Finance Committee on April 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 134 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, March 18, 2024, and the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to Standing Order 15.1, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members. Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to the interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters, I invite the participants to ensure they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged in and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I believe, Clerk, that all virtual witnesses have been tested and everything is fine. They're ready to go.

With us today, we have, as an individual, Mr. Jeffrey Simser, who is a barrister and solicitor.

Welcome, Mr. Simser.

From the Forum for Leadership on Water, we have Ralph Pentland, a member of that forum.

From the Regroupement d'ordres professionnels en santé mentale du Québec, we have Monsieur Félix-David Soucis, who is a psychoeducator, and Madam Josée Landry, who is a guidance counsellor.

Each of you now will have up to five minutes to make some opening remarks before we get into the members' questions.

We'll start with Mr. Simser, please.

[Jeffrey Simser, Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual]

Good morning. Thank you so much for inviting me to come and share my expertise with the committee.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm now retired from the Ministry of the Attorney General after over 30 years, and I was Canada's first director of civil asset forfeiture.

I'm here to talk about subdivision A of Bill C-59, which is proposed section 278 and onward, and specifically changes to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Criminal Code. However, before I do, I want to give you a bit of brief context and history.

A company, Silver International, operated out of unit 303 in a nondescript building in Richmond, B.C., called the Pacific Business Centre. When a search warrant was executed on that unit, police found two safes with over $2 million in bundled cash, mostly $20 bills, as well as ledgers chronicling the daily in and out transactions of the enterprise. Silver's video security system was also seized, along with an archive of the previous two weeks, and that surveillance provided investigators with a very clear picture of what was going on at Silver International.

Legitimate customers went in to access the money service business, or MSB, of Silver, but at that time, it was not properly registered as an MSB. It registered later with FINTRAC, after the warrants were executed, something that, thankfully, wouldn't happen now in 2024. The legitimate clients went in and did the standard paperwork, say, to exchange currency. They showed ID, confirmed the exchange rate, counted the money carefully and got a receipt. It's a process that might take 15 minutes.

The video archive, however, showed a second group of customers who stayed less than two minutes each, simply dropping a suitcase off in a secure area and leaving immediately, with no receipts and no counting. After those clients left, Silver staff then opened and emptied the suitcase onto the floor, arraying $10,000 bricks of $20 bills for counting and sorting.

The prosecution against Silver and others collapsed on November 22, 2018, when the Crown entered a stay of proceedings. As with most criminal prosecutions that fail, no public reason was provided. The Crown simply told the court there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, but there was clearly a structural problem with this case. In Canada, prosecutors have a constitutionally mandated duty of disclosure to the defence, and the quantum of that disclosure in a case like this is massive. It's almost hard to conceive of how much there is. There were upward of 300 law enforcement personnel working on that project at any given time.

The disclosure needs to be managed very carefully, both by the police and particularly by the Crown. For example, if there's information that might identify a confidential informant, or CI, it must be carefully redacted. Some of that information will be easy to redact, such as the notebook of the CI's handler, but sometimes it's very difficult. For example, there might be a passing reference in a police officer's notebook.

The need to protect confidential informants was affirmed on September 18, 2020, when shots rang out in the parking lot of an elegant but unassuming Japanese restaurant in Garden City, a neighbourhood in Richmond. The principal of Silver was murdered at that scene. Dead men tell no tales.

The Cullen commission determined that Silver was laundering at least $220 million a year, and it was a small part of a larger money-laundering ecosystem in British Columbia. There is one redemptive glimmer in this case. A civil forfeiture case is still ongoing, so even though all the criminal charges have gone, there's still some justice being had in B.C.

I'll move on to my two comments.

Bill C-59 once again tinkers with the money-laundering offence provisions of section 462.31. I take no issue with this, but the amendments, to me, elide a more fundamental problem. There is no stand-alone money-laundering offence. The code still requires prosecutors to link the laundering activity to a specific predicate crime.

As far as we know, Silver International was a pure third party money-laundering service. It was a professional money launderer. Had the prosecution not failed, I'm absolutely certain that defence lawyers would have built a defence around the operators' lack of direct connection to the drug trade. I'm sure they would have argued that they were simply helping business people evade currency controls from the People's Republic of China, which is not a crime in Canada.

My second point is that civil forfeiture law is critical to the fight against money laundering. We have nine jurisdictions—provinces and territories—in Canada with a civil forfeiture law, and any plan, either legislative or operational, to address money laundering must include civil forfeiture. Provinces and territories need to be encouraged to build and strengthen their capacity in this regard.

I will observe to the committee that Canada's financial intelligence unit, FINTRAC, will not provide disclosures directly to a civil forfeiture unit. If a disclosure comes to the unit through the police, FINTRAC is perfectly fine with it being used, but it will not engage directly. The reason for this has never been clear to me, but I might urge this committee to consider an amendment to the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act to mandate and enable such information sharing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Simser.

Now we'll go to the Forum for Leadership on Water.

Mr. Pentland, go ahead, please.

[Ralph Pentland, Member, Forum for Leadership on Water]

Thank you.

I am here on behalf of the Forum for Leadership on Water, or FLOW. I will be offering a few observations regarding the provisions related to the establishment of the Canada water agency.

FLOW has been working for over 15 years to help secure the health of Canada's fresh water by bringing together past political leaders, former senior officials from federal and provincial governments, and staff of respected research institutes and non-governmental organizations.

I will say up front that FLOW has been advocating for the agency for over five years. We are strong proponents of increased co-operation and collaboration across the Canadian water sector.

Individual FLOW members, sometimes while they're within government and sometimes from the outside, have been directly involved in either negotiating or administering virtually every major interjurisdictional water agreement in Canada over the past several decades.

Several of our members are also very active in building consensus between indigenous peoples and others across the sector.

Today the Canadian water sector is facing three major inflection points that make enhanced collaboration more important and more urgent than ever.

First, it's become clear that climate change is having and will continue to have much more significant economic, ecological and social impacts than were previously anticipated. At the same time, society is becoming much more aware of indigenous and other social rights.

As a result, transboundary water stewardship is becoming more complex than ever. We definitely need an entity to bring together the various federal, provincial, indigenous and local partners to set targets and take concrete action.

There are currently over 3,000 water employees scattered across more than 25 federal departments, and well over 100,000 more water employees in other governments, watershed organizations as well as municipal, agricultural and industrial groups. Meeting the emerging challenges facing the water sector will require unprecedented collaboration.

We believe the agency strikes an appropriate balance between supporting decision-makers at all levels and fully respecting all legal and constitutional mandates.

Other advantages of a mainly coordinating mandate within the federal system will include dealing more effectively with fragmentation, gaps and overlaps and minimizing unrealistic new program expectations.

FLOW, along with more than 50 other freshwater NGOs, was very active during three years of public consultation leading up to the proposed legislation. We believe those consultations identified most of the freshwater issues on which improved collaboration will yield significant societal benefits.

Regarding the bill itself, we believe the rationale spelled out in the whereas clauses appropriately defines the need. We also believe the rest of the content appropriately balances the requirement for clarity with leaving a sufficient flexibility for the agency to evolve in constructive ways over time.

I will be happy to respond to any questions any of you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Pentland.

Now we'll hear from the Regroupement d'ordres professionnels en santé mentale du Québec.

Monsieur Soucis, go ahead.

[Félix-David Soucis, Psychoeducator, Grouping of Professional Mental Health Orders of Quebec]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting us to appear before you on behalf of the Grouping of Professional Mental Health Orders of Québec.

My name is Félix-David Soucis and I am the president of the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices of Quebec. With me is Josée Landry, president of the Ordre des conseillers et conseillères d'orientation du Québec. We also represent our colleagues in the Ordre professionnel des sexologues du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des criminologues du Québec, and the Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des thérapeutes conjugaux et familiaux du Québec.

The primary mission of Quebec's professional orders is to protect the public. They carry out that mission through a range of mechanisms that include professional inspection of their members, continuing education, and their respective syndics' handling of complaints from the public. In this way, the orders ensure the quality and rigour of their members' practice.

The orders represented by our grouping have a total membership of a little over 11,000 professionals who offer mental health services and care to the Quebec public and who are affected by this bill. Almost 2,500 of those professionals are in private practice. As is the case for other professionals in Quebec, they are currently required to charge their clients provincial and federal taxes. This interferes with access to services by people who are experiencing rising levels of need, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. During that period, in fact, the Quebec government formally designated professions in the field of mental health and human relations as essential because of the necessary help they provide the public in relation to psychosocial support and mental health care.

We are pleased with the measures announced in clause 137 of Bill C-59 that would eliminate the GST/HST for psychotherapy and counselling services. We believe that this measure will offer Canadians better access to mental health services and care. In Quebec, our professions have been included in the Professional Code of Quebec since 2012 as professions in the field of mental health and human relations. The legislature has thus reserved to our professions the practice of professional activities involving a high risk of harm to the public.

While some of these professionals hold permits as psychotherapists, the others hold permits issued to them by their professional order. They work in mental health and counselling in their respective field of practice, which is clearly defined in legislation, the Professional Code of Quebec. The care and services they provide, whether as psychoeducators, guidance counsellors, sexologists, criminologists or marriage and family therapists, undeniably fall within the field of mental health and apply to personal, professional and educational situations or to family- or couple-related situations.

If a person is facing difficulties relating to entry into the job market, a guidance counsellor will be able to mobilize the person's resources to enable them to achieve their career plans.

If an adolescent is having difficulties associated with going back home after time spent in a rehabilitation centre as a result of committing offences, a criminologist will be able to support them in rebuilding their social skills.

If a member of a family is in difficulty because of a mental health diagnosis, a psychoeducator will mobilize the adaptive capabilities of the entire family so the person is able to cope again.

If a person is questioning their gender identity, a sexologist will be able to support them in their personal journey.

If a couple is having relationship difficulties because of a conflict, a marriage and family therapist will offer them support to improve their methods of communication in order to foster a better relationship.

As you can see, the professionals who belong to these professions that are governed by the Professional Code of Quebec, and therefore by a professional order, are authorized to provide counselling therapy with the goal of supporting the public's mental health needs, in compliance with best practices in their field of practice.

However, the Canada Revenue Agency's notice 335 concerning the exemption for counselling therapy states that the professional services provided by a person could be exempted if the person "has the qualifications equivalent to those necessary to be so licensed or otherwise certified in another province."

Under this interpretation of the bill, it would be confusing and time-consuming, for all of the authorities that participate in such a process, for a professional to have to ask another Canadian authority to verify a qualification when it has already been attested to by the permit that authorizes the person to practise their profession. In its present form, the bill would require the members of Quebec's professional orders to verify with a regulatory agency that oversees the profession of counselling therapy in another province, as is the case in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, that they have qualifications equivalent to the qualifications of the professionals in the province in question.

We would point out that under the Professional Code, our professional orders have a mandate to be the regulatory and supervisory body for their profession in Quebec and that they are capable of doing that.

I would like to conclude by emphasizing that Quebec has a variety of professionals who are different from those in the other provinces. Quebeckers should not be penalized by having to pay taxes because of that difference. For this reason, we believe that this bill must take into account the unique features of Quebec's system of professions. It needs to be amended so that the services offered by members of Quebec's professional orders are exempted on the same basis as the services offered elsewhere in Canada without professionals having to prove their qualifications to authorities in another province.

Thank you for your attention and we are available to anything further having to do with this bill.

My colleague and I are now prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Soucis and Ms. Landry.

We will now get into members' questions. In the first round of questions, each party will have up to six minutes to ask the witnesses questions.

Members and witnesses, just looking at the time, we have an hour total for these witnesses, including the remarks. We'll have to see what happens in that second round, whether we have enough time to get through a full second round or if we have to truncate that.

Right now, we're going to start with MP Hallan for six minutes.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Chair, I want to quickly move two motions. I'm going to try to be as concise as possible, if that's good with you. Both motions are on notice already.

The first motion I want to move is:

That, the committee report to the House that it calls on the Prime Minister to convene a carbon tax emergency meeting with all of Canada's 14 first ministers, and that this meeting address: 1. the ongoing carbon tax crisis and the financial burden it places on Canadians; 2. the Prime Minister's recent 23% carbon tax increase; 3. plans for provinces to opt out of the federal carbon tax to pursue other ideas to lower emissions, given that under the government's current environmental plan, Canada now ranks 62 out of 67 countries on the climate change performance index; and That this meeting be publicly televised and held within five weeks of this motion being adopted.

I'll give you a bit of background on this. The Prime Minister recently said that he met with the premiers in 2016. A lot has changed since 2016. His poll numbers have tanked. He gave a carve-out to Atlantic Canada and left out the rest of Canada. He was proven false on some of his claims about the carbon tax scam by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom he appointed, such that more Canadian families are worse off paying into this carbon tax than in what they get in the so-called rebates.

