Finance Committee on Nov. 6th, 2023

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To break the suspense, we won't be having a vote on this motion tonight, but we can chat all night if we'd like.

Obviously, Conservatives can't support the last tenet of the motion. Conservatives are on the record saying that the CPP should be there for all Canadians—except in Quebec, which has its own pension plan and does things just fine. The CPP should be protected for Albertans and Canadians. As a member of Parliament from Ontario, I think that if you were to look at the methodology used for costing, it's obvious that some people would have questions about that.

That's obviously something that should be looked into further, but Conservatives will absolutely not support the motion as it is currently written. There are plenty of other ways in which the government can use this issue to make political statements. We won't allow it to make it to the House in this form. If they want to offer some potential amendments, we would take them under consideration, but certainly, my colleagues and I would be well placed here this evening to talk for as long as we have resources, but I would hope that we would consider allowing our witnesses to go. I think we're about two minutes away from the end of the meeting.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'll move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Are you moving adjournment of the debate or the meeting?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'm moving adjournment of the debate on the motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The debate will continue.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Given what my colleague said, could we thank the witnesses for their testimony and invite them to leave the room so they don't feel obliged to stay here until the end of our meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes. Let's do that.

Thank you to our expert witnesses. Thank you for your testimony, for the many questions you've answered and for your recommendations. We thank you for informing our study on housing here in Canada. We really appreciate your time.

At this time, you may go. On behalf of the committee, thank you.

I have MP Lawrence and then PS Bendayan.

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

Mr. Chair, I have my hand up too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have MP Ste-Marie after that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

After eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, it's quite clear that times are tougher than ever for Canadians. Challenges are starting to occur, even the fraying of our national unity. It seems like every time there's a Trudeau in power, a unity crisis follows. Perhaps that is not a coincidence. Whether it be energy policies of the past or future, it seems as though this government, this Liberal-NDP government, is intent on creating division across our unity, whether that be across socio-economic classes or across regions. Never has that been more clear than in their exemption with respect to the carbon tax.

Of course, Mr. Chair, we heard in this very committee of the inflationary impact. What really bothered me, because I hold members of this committee particularly in high regard, was the demagoguery in the House of Commons. Everybody heard the testimony here of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Macklem, that the carbon tax was responsible for 0.6%. That equates to 16% of inflation, yet I heard, in the House of Commons, members of this committee saying “0.15%”. That was just untrue. It was factually untrue. Then, when I tried to offer evidence on a point of order, unfortunately the Liberals objected to this. It's as if they're allergic to the truth.

When we look at the impact of the carbon tax on Canadians, it's crushing. To his credit, the Prime Minister seemed to get this message, to an extent, but only for Atlantic Canadians. While that will provide some economic relief to our friends in Atlantic Canada....

Quite frankly, I give our Conservative members in Atlantic Canada—Rob Moore and Dr. Ellis among others, and of course Rick Perkins has appeared at this committee—a lot of credit for pushing those Atlantic members hard and raising the issue to the point where the Atlantic members, I can only assume, were in full revolt to remove the carbon tax on home heating fuel.

Of course, you also hear the demagoguery that, no, this is a Canada-wide project. It is, but it's effectively only Atlantic Canada, because disproportionately, in fact greatly disproportionately, the exemption on home heating oil affects Atlantic Canada. That's just a fact.

The demagoguery on the other side—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. We've been listening to a speech on carbon pricing for some time now. I would just like to remind all members that we're talking about the Canada pension plan. In my motion there's no mention of carbon pricing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes.

PS Bendayan's motion is what you're speaking to, please. It's the CPP.

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

Yes. I will use the fullness of time, as the rules allow and as is my right as a parliamentarian.

We know that Liberals, through Bill C-18, otherwise like to silence opposition, but I won't be silenced, because I don't just represent myself; I represent the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. They duly elected me and they won't be silenced, so I will continue, Mr. Chair.

I was talking about the impact of the carbon tax. To relate it back—out of respect—to where I'm going to end up, national unity issues flare up because of this Liberal government, and because of issues of Liberal governments in the past. We were talking about the carbon tax and the impact of the exemption on national unity.

Mr. Chair, I have two children, and I love them absolutely equally. If I were to say to them that one child gets treatment over the other, I'd almost certainly be causing disunity and discord in my family. It's really that simple. You can't make a deal with one province and then not make it with the rest of the provinces.

