Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I don't know if you read the proposed amendment by my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There is a proposed amendment. It was brought in to.... If you'd like to, you can.

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

I'm good. I know what it says. It just was clear that the amendment related to division, and that's exactly what I was speaking to—the significant division that sadly now exists across this great country related to the policies that the NDP-Liberal government has created. These policies are perhaps not specifically related to Bill C-234, but the difficulty with Bill C-234, of course, is that it's stalled now in the Senate thanks to the Prime Minister's Office trying to stall it there. That's crystal clear in my mind, again, creating more division throughout this country.

Certainly, that is something that we don't need. We know that my colleague talked about productivity and the difficulties that exist there. As I said very clearly in wrapping up, Chair, the difficulties that exist in Atlantic Canada with respect to the affordability crisis and the ability for people to feed themselves, keep a roof over their heads and to heat their homes in the coming winter is a position that is absolutely untenable.

People do not want to simply exist. They would like to thrive, and I truly believe that Canadians have the ability to do so, which is being usurped by the NDP-Liberal coalition. Perhaps, as my colleague would say, it is not specifically related to the NDP part of Bill C-234, but it certainly relates to their support of other government incredibly expensive and not spendthrift policies.

Chair, having had the ability to speak a little bit about Atlantic Canada, I want to make it clear.... It's interesting that my colleagues talk about our wanting to prop up Danielle Smith. I'm obviously not from Alberta. I've never met Danielle Smith and certainly have no requirement to prop up Danielle Smith's government. I think that she's more than capable of doing that herself.

That being said, I do think it's important that people really continue to understand that the job of His Majesty's loyal opposition is to hold the government to account, and when we see things that are not appropriate for all of Canada and are causing division, then I think that it continues to be the job of the loyal opposition to call those out.

That is the style of government that we have. I think everybody around this table knows that. I believe Mr. Blaikie knows that very clearly—the Westminster style of government—and certainly that is something that we, as Conservatives, will continue to support.

I would have to say that the division sowed is troubling to me, and, on behalf of Atlantic Canadians, it is troubling to all of us.

I thank you, Chair. I will cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ellis.

I have MP Chambers, and then I have a list with MP Lawrence after that.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You always have a difficult job trying to keep everybody on point. I appreciate the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Chambers, on that, you are up next on the main motion.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, so I'll get another opportunity.

This is on the amendment.

I appreciate the comments by my NDP colleague, Mr. Blaikie. I always find that I have to do a little bit of self-reflection every time he speaks. I think he makes some fairly good points about opportunities. We don't always have the opportunity to make consensus choices. Certainly there are examples in which motions are passed at the committee that not everybody agrees with, whether they abstain or what have you.

The challenge I have with this motion is that there is actually an opportunity to have every party at the committee send a message, to the Government of Alberta and Albertans, that reiterates the importance of the CPP, that Canadians benefit from the CPP and that Albertans can be encouraged to stay within the CPP. There is all-party support for that motion. There is not all-party support to make the motion politically advantageous and for the government to use a province to help them in their failing poll numbers.

We could get out of this room today if we actually just dialed down the motion a bit, and I could guarantee you that there would be a news article written about all parties supporting the CPP. I can tell you that there probably won't be a news article written about a highly politically motivated motion that's passed with non-consensus votes.

The bigger point is that there is an opportunity, as the leader of the official opposition has put forward language that supports the CPP. If the other parties aren't interested in considering that language, which was circulated well in advance.... In fact, immediately upon the motion's being moved to debate, the Conservatives worked on and provided sample language that would take the political language out of the third point, including standing with Canadians who wish to protect the CPP and encouraging Albertans to remain in the CPP so that it can be secured for Albertans and all Canadians—with, of course, apologies to the good people of Quebec, who have their own pension plan.

We can pass that today, but the government has decided that it wants to make an example out of Premier Danielle Smith because they're failing in the polls. They'd rather fight her than fight the Leader of the Opposition.

The odd irony in all of this is that this is actually derailing the government's own legislative agenda. There are two bills that have to come before this committee to be passed before we break for the holidays, and it's actually the government that's chosen to move this motion instead. The government's choosing to move a politically motivated motion at committee instead of allowing its legislative agenda to go forward, which seems pretty bizarre to me. They're choosing to pick a fight with Danielle Smith rather than getting certain bills passed through this committee.

What's going to end up happening is that we're going to rush. We'll have very few meetings on the fall economic statement when it gets here. We'll have few meetings on Bill C-56 when it gets here. We won't do our diligence as a committee because the government's interested in picking a fight with Danielle Smith.

