Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I echo the comments of MP Masse. We all know, and I'll say it here, that the minister had conversations with everybody when the House came back, asking what he had to do to get Bill C-27 through. We—at least the three opposition parties, I think—all made it very clear what it would take, and the minister did pledge to go back and do that.
Then he's been yammering in the media about how the committee is blocking everything. The committee isn't blocking anything. The minister, once again, hasn't lived up to his commitment. He hasn't come back with the changes to the tribunal and the AI portion of the bill that we all required in order to proceed. It would be good if he would come here. I would support a motion by MP Masse to recall the minister and to ask him what the heck he's doing.
With regard to this motion, of course, I agree, Mr. Chair, that a lot of the things we're doing.... The House has ordered us to do a study on the potential anti-competitive nature of the e-transfer and the broader economic payment system and banking system that causes Canadians to pay what appears to be way too much money for their financial services.
On this particular motion, however, I do agree that there should be a study on the Liberal government's carbon tax—a carbon tax on everything, a carbon tax that has put up the price of everything, a carbon tax that the government claims reduces carbon emissions, yet their own environment department doesn't even monitor its impact, so it has no impact. It's so important to the government that the radical Liberal environment minister doesn't even bother trying to monitor its impact. I think it would be great to have a study on this.
My problem with the motion that MP Turnbull put forward is that he actually wrote the report in the preamble before setting up the study and made a bunch of conclusions, so I would propose the following amendment to Mr. Turnbull's committee study: to delete everything from the first word, “Given”, until the last sentence. That last sentence, of course, begins, “That the committee allocate no less than two meetings to study the topic of industrial carbon pricing”, but what I would do is amend that line to say, “That the committee allocate no less than two meetings to this matter on the industrial and consumer carbon pricing, and that these meetings begin once the committee has set its schedule and figures out appropriate timing.”