Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Exactly, I'm going to focus on the meat of my comments now.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Don't set a bar you can't meet. Manage your expectations.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, thank you.

I do enjoy my friends in the NDP and their always interesting comments.

Yes, we're talking about division and the way these policies are sowing division. We have the carbon tax exemption, which is the latest example of Liberals' playing one side of the country against another.

I'm going to take a little bit of a break because I want to hear from one of our Atlantic members with respect to how his constituents feel about division in this country and whether it's on the rise or otherwise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll go to MP Ellis on the amendment.

Do you want to speak to the amendment?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'm sorry; I thought it was on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, you were. I didn't realize that.

He had raised his hand, MP Blaikie. I wasn't sure if that was...

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

If you want to go first, Daniel, that's okay.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

He can go first if he'd like. I'm just visiting here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have MP Blaikie, then MP Ellis on the amendment.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I will try to be as relevant to the amendment as my colleague just was to the motion—maybe more so. We'll see.

Look, I think it's important to state that I'm quite satisfied with the motion as it stood. I don't see any particular need to amend the motion, particularly not in the way that my colleague has proposed.

If I understand correctly, the reason why we're not on the housing study is that my Conservative colleagues take exception to the phrase “Premier Danielle Smith's dangerous plan”. I think it is pretty clear, if you look at some of the public domain polling, that a majority of Albertans are very seriously concerned about the prospect of leaving the Canada pension plan.

I think it's pretty clear, if you've read the coverage of this particular proposal by various media outlets, that it's something the Alberta government dreamt up in order to try to create some political leverage. I think it is dangerous to stake the pension futures of Canadian workers across the country on a political gambit to try to wrest things out of Ottawa. I think a government that is trying to act in the interests of its people doesn't politicize their pensions in that way.

The Canada pension plan has an excellent track record of, frankly, great returns. I think there are lots of people who would like to see, in their personal investment portfolio, returns of the kind that the CPP has seen. I think they've averaged about 10% over the last 10 years—of course, it's been a very tumultuous 10 years. Until interest rates went up it was pretty hard to get a 10% return on much of anything. There are always debates about what the Canada pension plan invests in, and how much it invests, and all the rest. I don't think there should be any debate about the efficacy of the CPPIB in securing a good return for Canadian pensioners.

I don't take exception to this. What I would say to my colleagues is that not long ago we passed a motion objecting to the HSBC-RBC merger. We did that because even though there were some folks.... If memory serves, I don't think the Liberals voted on that particular proposal. They didn't oppose it, but they didn't support it either. I think what's notable about that, notwithstanding the merits of abstention—I won't speak to that at the moment—was that we got to make a decision as a committee. I get that there are some folks around the table who want to defend Danielle Smith more than they want to study housing. That's not the point of view of everyone around the committee table. Maybe we'll find out that it is—I don't know. The point is that we'll know when we have the vote.

I don't think that suspending the work that this committee was managing to do in a constructive way on the housing file.... Something that we haven't seen enough of is constructive, productive work. This is in order to provide political cover for Danielle Smith, who, as I say, is doing something that is dangerous, risky and in my opinion not motivated by the right reasons. I think that is a mistake.

I'd be very glad to see us come to a vote. As I say, when it came to the RBC-HSBC merger, it wasn't that we didn't have a consensus...and that's not the way that we operate in Parliament, in any event.... You often hear Conservatives talk about the wonder of majority democracy and 50% plus one, and all of that, but 50% plus one only matters if you get to have a vote. Now, when they don't like it they say you need to have a consensus. When they do like it, then 50% plus one will do. Which is it? Is it 50% plus one, or is consensus-based decision-making?

If the Conservatives want consensus-based decision-making to be the way we do things on Parliament Hill, surely they'll have to carry a very different attitude and posture into committee meetings and the House of Commons than they have been, for as long as I can remember. I would say their posture is not one that promotes consensus decision-making. I've been part of organizations that operate on a consensus-based model, and the discussions around the table look very different.

If the commitment is to 50% plus one, then so be it. I'm not advocating for a change to consensus-based decision-making. I'm just saying if you have and you support a 50% plus one model, the only way that is functional is if you allow for votes to happen, and what the Conservatives are doing is essentially imposing a consensus-based decision-making model on the committee by refusing to allow for a vote when they don't agree with the motion.

I am to take from this that the only way we're going to have votes around here is if the Conservatives already like what the motion has to say.

As a New Democrat, I know very well what it means to lose votes and, nevertheless, be committed to an institution in which I don't always win based on the rules—but I don't take my ball and go home. I don't refuse having business happen simply because I don't like all of the business that's being conducted. I focus on the next battle.