I'm not a great historian of parliamentary precedent and motions that have been reported to the House, but it seems a little odd that a committee wants to single out a particular province. Personally, if it said British Columbia, with an NDP premier, or now an NDP premier in Winnipeg, I still don't think that would be appropriate.

There are questions in question period every day about Danielle Smith's CPP plan. Some members can be encouraged to run for provincial Parliament, but the motion as it's written allows the chair to report to the House. That means concurrence can be moved on that motion, which will spark a debate, and members of Parliament can get up and make any comments they like about Premier Danielle Smith and Alberta's CPP.

We have the opportunity—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I was just waiting for the clarification, but it hasn't come. Perhaps, through you, Mr. Chair, I can just ask if the member is moving an amendment, while he's speaking to an amendment of one of his Conservative colleagues, because he seems to have read something out that he likes very much.

Is that an amendment that the member is moving?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are on an amendment.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

We're on an amendment already.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I appreciate the question. I was just indicating that there are other less political amendments that I'm not moving.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

PS Bendayan is asking if this is a subamendment.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

No, Mr. Chair.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

He doesn't actually like it, then.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the language was circulated to all of the relevant individuals immediately upon the government member moving the motion. We can end up playing politics with this all night. It's actually the government's legislative agenda that's being put at risk.

By the way, the Minister of Finance has requested that we begin the review of the proceeds of crime and money laundering act, which is statutorily obligated to occur before the end of this calendar year. That's one meeting. We only have six meetings left. We're supposed to do Bill C-56 and the fall economic statement.

I'm a bit puzzled why the government has decided to move this motion now and not accept any friendly amendments that have been recommended until now.

By the way, we're also supposed to hear from the Minister of Finance. Now, I think the minister has given us a date—December 7. I assume it will be a combination of Bill C-56, the fall economic statement, plus inflation and housing. The minister only likes to show up to committee when there's legislation to pass. There's either that theory, which is reasonable, or the other theory, which is that the Prime Minister's Office doesn't allow her to come, because she's actually too good at committee and she overshines the Prime Minister.

We went through this last spring. To remind people, it's actually the Prime Minister's Office that doesn't want the Minister of Finance here, because she's actually doing a better job than the Prime Minister on some things. We'll only get her for an hour, and she might say that she's going to be very generous and give us an extra 20 minutes. The reason why this committee's dysfunctional is because the Minister of Finance actually hasn't agreed to any invitation to this committee outside appearances that she decides to make to pass legislation.

If we want reasons for which Conservatives are making a point about this motion, then I'll sum them up in a few points. The first is that we have an opportunity as a committee to actually have a consensus and tell Albertans that we, as an entire committee, feel that the Canada pension plan is important. The second is that we are going to harm ourselves in our ability to pass legislation through the committee. I can't believe I'm making recommendations to the government about how they can pass legislation quicker through the committee. This is what's going to end up happening.

The government's decided to move a politically motivated motion to distract from its failing results in the polls. They think that Premier Danielle Smith is better fodder for the Prime Minister than the leader of the official opposition. It's unfortunate that we can't get a consensus on the committee to send a message to the Alberta government and Albertans about the importance of the CPP.

I will take Mr. Blaikie's recommendations and intervention to heart and reflect upon whether as a matter of principle I'll continue to hold up the passage of a politically motivated motion, or whether there may be an opportunity just to abstain. At this juncture, it defies logic why we're here arguing about a politically motivated motion, when there's so much work the committee needs to do. We could pass it pretty quickly otherwise. If the government members are signalling that they're open to a friendly amendment, I think we could probably wrap it up pretty quickly. That's not the message that we've been given.

We only have six meetings left. We're going to take one, I believe, for a ministerial appearance.

We're supposed to take one for a statutory review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. By the way, if we don't do that, the government is going to get a bad mark from the Financial Action Task Force, which is reviewing Canada's approach to money laundering. I don't really think we want a black X; I don't think that the government wants a black X.

It seems to me that the government doesn't have a ton of leverage to decide to put this politically motivated motion through the committee. I guess they should have thought about that before they decided to bring the motion.

In addition, the motion doesn't recognize that, by design, the CPP has with it withdrawal criteria for provinces if they decide they want to set up their own plan. I don't think that's a great idea, but we could hear from the Bloc Québécois about the QPP. It has actually functioned fairly well, I think, for Quebeckers.

