Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, that may be the last applause I get at this committee. I'm going to enjoy it while I can.
It's a real pleasure to join all of you, all of my colleagues at this esteemed committee.
I'm going to go on the record briefly because all the other parties have, and I would feel left out if I didn't make a few remarks.
What strikes me is that this motion is aspirational. It is non-binding, as Mr. Baker pointed out. It calls on the government to do something, and that's not outside the parameters of what committees have done in other ways. The committees often speak. We are the masters of our own business, so if we do want to give advice to government, whether it's binding or not, even though it may not be wise in some cases, I think it's certainly within the ambit of our business.
I also would point out that this motion before us is similar, if not identical, to a motion that's being moved in the House today, I understand, so in some ways it's a little bit redundant. On the other hand, you could say that it's consistent with what is being done in the House. I think that should be noted.
What strikes me is that, at the heart of it, this motion does point out that Canadians are facing two crises. One crisis is a climate crisis, and the second crisis is an economic one. We do live in a federation, and that requires, I think, a full-court press from all jurisdictions and levels of government, particularly if we're going to make progress on those two very important crises. We're going to need the feds and the provinces working together.
The motion is a little bit loaded. I think we can all acknowledge that. We all have our own positions on the proper way to deal with the climate crisis or, frankly, how serious or not it might be.
At the heart of it, I think this motion calls for a meeting to address those two crises. The three main elements are to address the carbon tax, to address its economic implications and to address options, if there are any, to lower emissions. While the motion does sort of lean in terms of what the authors would prefer that way, I think there are...calling on the government to have a meeting to discuss these issues, where there is a full-throated examination and defence.
As I said, this motion illustrates and foreshadows a little bit of its position. It seems to indicate that the carbon tax is not working as intended or has implications or impacts that are deleterious. There's an equal and opposite argument to be made against that. Mr. Baker made a number of arguments.
I have to point out that the first carbon tax that ever was brought in in British Columbia was brought in by a small “c” conservative government. They were called Liberals, the Liberal government of Gordon Campbell, but they were notionally a centre right government that brought in the carbon tax.
I could also point out that I think the carbon tax has not been as effective as we would like it to be in reducing emissions.
I think there is a little bit of truth on all sides of this. I think calling on the government to have a discussion where we can, in public, debate these important issues in a federated manner is not.... I think it could have some benefits, so we're going to support this motion in the committee here, as we will support the similar motion in the House today.