perhaps allow us to rediscover efficient rail or ship travel to connect with loved ones.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer