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.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
It's all good. We're all friends here at the finance committee.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
We've had lots of substance here, but I wanted to add a little more substance. I have some materials that I think are critical to add to the debate.
I'll start out with a respected reporter, John Ibbitson. I won't read his entire article, though it probably merits doing so. For the sake of brevity, I'll just read parts of it.
He starts by saying that Prime Minister Trudeau could point to some “accomplishments”, and then says, “every prime minister's highest priority should be to leave the federation stronger, or at least not weaker, than [he] found it.” It says, “By that measure”—and these are Mr. Ibbitson's words, not mine—“Mr. Trudeau's tenure has been a failure.” He continues, "Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, whose United Conservative Party was elected on a platform of challenging Ottawa, is threatening to pull the province out of the Canada Pension Plan. While we can debate whether the LifeWorks assessment of how much of the CPP's assets Alberta would be entitled to—or that of [the] University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, or some other formula—the fact remains that the pension plan in particular, and Canadian unity in general, would be [weaker] were the province to leave."
The article goes on to say, “It's not surprising, then, that Mr. Trudeau would come to the defence of the CPP. What is surprising is [his] depth of...hostility.”
The article states that Prime Minister Trudeau wrote to Ms. Smith and said, “'I have instructed my cabinet and officials to take all necessary steps to ensure Albertans—and Canadians—are fully aware of the risks of your plan, and to do everything possible to ensure the CPP remains intact'”.
That's interesting. The article goes on to quote Mr. Trudeau as saying, “'We will not stand by as anyone seeks to weaken pensions and reduce the retirement income of Canadians.' Ms. Smith, in turn, dismissed the Prime Minister's warning as 'overwrought.'”
It states, “Employment Minister and Edmonton MP Randy Boissonnault further manifested Ottawa's get-tough approach [on] Sunday, when he warned on CTV's Question Period that if Albertans leave...CPP, 'it's a one-way ticket.'”
Mr. Ibbitson's article goes on to say, “There is no need...to panic. We are a long way from Alberta pulling out of the CPP. The province's former treasurer, Jim Dinning, is [a] leading public [consultant], which may or may not lead Ms. Smith to call a referendum on the issue. Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has urged Albertans not to leave the plan, while sympathizing with their frustration.”
It goes on to say, “But it's worth pausing to reflect on the damage Mr. Trudeau has inflicted on Canadian unity after eight years in power.”
I hesitate because I don't want to overstate this, but it's been a pattern of the Prime Minister that when this nation is at its most vulnerable, instead of being a great unifier, he becomes the great divider, whether that's with respect to personal health independence or, in this case, with respect to the CPP. The Prime Minister has the choice to be either a statesman or a politician, and clearly he's chosen the latter. He has once again put his own personal interests above those of our country.
This is the most damning of criticism of any leader because for any leader to even be in the ballpark of successful, they must put their country first, as many prime ministers in the past have, even ahead of their own political ambitions and even over the ambitions of their parties. This is clearly not the case.
That's what's really troubling about what this motion is all about. My colleague Mr. Chambers said that we could walk out today with a unifying motion that the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Conservatives could all agree to, which would encourage Albertans to stay as part of the CPP.
Instead, the Liberal Party has chosen to amplify this Prime Minister's message of division. This should cause self-reflection, I would think, by everyone at this committee, not the least of whom is the NDP member who, instead of being a force for collaboration and unity, is instead encouraging amplifying division.
I will continue to read:
Progressive centralizers in Laurentian Canada tell each other that Ottawa must act on this or that “in the national interest.” But the national interest is emphatically not served if their actions anger large swaths of the country.
When the Liberals won their majority government in October, 2015, they had a golden opportunity to reverse decades of Liberal unpopularity in the West. The Grits had taken 17 seats in British Columbia, seven in Manitoba, four in Alberta and one in Saskatchewan. They were well placed to grow that vote with policies that consulted rather than dictated, that recognized the importance of the resource-based Western economy and that respected the distinct societies of the Prairies and B.C.
Mr. Trudeau inherited a federation at peace. In Quebec, the Parti Québécois was out of government and in decline, and the federal Bloc Québécois was decimated, having taken only 10 seats in the 2015 election. Things were quieter on the federal-provincial front than at any time since the 1950s. Surely this was a time to strengthen national bonds – between English and French, between the Heartland and the West.
Eight years later, the Bloc is resurgent, with 32 of Quebec’s 78 seats. Coalition Avenir Québec Premier François Legault is stoking French-English tensions, most recently by almost doubling out-of-province tuition for students attending English universities.
And Alberta is perhaps even more estranged. If the government did hold a referendum on withdrawing from the CPP, it would in reality be a referendum on increased sovereignty for the province.
Meanwhile, and not coincidentally, polls suggest the Conservatives would trounce the Liberals if an election were held today.
I'm honestly not concerned with the politics of the day. Polls will come and go. Liberal governments will come and go, Conservative governments will come and go, and maybe one day an NDP government will come and go. However, we have, as members of Parliament, a sacrosanct responsibility to our country, which I firmly believe is the greatest country in all the world, to do everything in our power to put it first.
Our country is starting to fray, not at the edges, but at the main seams that hold us together. The Prime Minister could have handled this very differently, but that cat is out of the bag, so there's nothing we can do there. However, this finance committee can still do the right thing. Instead of going for political points, maybe for a story here or there, I don't know, it might even help the Liberal Party. I don't know. I don't think it would, but maybe their calculus in the PMO is that it somehow helps them.
We've got to have our eye on the long game on national unity. There simply are not many objectives that are more important than national unity. The scars this government has been creating with respect to division will long outlast this government.
Honestly, in all candour, I have respect for my colleagues across the way. I got to know them a little bit on the trip and I know them to be intelligent, respectful, good people. I would just tell them to talk to the PMO and say, this is an opportunity, I think, even to win politically, to look like the bigger party in a unifying way, but know that this is creating damage. To get a story here or there, continuing to inflict pain and to create division among our country, just isn't worth it, guys.
I'll continue on here. Mr. Ibbitson continues:
What went wrong? In a word: bossiness. The Liberals imposed conditions on the provinces before granting health funding. They imposed a carbon tax on provinces that didn't meet carbon-reduction targets. Bill C-69 imposed such intrusive conditions on resource development that the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional. The Liberals decided that national priorities justified using...spending power to dictate terms to the provinces. They were willing to let the Prairie oil-and-gas sector suffer in order to meet [their] carbon reduction targets. The result: increasing resentment toward Ottawa across the country. This is Canada today, on Justin Trudeau's watch.
Once again, I know that we all have pressures, and the pressure to win on the latest face-off or the latest scrimmage is powerful, as is getting that great social media clip where you're taking a shot at the Conservatives, and you feel good in the moment. To somehow spike the ball on Danielle Smith is perhaps because, as my colleague said, they see that as a richer target, or a better foil than our official Leader of the Opposition.
These jobs that we have are serious. They come with incredible consequences. We have a choice every day in every action we take. Either we can be a voice of reasonability, a unifying voice, a voice for a better Canada or we can go for the cheap political points.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We are back.
My list reads that we left off with MP Lawrence.
MP Lawrence, you have the floor, and you're speaking to the amendment to the motion.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Just because we are coming back from a break, would you mind, Mr. Chair, reading the proposed motion with the amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It reads:
That the Chair of the Committee immediately report to the House that the committee: 1) Celebrates the Canada Pension Plan as a 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 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.
The amendment reads:
That point 3 of the motion be deleted and substituted by: This Liberal government's policies such as the carbon tax and Bill C-69 are leading to greater division in our country.
That is the motion and the amendment.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, to set the stage, as it were.
I'd like to welcome my colleague Mr. Kurek, who is joining us today. I believe Mr. Genuis will be joining us as well in a little bit.
As I left off, a politician often has the choice—and a leader, a prime minister, even more so—between being a statesman and being a politician. A statesman will always do what's in the best interests of the nation. A politician will sometimes take the opportunity to score political points. I think we've seen what course Prime Minister Trudeau has taken. As a member of Parliament, but more importantly as a Canadian, I do find that very disappointing.
It is, of course, a legacy. As Mr. Ibbitson said in his article, in 2015 the Liberals actually came in with some representation from the west, but that's been quickly being eliminated. In politics, things can change in the blink of an eye, but as of now it appears as though if the election were held today, there would be very, very limited representation from the Liberal Party and it's not healthy.
We really want to have at least two national parties that can speak for the entire country. I suppose the Prime Minister has calculated that there's some type of electoral victory he can gain by disenfranchising Alberta, by picking a fight with the premier and by treating Albertans unequally when it comes to the carbon tax exemption. I can't for the life of me honestly understand even the politics of how they're going to gain any popularity from picking a fight with the premier.
Even in this committee, unfortunately, members have chosen to pick a fight. Conservatives are very agreeable, actually, to having an amended motion that would say something to the effect that we would encourage Albertans to stay in the CPP, but instead, they've chosen politically charged language naming their premier specifically and sort of creating a political firestorm. Maybe they want to have stories written about it. I can't guess why, but all it will do to Albertans, I'm sure, is infuriate them that once again the Liberal government is choosing not to acknowledge them.
It's been going on for about, what, 50 years, Damien, that Alberta's...? It goes back to the first Trudeau and the national energy plan. I know I said that and I know it's a swear word to my two Albertans here, but—
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
There are three. I'm sorry. Why don't you jump in here? It's good to see you, my friend.
