Evidence of meeting #121 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was grocery.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, PS Bendayan.
We'll focus on the motion, and the amendment.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
I appreciate the opportunity to have shared Dr. Exner-Pirot's perspective on a range of topics to show that sometimes we can agree with the majority of views. She's an independent researcher and has some thoughtful arguments. I'm proud to know her. She also described the abuse of the price on pollution and the measures imposed in addition to the carbon tax, now subjectively applied across this country in a way that divides Canadians even more deeply. I think her point was especially bang on in that regard.
I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues for a bit of time to speak to the virtues of the Alberta and Canadian energy sectors as part of our national unity, and as part of a major contribution to our national pensions. It's important to have national unity around the question of unleashing the energy sector, because it's not just about Alberta; it's about the prosperity of every Canadian.
At this time, I'd like to cede my time to my colleague, Mr. Kurek, and then re-add my name to the list, please.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just want to commend my new colleague from Calgary Heritage for his excellent contribution to this conversation. I'd like to thank him and just highlight to the good people of Calgary Heritage that they elected a fine man to succeed in a constituency, Mr. Chair, that has had some fine individuals, including Mr. Bob Benzen, whom I had the pleasure of working with on the environment committee for a period of time, and also Mr. Stephen Harper, the former prime minister and somebody who understood something that I'm going to talk about here, something that will be, I think, very complementary to the points that my colleague here has shared: what national unity is, how it needs to be shepherded well and how policy decisions made in our nation's capital can have a devastating effect on that.
Certainly, Shuv, you have big shoes to fill. However, I certainly appreciate your contributions here to this discussion, and I think that they highlight how important it is to the substance of what we're talking about here.
We have a motion that seems to have been brought forward for little other reason than to further divide Canadians. The Conservatives have brought forward what I think is a very common-sense amendment that would highlight the fact that the government is doing just that. It is playing the games of fear and division. It is pitting region against region. Mr. Chair, as I expand on this just slightly, the key point that needs to be made here is that it goes back to the very foundations of what our country is.
If I could go back to the founding document now known as the Constitution Act, 1867—what was initially known as the British North America Act—it laid out or developed a framework that is very relevant to the discussions that we have daily in this place.
Over the many clauses of the BNA Act—or Constitution Act, 1867—we have this tension that was intentionally developed. We had an understanding that what were then quite divided colonies in what is now Canada—initially four, the recent addition after that, of course, being Prince Edward Island and then further provinces joined the federation after that.... A series of colonial governments brought forward a wide range of diverse concerns.
Now, the idea of a unified state was not new in the lead-up to 1867. It had been tried a number of times. There was a whole host of different mechanisms and things that had been brought forward and tested out, so to speak, Mr. Chair, that had various levels of success. In the lead-up to 1867, there was the acknowledgement amongst a very diverse range of ideas brought around the table to those whom we know are the fathers of confederation—and to the many others who participated in that process, many of whom are lost to history, including indigenous voices, women who were key and central players in that.... The process of getting to the point where we had, ultimately, the BNA Act that created the foundation of our country was an understanding of something that is incredibly relevant to what we're discussing here today, and it is that we have to have that ability to respect different regions of our country, that we will have different ideas, different belief systems, different languages. There will be a series of differences that would be easy to point to as dividing factors in what created problems with the various iterations of trying to unite the colonies that make up what we now know as Canada here today.
What was acknowledged was that we could have the ability to respect diverse voices around the metaphorical table while ensuring that there was a strong governmental structure. I can only imagine, Mr. Chair, what many of those conversations would have looked like around those meetings in which they would have been hashing out the ideas that have led to the country that we now know and love today as Canada. Those would have decided what areas would be under federal jurisdiction and what areas would be under provincial jurisdiction, with the understanding of where cities and municipalities and counties would play a role in that and they would have developed that structure to ensure that it responded to the dynamics that the world faced at the time, which was very notable.
In fact, it is said that one of the reasons Ottawa was chosen as the capital for the new country of Canada was the military and strategic importance of its being situated on the dividing line between what were then Upper and Lower Canada, the French and the English, the Catholics and the Protestants. It was a strategic place, but it also had military merit: It was a former barracks on top of a hill with a good view.
At the time, the Americans faced a host of domestic challenges and they were very much focused inward on them. During those days and especially in the years leading up to 1867, there was a fear. I say fear because I think that accurately articulates that there was a possibility that the Americans at the time might have looked outward to expand their empire, and the result was this understanding that we had to have a strong federation, with the idea of a federation being strategic.
I can only imagine the many conversations among the Fathers of Confederation. They would have looked at contemporary examples at that point in time, which would have included the United States republic as a constitutional republic, and the way democracy played in that. Of course, we take a lot—in fact, the opening words of the British North America Act speak very much about its being a government modelled in principle after that of the United Kingdom, but understanding that there were differences because our country was vast.
Geographically it is vast. The divisions that exist are significant and they have been significant since long before our nation was a country. But as the tension was found to determine what would be an appropriate balance of power between provinces and a federal government, the national state, and what that would look like, not only in the context of the initial four colonies that became early Canada but also in the context of understanding that there was potential to see Canada grow and expand—and understanding in fact the Latin motto for our country, the rough English translation of which is “from sea to sea”—and understanding that there was that desire, that dream to unify a vast space of land that, although so very diverse, could be unified together.
Those battles were fought, and then that continued. Mr. Chair, I won't go into the many hard-fought and the more peaceful examples, but, of course, it hasn't always been peaceful. We had elements of revolution. I'm sure there are many Canadians watching, Mr. Chair, who would think back to their social studies curriculum or history curriculum, depending on the province, and they would think of Louis Riel and the battles that took place around 1886. In fact, Louis Riel's name is on one of the bronze plaques showing elected members of Parliament, although he never had the chance to take his seat. How he was able to sign the scrolls is quite a story, actually. His name is on one of those bronze plaques that we all have the honour of having our name on, something in which we join with these icons of Canadian history, that being one of so many examples.
In my home province of Alberta, there were intense negotiations and certainly a host of varying opinions. In fact, we quite often will hear the story of the proposal for a province of Buffalo. “Buffalo” echoes the historical large mammal somewhat. For those around this room who may not be familiar, it's like a cow but much bigger and with horns. It's a wild animal that defined much of the landscape. There was this idea that there could be this united province of Buffalo.
In fact, Mr. Chair, I found it very interesting, when earlier this year I posted a picture of a historical cairn that is located in my constituency. It's actually on a corner of what used to be a number of administrative districts in what was then known as the “northwest territories”. The conversation that ensued and the people reaching out having seen this post on Facebook and Instagram was fascinating. It was quite incredible to be able to dive into some of the elements of that history.
In 1905, when Alberta and Saskatchewan were added to the federation, it was with a great deal of optimism. I've had the chance to be involved in politics for a little while now and one thing I like to do when looking back at historical events is to look at the newspaper headlines of the time. Having read the headlines of the newspapers for both the province of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan.... In fact, they were not daily newspapers. In some cases it was actually a few days after these provinces became a part of the federation that an incredible amount of optimism was felt. There was the understanding and the ability to see growth as a united country, even though we were very different.
Mr. Chair, that has not always been an easy process. I'll get into the reason I wanted to briefly take us through this history. It's because it leads towards something that was a hard lesson learned, Mr. Chair.
In 1905, when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were added to the federation, the optimism associated with that was tempered somewhat over the coming decades. It was learned that although the Fathers of Confederation had worked diligently to determine the balance and tension that exists to ensure that while we have a strong federal government, there would be respect for our regional governments—or provincial governments, as they are known in Canada—there was a missing element to that when the Laurier government brought forward the amendment to the Constitution that added Alberta and Saskatchewan. It excluded the administration of natural resources, which is why this is such a relevant part of this conversation.
A host of reasons were discussed at the time. One can look back from the perspective of the 21st century here in 2023 and determine whether or not it was politics or whether it was because it was a Liberal prime minister. Certainly I've heard that from many constituents, who look back at the Liberals governing our country and the attacks on the west that have taken place that seem to define much of Liberal governments.
Some reasons were articulated, but the provinces did not have the ability to manage their own resources. That was added a couple of decades later. In fact, I think it was two and half decades after that when there was this understanding that the provinces should be treated equally.
To the many who I'm sure are watching this, there were very few exceptions. One exception was representation in the Senate and the other was the specific note in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is of course the Constitution Act of 1982. Otherwise, all provinces in this country are treated the same. That's part of the strength here and what is building the foundation for what I trust will be a point that truly moves the needle on ending the division that Justin Trudeau and his Liberal governments have perpetrated upon our country.
The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan pushed to ensure that they could in fact have that equal status. Then we fast forward half a century or so, Mr. Chair, to the constitutional negotiations and what ultimately ended up being the repatriation of the Constitution and the passing of the Constitution Act, 1982, which renamed the British North America Act to the Constitution Act, 1867. There are a host of other constitution acts as well, although they're not as well known, because they have to deal with either the entry of a province to the federation or a host of other amendments that have taken place from time to time.
Mr. Chair, this is to highlight how important the lead-up to 1982 was. The premier of Alberta at the time, Peter Lougheed, spent a great deal of time in negotiations. This is where we have this tension that exists. Again, this was at the conclusion of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's time as prime minister—although he did lose and spent I think it was about 15 months on a short hiatus when Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives had won a minority government. Ultimately, they lost in a confidence vote when they recalled Parliament. Then, of course John Turner was the successor to Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Many Canadians have not had the opportunity...and I would suggest it's something that is very valuable and speaks to the larger context of why so many Albertans were terrified of the thought of having another Trudeau in office. It's because when Pierre Elliott Trudeau first started the conversation, it's not that it was a new conversation. It had various iterations, looking back at some past news articles about what that did look like from time to time. When those conversations started, what was imagined by the machinations of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to what ended up being the negotiated agreement that resulted in the Constitution Act,1982, was very different. It is quite stark, actually. I didn't have a chance to bring with me some of those documents. Let me just enlighten members of the committee a little bit on this, specifically Liberal members, because this is their party's legacy. It would have radically reshaped our country in a way that would make it virtually unrecognizable.
Now, I certainly have very little respect for Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I'll get into some of the more contemporary reasons for that here in a few moments.
One of the noteworthy figures in that negotiation was then Alberta premier Peter Lougheed. I happen to know some of his family members. I've heard some of the stories about their uncle and the process that was the constitutional negotiations. It is a fascinating thing to be able to look back and to understand the hard-fought way in which the balance of power among the different levels of government in our country was maintained. I certainly credit Peter Lougheed for working so diligently to ensure that could take place. That laid the foundation for much of the prosperity that Alberta and all of Canada has seen over the last four decades or so.
Mr. Chair, it was those negotiations that had started...and there was a significant push-back from provinces, political activists, academics and constitutional lawyers.
I had the opportunity to spend some time at my alma mater after winning a scholarship named after the late Mel Smith, who was one of those figures involved in some of those constitutional negotiations.
I can tell you, Chair, it is fascinating. It is a drive through history that provides such extraordinary context. It makes me, quite frankly, proud to be Canadian and truly honoured to be a part of the political process. It speaks to the way that we've come to agreement in this country. It doesn't always mean that we agree, but it means that we're willing to sit down, negotiate, come to an understanding and figure out something that works for everybody. Whether that be prior to 1867, and the tension that existed in trying to figure out what would be federal responsibility and what would be provincial responsibility, or what they should even call the country, was all part of those negotiations that came forward and trying to figure out exactly what things would look like.
Of course, we have the history of treaties, and, Mr. Chair, I could go on at length, and I'll spare the committee this, but it is fascinating to look into some of the—in some cases—pre-Confederation history of where the treaties with indigenous people come from and the processes through which those were brought about. What's very interesting, Mr. Chair, is that actually adds to the strength of what our country is. We've seen this ability to take differences and be able to have those tough conversations to figure things out.
It doesn't mean that it's always been done well, don't mistake that for one second, but, certainly, when it comes to.... In fact, there's another historical cairn—and you'll forgive me, Mr. Chair, if I'm very proud of the area I represent—where there's this area, and it's on a lake known as Sounding Lake in the eastern part of my constituency, and it's in what is Treaty No. 6 territory. In I believe it was 1884—although don't quote me on that date—it was around that time in the 1880s when the plains were vast and outside of a few settlers and the indigenous peoples, there was not a lot there.
In fact, I had read a book at one point that articulated what it would have been like if you had taken an airplane and flown over the vastness of the North American plains prior to the construction of the railways and what we know as modern settlements. It would have been vast, it would have been largely unpopulated, although, certainly, there were a host of very advanced cultures within our indigenous communities and the Métis, a very proud legacy. And the conversation around Métis and Métis communities in Alberta will accentuate the point I'm trying to make that is so closely related to the amendment at hand and the motion that's been brought forward by the Liberals. It speaks to how in the 1880s we truly saw thousands, and this historical cairn on the beautiful shores of Sounding Lake....