For example, in Alberta, a family will pay $2,900 on average and, according to the PBO, will get back only $2,000 in these phony so-called rebates. It's the same in Ontario. An average family will pay $1,600 and get back only $1,000, leaving families worse off.

What else is worse off is the environment. First of all, by an admission of the government's own environmental department, they don't even track if the emissions go down with this carbon tax scam. It's probably because they know that it's just like the Prime Minister and not worth the cost. That's why they're not tracking it. Emissions have not gone down either. There is that point. As well, since 2016, 70% of Canadians and premiers, including a Liberal premier, Andrew Furey, have asked the Prime Minister to spike the hike, just like our common-sense Conservative leader has been saying all along, and call for a carbon tax election.

Last, I'll say that he needs to stop hiding and meet with these premiers like they've been asking so they can tell him that we need to scrap this carbon tax scam and get some real policies that a common-sense Conservative government would bring forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

I see Ms. Dzerowicz.

Is it on this, Ms. Dzerowicz, or are we going right to the—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It's on questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Ste-Marie's hand is up and Ms. Dzerowicz's hand is up.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'll wait until after Mr. Ste-Marie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello everyone.

Regarding our position, we are not opposed to there being discussions between the federal government and the provinces to establish policies that meet each of their needs. However, what the opposition motion is calling for today is that the meeting be used to establish(c) plans for provinces to opt-out of the federal carbon tax to pursue other responsible ideas to lower emissions...

However, those plans already exist. The federal carbon pricing system includes a right to withdraw that is available to all provinces. A province needs only bring its carbon pricing mechanism into force in order for federal pricing not to apply there. In Quebec, for example, we have had our own system for ten years. Quebec is therefore completely exempted from the federal system.

That is our position. I will therefore not be able to support the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

We'll go to MP Dzerowicz and then MP Baker.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wonder whether this motion is actually in scope given the mandate of the finance committee. I know that we tend to have a fairly wide berth, but it seems fairly out of scope. This might be more in scope for our environment and climate change committee, but I don't think it's one for a finance committee meeting.

If we look at our mandate, it reads:

The mandate of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, which is established under Standing Order 108 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, is to examine and enquire into all matters referred to it by the House of Commons, to report from time to time and, except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, as it operates in accordance with its mandate.

Certain standing committees, including the Standing Committee on Finance, are empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government that are assigned to them from time to time by the House. For the Standing Committee on Finance, these departments include the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency.

This motion seems out of scope to me. Could we ask whether it is in scope?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

We do have a very broad mandate here at finance. I will have an opportunity to confer with the clerk and the analyst, and I will try to inform the committee as best I can.

On that question, I have MP Baker, MP Davies and MP Morantz.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I apologize to our witnesses. This is the kind of motion that is taking us away from the important business and the wonderful witnesses we have here today. It's a shame that it's being brought forward at this time. This is the kind of thing that could be done in committee business or something like that, when we don't have witnesses sitting in front of us, and people at home watching and waiting to hear what our witnesses have to say.

I will attempt to be very concise in responding to what Mr. Hallan has proposed.

The first concern I have with this motion is that it calls on the Prime Minister to do something. This motion is, first of all, non-binding, so no matter how the committee decides to deal with this particular motion, the Prime Minister will make the decision that he believes is appropriate.

The second point I would make is, if you read the motion, one of the lines—after a series of lines that, I would argue, misrepresent what carbon pricing is about—reads, “That this meeting be publicly televised and held within five weeks of this motion being adopted.”

I want to bring to the attention of members and those watching that this committee is just starting conversations with witnesses about Bill C-59, which is the fall economic statement. Presumably, there will be a budget brought to this committee. We have a packed agenda. We have already extended the sittings of this committee to accommodate that packed agenda. This would inevitably have the effect, if passed and brought to this committee—if that's what I understand this to mean—of delaying the work of this committee.

The third thing I would say is that if the premiers of the provinces want to meet or speak with the Prime Minister, they can do that. They do that all the time. They have phone conversations. They have meetings in person. To the folks watching at home, if you wanted to, you could simply go to the Prime Minister's Instagram or Twitter feed and check it out. Those conversations happen all the time.