This has thrown our entire country into carbon tax chaos. It's pitting brother against brother and sister against sister. This is incredibly reckless and definitely not worth the risk.

We see the exemption.... I see the demagoguery that goes on in the House of Commons. They say that this is a national program. Maybe legally it is, but effectively it disproportionately helps the folks out in Atlantic Canada, because they use oil.

One thing that's really been bothering me is that the Minister of Environment will get up there and say that they're doing this because home heating oil is really expensive. Okay. The whole idea behind the carbon tax is to create an impetus for people to switch to other products or other solutions because it is really expensive.

When we look at home heating oil costing folks in Atlantic Canada tens of thousands of dollars, that's mission accomplished. That's what you guys set out to do. That's the goal of the carbon tax. It's to make things more expensive.

That's why you put in place a carbon tax. It's to make things more expensive. That's why it exists. That's the market mechanism.

When the Minister of Environment gets up there and is shocked that—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Now we're talking about the Minister of Environment as we continue to talk about carbon pricing on a motion that deals with the Canada pension plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I do call the member's attention back to the motion. The motion is on the CPP.

MP Lawrence, please speak to the CPP.

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

As I said, I will talk about unity, and I will talk.... I'm given parliamentary privilege on behalf of the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South, who voted for me, not you, Mr. Chair, and not the members of the Liberal party. In fact, I replaced a Liberal member because they were sick and tired of this government. We will continue to talk about the impact of the carbon tax.

I know that Liberal members don't want to talk about the impact of the carbon tax, but fortunately, through the incredible democracy that Canada still possesses, I have the right to talk. Therefore, I will continue to use my parliamentary privilege to talk about the national unity crisis caused by this government and about the impact of the carbon tax.

As I was saying, the carbon tax exemption applies to only 3% of Canadians. We heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada that fully 16% of inflation—or one-third of the inflation over the target—is directly attributable to the carbon tax.

We have a government that's acknowledged that the carbon tax is driving up the cost of living and that it's not the most effective way to reduce emissions. In fact, for Atlantic Canada, the government has done a reversal and said that we need to invest in technology, not taxes. Well, who else said that? Oh, I think that was the leader of the official opposition.

The government has said that we need to invest in heat pumps, which are a form of technology. We need to remove the carbon tax. We need to remove the carbon tax in order to allow people to make the investments that they need to in order to be cleaner and to reduce emissions.

I believe in the Canadian people, and I believe that when they're given the capital they need to make the right decisions and are not put under the gun of an affordability crisis, they will invest in the technology and make the investments that they need to in their houses and in their cars and otherwise to improve the level of emissions.

Do you know who else agrees with me? It's the Prime Minister of Canada, because he just said that. He said that we need to remove the carbon tax on Atlantic Canadians so that they can invest in technology. Once again, that sounds really familiar—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I do apologize for interrupting my colleague—and, of course, he must represent his constituents, as we all must—but the subject matter is the Canada pension plan. Those words still have not come out of the member's mouth, which is fine, but he has an obligation to be relevant and to be on topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Bendayan. I will hold the member to that.

Member, be relevant to what we are discussing. We are discussing PS Bendayan's motion on the CPP.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have heard hours and hours of Liberal members talking about everything but a motion, so with all respect to that member, I believe that I am given a wide latitude to discuss things that I find relate to the motion. I find that the carbon tax is extremely disruptive to national unity, so we'll continue to discuss that because I believe the two topics are intertwined.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, I'm going to interject here. If you want to bring up whatever you want bring up, make sure that it is intertwined with the CPP, with the motion that is before us, please.

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

I will. Yes.

The CPP, as our leader has said, is an important pension and supporter of Canadians from coast to coast, with the exception of Quebec, which is doing just fine with its own pension plan. What will happen, though, is that if, in fact, we continue to go along this line of disunity by providing certain provinces with certain....

I have an echo here. I apologize, sir. Can we maybe not have the Liberal whip staff echoing everything that I'm saying?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Don't go after staff.

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

I'm not going after staff, but the echo is frustrating. I didn't insult him, nor would I. He's a great guy. I've talked to him before. I enjoy him. I just cannot concentrate with it echoing.

Thank you very much. I would never go after staff. They work extremely hard. In fact, I could maybe talk about that for a while.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You could, as long as it's relevant.

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

It will be, because they pay the carbon tax as well.

However, in the spirit of collegiality, I would move to adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The meeting is adjourned.