People are free to take whatever position they want around the table. What I don't like is a position that says, unless we like what's in the motion, there won't be any votes. And I will say, for as much as I have disagreements with my Liberal colleagues from time to time, what I'm reading in the tea leaves is that they weren't thrilled about the RBC-HSBC merger motion at committee. I don't know; I'll leave that for them to say. They didn't vote against it. They didn't vote for it, but they did allow the vote to happen, and I don't see that we need to sit here much longer, provided that we can allow a vote to happen.

Then we will know the will of the committee, as we came to know the will of the committee on the RBC-HSBC merger, and we will move on from there. The reason we're not moving on is that the Conservatives are doing Danielle Smith's dirty work at this table because they don't like the idea that a committee of the House of Commons would criticize her.

I don't think that's the threshold here. We're allowed to have votes on these kinds of things, or at least we should be.

If need be, I can say more about the amendment but certainly on the main motion, I'm happy to proceed to a vote. I think it is fine as it stands. I don't think the amendment improves the motion in any way, nor do I think it helps us get closer to a consensus. If that's indeed what the Conservatives are looking for, I don't see this amendment as having contributed to that at all.

I do know that when the motion was first moved there was some talk about trying to find an amendment and come closer to a consensus. I've been willing to listen with an open ear on that. This amendment has not been part of those conversations, and it is clearly designed not to bring the committee closer to any kind of consensus.

There is a little bit of disappointment on that front, to be sure, that protecting Danielle Smith's political hide is going to be more important to federal Conservatives around this table than approaching consensus, but I'll leave it now to my Conservative colleagues to carry on talking.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

MP Ellis.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks, everyone, for allowing me to be here and speak on this important motion.

We know very clearly that the motion my colleague moved is really about division and, as he mentioned, Cumberland—Colchester is in Atlantic Canada and has been significantly affected by the divisive carbon tax and the negative impact it's had on the people I represent. Certainly, it is a time when we have had more outcry from citizens on one policy than anything else, mostly because, of course, they cannot afford to heat their homes or house themselves and feed themselves, and this is incredibly distressing.

I was a family physician for 26 years, and certainly some people questioned my sanity for leaving that and coming here as a politician, leaving a well-respected profession to come here to do something quite different. That said, having had very deep relationships with many people over a quarter of a century plus, you begin to realize the pain Atlantic Canadians are feeling at the current time is disproportionate to any other time. Certainly, in my adult life, never before do I remember people going in droves to the food bank. Indeed, the food bank in my particular riding, the food bank in Truro, had to reach out to the county to ask them to pay their mortgage, first of all, because their mortgage rates were incredibly high—which we know is driven by the reckless spending of the NDP-Liberal coalition government—but also because the demand at the food bank was more than ever, such that they couldn't meet the demand while meeting the payments on their mortgage.

When you begin to look at those realities of life and the fact that one dear little old lady called.... I spoke with her and she said the following. In fact, there are two stories that I think are very, very important in telling about the division we're seeing in this country. This one lady called and said she got up in the morning—she lived in a mobile home—she turned on the heat so it would heat up, she got something to eat, and she then went back to bed with her clothes on and pulled the covers up until suppertime when things got cold again. She then turned on the furnace again, warmed up the house, had something to eat and then went back to bed. That was how she spent her days last winter over and over and over again. When you begin to understand that's how she spent her days, it becomes very unfulfilling.

I think the other thing another lady made very clear was a concept that she called “ungrocery”, which, to me, was something that's not a real word. That being said, it was incredibly disheartening to hear her story that she said she would get her grocery cart, go around the supermarket, pick out the things she wanted, realize she could not afford them and then do the opposite, taking things out of her cart such that she would have a bill at the end of the day she could afford. When you begin to look at those things, it becomes very, very difficult in the country to understand the division this NDP-Liberal coalition has created.

The other thing when we talk about division is that we understand that in rural Atlantic Canada many people still live in single-family houses and heat their homes with oil. That becomes a difficult situation. We know that the cost of home heating fuel has skyrocketed under this NDP-Liberal coalition, but the sad thing that goes along with it that has helped create this division is the fact that a company called Sustainable Marine Energy had a tidal power project, part of which was based in the great riding of Cumberland—Colchester, but because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, run by the NDP-Liberal coalition, refused to provide them direction on how to go forward they had to abandon it.

The difficulty, of course, with that is in the Bay of Fundy we have the highest tides in the world, the most potential, and the potential there would suggest there is a possibility that when harnessed the tidal power in the Bay of Fundy would actually be able to power all of Atlantic Canada, provide every person there with the energy they need at a reasonable cost. Sustainable Marine Energy was the only company in the history of attempting to harness tidal power to have the ability to actually put electricity back into the grid.

When the NDP-Liberal coalition government refused to provide forward direction, I took the opportunity to speak to the director of Sustainable Marine. It was really quite fascinating. He was very excited. His company developed a new style of ship platform that was able to place its tidal power harnessing equipment on top of the water. We had an incredible discussion.

The people from FORCE were there, which is the federal government arm of monitoring with respect to tidal power projects. Really, of course, the concern people may have had was how many fish were actually harmed by the process of harnessing tidal power. They had underwater listening devices and video devices, and the only event that was close to being harmful was that a fish swam through the turbines once. It wasn't injured. It wasn't hit. It wasn't affected in any way, shape or form. Those comments were echoed by the federal government monitoring arm, FORCE, as well. It was very clear that the method proposed by Sustainable Marine was not harming fish at the particular site.

When we look at this, we have a federal government that is harming the ability of Atlantic Canadians to provide energy into the grid, to actually provide enough energy, as I said, for the entirety of the Atlantic provinces in a sustainable manner, which would free them from the need to buy it elsewhere of course.

When we talk about emissions, it always fascinates me. When we think about tidal energy, there are no emissions—zero. How much better could it get than that? You don't harm the local fish environment, and you have zero emissions, with a possibility to provide enough energy for all of Atlantic Canada. The only thing standing in the way is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans refusing to provide guidance to allow Sustainable Marine to move forward. It had one platform in the water, which again was the only project to ever supply energy back into the grid.

The meeting also included one other company, because people, of course, will say that somebody else will do it. I asked the one other company if it actually had a project proposal. It didn't, but it had an idea. I asked if it had any investors. It didn't. It didn't have a project in the water. It had no money, and it wasn't putting power in the grid. The other company said that was correct.

However, for the one company that is putting power in the grid, what are we doing? We are telling it to go home. Not “we” on this side of the House. Let's be clear on that. The NDP-Liberal coalition and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are saying, “take your ball and your bat, and go home”.

What did Sustainable Marine do? It took it upon itself to remove all its equipment from that site. It not only did that, but also spent an extra quarter of a million dollars to send divers to the site to ensure that not one piece of plastic, chain, or any other remnant of their project was left to contaminate, so to speak, the site it was using for its project.

The only good news is that when I spoke to—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There is a point of order.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The point of order is on relevance. I very much appreciate the guest appearance by my Conservative colleague opposite. I was intent on listening to him until the point where it seemed to devolve into the details of a very specific story that not only has nothing to do with the motion on the Canada pension plan, but also has nothing to do with the amendment now on the table—at least to my mind. Perhaps the member could come back to the issue at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Ellis, please focus, like I said, on the motion and the motion as amended.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Absolutely, Chair. We're talking about division, and I think it's important that folks understand the carve-outs that have happened with respect to the carbon tax around this country. That has created significant division, and the division, of course, is related directly to energy security. Of course, now the tidal power project has been cancelled by the lack of direction provided by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It was a significant glimmer of hope for Atlantic Canadians to allow them and us—I'll include myself there—to become energy-independent. This is a significant division-creating area for all of us in Atlantic Canada, based on the policies of this NDP-Liberal coalition government.

When I asked Sustainable Marine whether they would consider coming back, how this gentleman worded it was, “You know, if you threw me a lifeline, I would probably climb up the rope.” That says a lot for the gentleman and for Sustainable Marine to be looking at how to harness tidal power as an energy source, which would be a tremendous feat.

As I said, the largest tides in the world are in the Bay of Fundy. If we could possibly do that, which they were well on their way to doing, then that would change the landscape. We wouldn't need to be talking about the divisive policies of the NDP-Liberal government here in Ottawa, because Atlantic Canadians would not be requiring carve-outs, because they continue to need to use home heating fuel as a fuel source. As I said, this certainly causes significant difficulties for the two elderly ladies whom I discussed previously.

One other thing, of course, that has caused significant problems for Atlantic Canadians is that, historically, they would rely meagre pensions, the OAS—and we're talking about the Canada pension plan—but they also rely on equity built up in their homes after many years. In Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces, people tend not to move around a whole lot. They would own their own homes for a considerable length of time. Now when we begin to talk to young people in Cumberland—Colchester, we understand very clearly that the cost of a home has doubled, the cost of a mortgage has gone up 150% and, of course, the cost of rent has doubled.

We're beginning to see that. People have not only energy insecurity now, because we know their ability, as I discussed over the last several minutes, to pay their energy bills has gone down, and their energy bills have gone up; and we also know their ability to buy a house is now being lost. The next generation coming along have significant despair.

It's interesting. My colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets came up with a great new word that this government, the NDP-Liberal coalition, is selling to people, and it's called “hopium”. They are wanting people to have hope from their opioid-laced policies. I won't divert myself into the opioid crisis, but for many of their other policies they're selling this haze-inducing utopia that just does not exist for the average person out there.

Certainly those of us on this side of the discussion are clearly getting incredible numbers of people who are losing hope, because of the divisive nature of this NDP-Liberal coalition. I know very clearly that my colleagues on the other side are getting it as well. I talked to many of them after we came back in September on how their summer was. When they were out door-knocking, the disdain with which they were greeted at the door really led them down this road of division, of needing to carve-out a carbon tax relief for Atlantic Canadians.

We know that when they were out door-knocking and talking about their “hopium” policies, people were not buying that any more. People really understood very clearly the policy of continuing to spend $600 billion of inflationary spending, as my great colleague spoke about, and supply-and-demand economics. We know very clearly that those “hopium” types of policies are things that Canadians from coast to coast have been able to see through and understand. This kind of foolish spending is no longer something that they believe in.

What they believe in is common sense. They know very clearly that things like tidal power, like being able to afford a home, to feed yourself, and to keep a roof over your head are very important to Canadians. What they understand very clearly is that they want the chance to do that.

They want a chance to buy their own home so that they could get back to what would normally happen to Atlantic Canadians, before the highest inflation we've seen in 40 years. Their ability to buy a house would appreciate modestly in value over the many years that they would actually own the home. Then if they were owning that home—and of course, as their lives became shorter and shorter—they would know that not only would they have perhaps a small pension, if they were fortunate, but they would have equity in their home, which would then allow them to live through the latter years of their lives in relative comfort.

We know that, as the NDP and Liberals have gone around knocking on doors this summer, they know that the “hopium” they were selling to Canadians just doesn't exist. Canadians are not buying that, and they know very clearly that the crisis that now exists is creating a division across this country.

The other thing, of course, that is causing division and distrust in the NDP-Liberal coalition is related to Bill C-234, which my colleague talked about, being in the Senate now. We know very clearly that Canadian farmers....

I think it's important and germane that we understand how that supply chain works. When you tax the farmer who grows the food and you tax the trucker who delivers the food, then the person, the consumer at the final end, of course, is going to be paying more and more. That's common sense that anybody could understand. As a friend of mine once said, “Businesses don't pay more tax. They pass those taxes on to consumers.” When you tax the farmer and you tax the person who delivers it, then the person who buys it at the end of that chain, of course, is going to pay more for that product.

There's no expectation—well, perhaps there is on the part of this NDP-Liberal coalition—that the farmer would absorb all of those costs. We know, when we talked to our agriculture critic, that the costs for farmers and the requirement to heat their barns and dry grain have gone up precipitously over the last eight years, making it almost untenable.

We know that, very clearly, Canada really should be a powerhouse in our ability to feed the world. Very sadly, the disrespect that the NDP-Liberal coalition has shown to farmers is not allowing Canadian farmers to do that. When we have an ability to do that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Blaikie?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

On a point of order, I believe he's talking about the bill that would provide a carbon tax exemption for farmers who are drying grain using fossil fuels. He may know that New Democrats supported that legislation, and that's why it's in the Senate, because New Democrats voted for it. He keeps talking about an NDP-Liberal coalition not supporting things that the NDP has supported.

I'd remind him, actually, that we recently—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Blaikie, that's not a point of order.

MP Ellis, you have the floor.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

That's not really a point of order. Thank you very much.

It's interesting, but really, as we all know—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

However, MP Ellis, I do ask you to focus on the motion and the amendment that has been brought forward by MP Lawrence.

I'll read the motion one more time for you.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The motion reads:

That the Chair of the committee immediately report to the House, that the committee:

1. Celebrates the Canada Pension Plan as the foundation of a secure and dignified retirement for tens of millions of Canadians and a pillar of Canada's economy;

2. Recognizes the important contribution of the Quebec Pension Plan which was established independently at the same time as the Canada Pension Plan; and,

3. Stands with the majority of Albertans who are opposed to Premier Danielle Smith's dangerous plan to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan that threaten the pensions of millions of seniors and hardworking Canadians from coast to coast.

That's what we have, MP Ellis.