Sounding Lake, although it's called a lake, it's truly just a large slough and at different points of the year, depending on how much rainfall there has been, that will determine whether or not there's water. That's not a new phenomenon, at different points in history there's been water in it, and at different points in history there hasn't. That history goes back long before modern weather tracking, but includes the oral tradition of indigenous peoples who lived in the area.
In the 1880s when there was a gathering of I believe—and I'm going from memory, here—6,000 indigenous people plus a couple of thousand of those who were then known as the “white man”, but settlers who were there....
Mr. Chair, just as I was on this cairn, it's on a little bit of a knoll on the edge of what is called Sounding Lake, it was incredible to think about some of the context, which I'm endeavouring to highlight here, about what our country is and the foundations that allow us to, in the midst of a diversity of opinions and thoughts, be able to bring forward an ability to be united, and that's the point here. Mr. Chair, as we look back to a century after that point, back to the negotiations that led up to the 1982 Constitution Act, we saw that specifically, Peter Lougheed spent an inordinate amount of time and led the country in fighting to ensure that specifically resources remain the sole jurisdiction of the province. The result was after that was passed, the Constitution was brought home and, of course, there was the signing ceremony with the late Queen Elizabeth and the pomp and circumstance associated with that and the continuing development of what Canada could be, that hard-fought tension that was found between what the federal and provincial governments, different levels of government, should be.
Mr. Chair, we have to be able to look back just before 1982 and something that is incredibly important, and it is something that my constituents know very well. I will admit, this was something that happened long before I was born, in fact, I know there are a number of my colleagues here who probably were not born yet.
I won't suggest who probably was.
8:15 p.m.
A voice
You have [Inaudible—Editor].
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
No, it's just an acknowledgement of fact.
Long before I was born, it was something that became synonymous with the frustration many Albertans face with our national government here in Ottawa. It still elicits a strong emotional response. In fact, if you go to a coffee shop in Battle River—Crowfoot—the area I am so proud to represent, with 110,000 people over about 53,000 square kilometres of beautiful east-central Alberta countryside—and mention the national energy program, Mr. Chair, there will be a strong response. People will have strong opinions. I'd like to get into the reason for that.
At the time, there was acknowledgement that Alberta was starting to see a tremendous amount of prosperity. Largely, this came about because of the discovery of conventional oil reserves. I would encourage the Liberal and NDP members specifically to take note of my talking about “conventional oil reserves”, because I'm going to make a differentiation that is absolutely key to the discussion of both the amendment at hand and the motion that is meant to divide. The discovery of conventional oil reserves meant we could find, drill for and produce oil that could be sold on the global market in a very economical way. The result was the beginning of the unprecedented prosperity brought about as a result of this. What's very interesting....
I will take a small detour here. My late grandfather Kurek, who was very proud to be one of.... This speaks to another issue I'll get to at some point, which is LNG. LNG is simply liquefied—
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, I hate to interrupt the member opposite, but I have a point of order.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you very much.
We have listened to pre-Confederation history and governments ranging in all shapes and sizes over the course of the 1960s and onwards. Now, I believe the member was referring to a story from his grandfather.
Mr. Chair, I invite you to bring the member back to the motion and amendment at hand. I also recall that you announced, at the beginning of this session, that we would hear from Mr. Genuis. I hope that wasn't false advertising. We are all waiting with bated breath for that further filibuster from a new member.
Mr. Chair, thank you for indulging me with yet another point of order on relevance.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I assure the member that anything I have to say is nowhere near as profound or significant as what Mr. Kurek has to say.
I think, with regard to the matter of order, the presumption on the other side is that arguments rooted in history are necessarily irrelevant. The member pointed out that the member was making arguments grounded in Canadian history, as if it were obvious that talking about the past is somehow irrelevant.
I think—
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
—the underlying, fundamental philosophical differences between Conservatives and Liberals is this: We think the past is something that needs to be learned from and is relevant in contemporary debate—
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm just trying to finish my thought here.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Listen, first off—I think I've let you know this before—we don't like crosstalk. It affects the interpreters quite a bit. It's not good for their health and safety.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I was the one talking. That's the issue. You started it.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Anyway, we are going back to....
On the same point of order, yes, go ahead, MP Blaikie.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I was waiting for Mr. Kurek to get to an exposition of pre-Confederation, state-run pension plans, but it never came home to roost. I sure hope he's going to find his way there, because that would establish a clear—
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On that point, Mr. Chair, I was hoping we'd hear more about Bismarck, because—
8:20 p.m.
Liberal