Try the political quiz

Candidates  ›  Policies  ›  Environmental

Conservative2019 House of CommonsLakelandAlberta

Shannon Stubbs

Canadian politician.

Overview Policies Discuss Ratings Themes Ideology

Shannon Stubbs’ policy on carbon tax

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average Canadian voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

Should the federal government abolish the carbon tax?

SS>SS  ChatGPT Party ResearchYes

Shannon Stubbs’ answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT Party Research

Very strongly agree

Yes

The Conservative Party of Canada under Erin O’Toole (2021) and especially Pierre Poilievre has campaigned to “Axe the Tax” and repeal the federal carbon price, repeatedly voting against Liberal carbon-pricing legislation and calling for its abolition. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly agree

Yes, axe the tax to lower the cost of gas, groceries, and home heating

This closely matches the party’s signature Poilievre-era framing—“Axe the Tax” to reduce costs for fuel, groceries, and home heating—used in speeches, ads, and parliamentary messaging since 2022–2024. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, replace the tax with green technology incentives that don't increase the cost of living

They would agree with abolishing the tax, but the party’s emphasis has been repeal rather than replacing it with broad green-tech incentives; still, Conservatives have at times supported technology-focused approaches (e.g., CCUS/innovation) over consumer carbon taxes. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No, carbon pricing is the most efficient way to cut emissions while putting rebate money back in pockets

Conservatives reject the Liberal argument that carbon pricing is the best/most efficient tool and dispute the affordability claims around rebates; their platform rhetoric focuses on costs and skepticism that rebates offset impacts for many households. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No

Conservatives have consistently opposed the federal carbon tax/carbon pricing framework (e.g., opposition to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and ongoing “Axe the Tax” messaging), so they would strongly disagree with keeping it. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No, we are in a climate emergency and must tax pollution to force a rapid transition to clean energy

The party does not frame policy as a ‘climate emergency’ requiring higher pollution taxes; it has opposed escalating carbon taxes and instead emphasizes affordability, energy production, and non-tax approaches, making this strongly contrary to their stance. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Personal answer

This candidate has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this candidate’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this candidate’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this candidate about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Candidate’s support base

Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.

Party influence

We are currently researching this candidate’s political party and its stance on this issue.

Party’s support base

Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this candidate’s stance here


Popular conversations

Join in on the post popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Jack Smith files to drop Jan. 6 charges against Donald Trump

Special counsel Jack Smith has filed a motion to drop all four felony charges against President-elect Donald Trump in connection with his effort to overturn his 2020 presidential election in the lead-up to the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S Capitol.Trump was first indicted on four felonies in August 2023: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. The case was then put on hold for months as Trump’s team argued that Trump could not be prosecuted.The indictment marked an extraordinary moment in American history — the first-ever accusation that a president sought illegally to cling to power.The dismissal also marks a historic moment. Fifty years after Richard Nixon was forced by lawmakers from both parties to resign the presidency amid allegations of criminal conduct, half of American voters will return Trump to the presidency despite his own serious charges of criminal misconduct in office.“The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed. But the circumstances have," Smith’s office wrote in Monday’s filing, adding that it is seeking to dismiss the charges ahead of Trump's inauguration, in line with the Justice Department’s longstanding position that it can’t charge a sitting president.“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind," the special counsel added.The Supreme Court handed Trump an early victory in the case in July with its ruling on presidential immunity. But a new federal grand jury indicted Trump on the same four charges again in August, alleging that Trump’s false claims about mass voter fraud during the 2020 election were “unsupported, objectively unreasonable, and ever-changing” and that Trump “knew that they were false.”

▲  106 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Trump's Deportation Storm: America Braces for Mass Exodus of Immigrants

For months, immigration advocates have been planning for the possibility of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Now, their worst fears have arrived.Immigrants’ rights groups have spent the last year preparing for a second Trump term and an overhaul of the nation’s immigration system, analyzing Trump’s proposals, drafting legal briefs, coordinating messaging and organizing aid for immigrants and asylum seekers. They responded to Trump’s victory with alarm and vowed to put up a fight, setting the stage for four more years of contentious court battles with his administration.Some are already preparing to push current leadership at the Department of Homeland Security to take steps to stymie the incoming Trump team, particularly on immigrant detention and the use of AI in enforcement.“We should expect to see the devastation of immigrant communities all over the country. We should expect to see family separation,” said Kica Matos, the president of the National Immigration Law Center. “It is entirely possible that he will try to use the military to carry out deportations, so that means that Americans all over the country will see the military engaging in enforcement against civilian populations, which is horrifying.”Trump, after winning a historic victory on a platform of turbo-charged immigration enforcement, has said he will conduct mass deportations at a scale never before seen. Immigrant advocates have warned this would be expensive and inhumane, separating families and wrecking communities. The president-elect has also vowed to build huge detention camps, hire thousands more border agents, funnel military spending toward border security and invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without court hearings.He has also said he would end “catch-and-release” — allowing migrants to remain free, often with monitoring, while they await immigration court hearings — and restore a policy from his first term requiring asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases are processed. And he has dodged questions about whether he would try to bring back family separation.

▲  4333 replies