I'm not sure why the finance committee would get involved in micromanaging the Prime Minister's and premiers' schedules. They are capable adults who can get together to meet and talk when they need to, and they do it all the time in various forms.

The other thing I would say is what the Prime Minister has said from the very beginning, and this has been the case for years.... In fact, I was a member of the provincial parliament for Ontario when the federal government was in the process of bringing in carbon pricing. At the time, the Government of Ontario, under the Liberal government of the time, had put in place a cap-and-trade system, which the subsequent and current Ford Conservative government decided to cancel.

The way the carbon pricing works federally is it only has an effect in those provinces that don't have their own approaches to fighting climate change. What's happened here is, since the beginning of carbon pricing, when the Prime Minister brought it in, every province has had the option of doing as it sees fit to fight climate change. That would allow them to not have the carbon pricing plan that is in place today. If they object to that, they have the option of bringing in other forms of carbon pricing. They've chosen not to do that.

We heard testimony from Premier Moe at OGGO, one of our other committees. He basically said they looked at other schemes to fight climate change, and the current federal carbon pricing was actually the least costly.

I suppose the Conservatives' opposition to carbon pricing and their desire to have premiers meet with the Prime Minister is a sign that they want, number one, to take us away from the important business of this committee in reviewing the legislation that the people want and that these witnesses have come to speak to.

I would point out that this legislation has a tremendous number of important things in place for businesses and for workers. I'm sure we will hear that from our witnesses throughout the day today. These types of motions that have been put forward today are meant as delay tactics to take us away from that business.

The second thing I would say is that the—

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

We're only on number two?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chambers. Do you have something you want to say?

Chair, I believe I have the floor. Is that correct? I just want to be sure.

The other thing I would say is that with the carbon pricing scheme that's been put in place, provinces can choose to do something else if they want to. They can pick up the phone to call the Prime Minister if they so choose, so I don't know why the finance committee would get into micromanaging the Prime Minister's and premiers' schedules.

I would also point out that what's in the Conservative motion on this is not accurate. It says here under number three that in the meeting they address “plans for provinces to opt out of the federal carbon tax to pursue other ideas to lower emissions”. The provinces have had that option from the very beginning. The Conservatives are calling on something the Prime Minister put in place years ago when I was still in provincial office. That's how long ago that was. If the provinces want to have a different form of fighting climate change, they can do that. If they don't want to fight climate change, that's a problem for all of us and for future generations, and that's why it's so important that we have some sort of plan to fight climate change.

It sounds to me as though the Conservatives don't believe in fighting climate change, because even some of the premiers who have come forward to the OGGO committee, who the Conservatives invited to the OGGO committee, have said the current carbon pricing we have in place is the least costly approach. It sounds as though Conservatives are saying we shouldn't fight climate change. I think that's particularly insulting given some of the folks we have before us here today.

The last thing I would say is that I don't know what's happened to the Conservative Party of Canada. Even in the past these gentlemen who are here today—members of the Conservative caucus who are here at this committee—ran on a platform to put in place carbon pricing. The former Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has even spoken about the value of carbon pricing. The former Conservative prime minister—our last Conservative prime minister—spoke about that. I don't know what's happened to the Conservative Party of Canada. They've completely parted ways with even the policies and the ideology of former prime minister Mr. Stephen Harper.

A recent example of that is how they've consistently voted against supporting Ukraine. They've consistently voted against free trade, against funding for military aid to Ukraine, against the funding required to support the Ukrainians who are here in Canada and who need our support, and the list goes on. We know why this is. There's a far-right MAGA movement, a pro-Putin wing of the Conservative Party.

Now we see them taking every possible action to delay actions that are good for businesses and for workers and to delay action on fighting climate change.

What has happened to the Conservative Party of Canada, Mr. Chair?

We'll be opposing this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you for that, MP Baker.

I'm going to MP Davies.

We have a diverse group of witnesses here who made compelling opening remarks. I'm sure we want to get to questions, and time is ticking.

Also, I want to welcome our newly minted permanent member of the finance committee, MP Don Davies.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You know, we wanted to bring you in in a different way, when you were going to open up your questions for the members, not on a motion like this, but right into the FES.

Welcome, MP Davies of the great riding of Vancouver Kingsway. I know you will enrich and bring a lot to this committee.

MP Davies, go ahead on this motion.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That's very reasonable. I'll clap for that.