It's within each provincial government's right to ask whether it's getting value for money for its own taxpayers and its residents in the CPP. There is a mechanism by which a province can exercise that ability and have a discussion.

I don't actually believe that the methodology is on such sound footing as to provide the result in terms of the assets that would be given to Alberta should it withdraw. But the truth is, that's for Albertans to think about and discuss internally. We could send them a message, as a committee, that is unanimous, or we can let a politically motivated motion pass the committee and not get much traction or attention because it's politically motivated.

Call me an idealist. I just happen to think there's an opportunity to do something here where we're all on the same page. I recognize that it may not be where everybody is at the moment, but I still hold out hope.

I suppose if Mr. Blaikie's intervention is the signal that we can't get there, then I'll certainly have to reflect on the path forward. But I do think it would be something if the committee actually said that we all support the CPP.

Whatever member wants to move concurrence in the House and talk until their heart's content about the political decisions of a particular premier in order to score local political points at home, that's up to that member. I just don't think the committee is a perfect place to single out a provincial premier.

I stand to be corrected by the historians on what previous committees have done in this respect, but I'll remind members that just as the winds of change may sweep through Wellington Street and Langevin Block—yes, that's right, I still call it "Langevin Block"—the winds of change can sweep through provincial legislative buildings, as it has in Manitoba. We now have an NDP government in Manitoba. We have an NDP government in British Columbia.

I don't really want to create a precedent for the future where committees will single out various premiers, when a particular party is failing in the polls, in order to score political points to distract from a narrative.

We have an opportunity to send a message as a committee. If we're now being told that no one wants to take that opportunity, we're prepared to talk it out.

The government is just wasting its own time at this point. I hope it's clear—we're going to burn through this meeting, and we're going to burn through Thursday's meeting. We won't be getting any legislation passed here. It will require a direction from the House. We will shortchange stakeholders who have serious concerns about the fall economic statement. As we understand, there will be some tax measures put in that legislation that deserve to be scrutinized. There are lots of stakeholder concerns about Bill C-56, which we're not going to spend a lot of time on anyway.

Frankly, maybe we could make a deal and maybe the motion could be passed. If no one wants to take the nice approach and pass a unanimous motion, but their government is intent on having the political fight, maybe we could make a deal where the Minister of Finance would actually show up at the committee. I could be persuaded to abstain on a vote on the CPP if the Minister of Finance is going to actually appear on any one of the number of studies we have open, other than just showing up, as is the tradition, to pass legislation through committee.

Mr. Chair, I hope I've given my colleagues something to think about. If they are open to hearing, formally, that amendment, to reduce the political tension and get a nice moment where we all lock arms and send a message to the great people of Alberta about the Canada pension plan, I'd be open to moving that at the appropriate time.

However, Mr. Chair, as I say, call me an idealist, but I think we're going to miss a sincere opportunity to do some nation building and unifying for once, and instead continue down the path of sowing the seeds of division.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'll cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

We have MP Lawrence, please.

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

Is there anyone after me, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

No, I don't think so.

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

Okay. I'll cede my time to Mr. Deltell, and I'll go on this after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. We have MP Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm delighted to be participating in this debate at the finance committee. It's very kind of you to have me. I recognize a face from the environment and sustainable development committee. Greetings to him, and I want to publicly invite him to go for a spin, should he feel so inclined. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I want to address some concerns about this issue, because we're talking about respect for the Constitution, and also respect for the will of each and every province. I think it's quite important, when we live in a confederation—this is what Canada is all about—that we respect the fact that, yes, some provinces can have their own agenda.

We do indeed have the Canada pension plan, but we also have the Quebec pension plan, which has a long history. It was established in the mid-1960s, following frank, honest, effective and successful negotiations, setting Quebec apart from the rest of Canada. It doesn't mean that people are happier or less happy, but it does mean that people have taken full responsibility for their choices and decisions, and we know how that's turned out. Soon, the plan will have been around for 60 years, and things seem to be going well. The original motion refers to the committee recognizing, “the important contribution of the Quebec Pension Plan which was established independently at the same time as the Canada Pension Plan”. If things weren't going well, we would know, but they are, so that's good.

From our standpoint, it's important to respect the will of the provinces in certain areas of jurisdiction. That means having frank, constructive and fruitful discussions to create a win-win situation for Canadians. All of us here want to make everyday life better for Canadians. No one is here to create problems. We have opposing views on how to go about it, which, of course, is the whole basis of politics. We have differing views, but when ideas clash, good things come. That's how it should be, and we need to respect that.

These last eight years, we have seen this government's insatiable appetite to encroach on provincial jurisdiction. We saw examples of that recently in Supreme Court and other rulings on the federal government's ambitions in environmental matters. It's not for nothing that I brought this up earlier. I am on the environment and sustainable development committee. I am the official opposition's critic for the environment and climate change, so I am particularly attuned to the issue. This case sets the example. We can do things the right way, and we can respect one another's decisions and areas of jurisdiction. However, that wasn't the case when it came to the environment, in many respects.

I can hear my fellow members rushing to point out that the Supreme Court gave the federal government the right to legislate in relation to carbon pricing. The challenge to the Liberals' carbon tax went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government had the authority to implement the tax. Just because the Supreme Court says you can do something doesn't mean you should. What happened next? The government's approach clearly did not have the intended result.

Need I remind my fellow members that, after eight years of this Liberal government lecturing the entire planet, Canada was ranked 58th out of 63 countries for its efforts to tackle climate change? That is a far cry from the Liberal rhetoric, which is all about preaching endlessly. That score did not come from the official opposition, the Conservatives, or some institute. It came from the UN, which nearly a year ago, ranked Canada 58th out of 63 countries, following eight years of Liberal rule. Clearly, the Liberals' policy is not having the intended results.

The reason I bring it up is Bill C‑69, which a number of provinces took issue with, including Quebec. It contains provisions that are almost insulting to the collective memory of Quebeckers, with the federal government giving itself somewhat of a veto power over Quebec's hydroelectric projects.

Whenever I talk about it, I feel as though I'm divulging a secret that has unfortunately been kept for far too long. People are shocked when they find out. They wonder, “What's this all about?” Rivers are the site of hydroelectric projects, and rivers are under provincial—not federal—jurisdiction. What, then, is this power the federal government has given itself?

Section 7 of the Act created under Bill C‑69 contains very specific provisions that allow the environment minister to subject major hydroelectricity projects to environmental assessments, should he be so inclined. Those projects are none of his business, though.

Quebec is quite fortunate to have everything it needs, geographically speaking, to unlock enormous green energy potential through hydroelectricity. We are obviously very happy about that. Shortly, I will go over some of the landmark moments culminating in Quebec's energy self-sufficiency and talk about how people in the forties and fifties had the vision needed to turn Quebec into a hydroelectricity powerhouse. That can be said of the seventies as well. We saw that same vision come to fruition recently, when the current premier inaugurated the Romaine hydroelectric complex, alongside the Honourable Jean Charest, Quebec's premier from 2003 to 2012 and the person who green-lit the project.

Through Bill C‑69, the federal government gave itself the power to subject hydroelectric projects to federal environmental assessments.

Let me say this. Like an adult, Quebec carries out its own environmental assessments, and the system works. Of course, people will remember how certain assessments were carried out hurriedly. Everyone in Quebec obviously remembers when the Parti Québécois government unfortunately bypassed the environmental review process for the most polluting project in Quebec's history, the McInnis cement plant in Gaspé. The then environment minister gave the go‑ahead to the most polluting project in history.

That was a sad day, indeed. Need I point out who the environment minister at the time was? No other than the current member for Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois. Dear friends, now when you hear the leader of the Bloc Québécois preaching about the environment to everyone who doesn't think like he does, remind him that he was the most polluting environment minister in Quebec's history.

All that to say, Quebec is capable of carrying out its own environmental assessments of hydroelectric projects. Why, then, did the federal government empower itself to redo what Quebec has already done? Going through the process a second time is absolutely pointless. It goes much further than that. As far as we're concerned, the environmental experts who analyze—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, on a point of order, MP Ste-Marie.

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

I think the honourable member misled the committee when he was talking about Mr. Blanchet.

When Mr. Blanchet was environment minister, the project that was announced didn't look anything like the project that was launched under the Liberal government in Quebec City. What the member said is incorrect, just like the disinformation in the Conservative Party's ads on social media.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It's not a point of order, but if MP Deltell would like to clarify [Inaudible—Editor].

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would remind the honourable member for Joliette that, unfortunately, his leader was the environment minister when those decisions were made.

On a similar point, I want to highlight that barely a few weeks ago, the members of his party were very excited in the House at the mention of Anticosti Island being named a UNESCO world heritage site. The honourable member was delighted. He may not recall, however, that the current leader of his party was prepared to allow exploratory oil drilling on Anticosti Island when he was environment minister. That, too, reflects poorly on the member.