It truly is challenging.
I actually want to go back to provide some foundation. My team found a great article written around the time of the inception of the Canada pension plan. I'll read some of it and make some comments as I go:
A major landmark in the development of Canada's social security system was reached in April 1965, when the new Canada Pension Plan was enacted. The law establishes, for the first time, a contributory system of earnings-related old-age, disability, and survivor insurance benefits in Canada. It was assented to on April 3, 1965, and...proclaimed on May 5. The collection of contributions under the new program will commence in January 1966, and retirement benefits will first become payable in January 1967.
The effect of this new legislation is, in general, to superimpose a system of contributory wage-related retirement pensions on top of [an] existing system of universal flat-rate old-age pensions, which is retained and, in fact, expanded. The new retirement pensions will be equal to about 25 percent of earnings at the end of an initial transitional period of 10 years.
In addition, contributory disability and survivor pensions are introduced; such pensions have previously been provided in Canada only to needy persons on an assistance basis.
All the new insurance benefits will be financed from contributions paid by insured persons and employers. The new Canadian social insurance program is similar in significant respects to the Federal old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI) program of the United States. There are, however, a number of important and interesting differences between the two systems. Some of the similarities and differences are pointed out in the course of the discussion below.
Previous Legislation.
Canada has had Federal legislation dealing with old-age assistance since 1927. Similar legislation providing assistance for blind persons was adopted in 1937 and revised in 1951, and assistance to permanently and totally disabled persons was first provided in 1955. These assistance programs are similar in many ways to those in the United States. They are, in effect, cooperative Federal-Provincial programs, under which the Canadian Government makes grants to the Provinces covering a part of the cost of the Provincial programs. These programs were established and are administered by each Province separately.
At present the Federal Government pays 50 percent of the payments up to $75 a month to persons with limited means aged 65-69. It also shares in the cost of payments of up to the same amount under the programs for permanently and totally disabled persons and blind persons who pass a means test. In addition, the individual Provinces often make supplementary payments under their general assistance programs, the costs of which are shared by the Federal Government under the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1956. All of these assistance expenditures are financed from general revenues of the Federal and Provincial governments.
The Provinces, for a number of decades, have also been providing assistance pensions to needy widowed mothers. The Federal Government does not participate in the cost of these pensions, but proposals to do so have been made under the Canada Assistance Plan now being developed. The new assistance plan, which would consolidate and improve existing programs, has already been the subject of formal Federal-Provincial discussions.
That's interesting. Even in 1965, they saw the merit of having discussions with the provinces, not dictating to the provinces. There was a collaborative or co-operative approach. The article continues:
The Old Age Security Act, passed in 1951, established a national system of universal flat-rate old-age pensions, administered entirely by the Federal Government. Before the 1965 legislation, this program provided for payment of a flat pension to every person who reached age 70 and who satisfied certain minimum requirements regarding length of residence in Canada. The amount of the old-age pension was originally fixed at $40 a month.
I did have discussions with interpreters that sometimes they found it hard when members were reading text. I'm aware I'm reading text. Am I doing all right, interpreters? Am I good, yes? Do I need to slow down? Are we good? Maybe thumbs up, yes? I want to make sure we're okay. If I need to slow down, let me know. Again, the article continues:
The program of universal old-age pensions is financed out of a special old-age security fund set up in the general consolidated revenue fund of the Federal Government. The old-age fund receives its income from the earmarked yields of three taxes—a 4-percent tax on taxable income up to $3,000 a year for all individuals; a 3-percent tax on all corporate income subject to the corporate income tax; and a 3-percent tax on manufacturers' sales.
I assume my NDP colleague would like that. Manufacturing sales have been replaced by the GST. It's amazing it's still around, because the Liberals said that they were going to get rid of it. It continues:
The universal flat-pension program provided for by the Old Age Security Act will continue in force concurrently with the social insurance program enacted in 1965. The basic nature of the flat pension remains essentially unchanged, but certain modifications have been made in the age at which it is payable, in its adjustment to price changes, and in its residence requirements.
The subtitle is:
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF CANADA PENSION PLAN
The Canadian Government had been studying the possibility of introducing a contributory pension insurance program for a number of years. In 1950 a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on old-age security was formed to review the existing old-age pension program, which operated with a means test and was subject to widespread criticism. After hearing testimony on a contributory and earnings-related insurance program, the Committee unanimously recommended a universal flat-rate pension beginning at age 70, as well as a Federal-Provincial old-age assistance program for persons aged 65-69 with limited means. The Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act of 1951, both of which became effective in January 1952, followed closely the Committee’s recommendations.
The Federal Government in 1958 engaged Dr. R. M. Clark “to conduct an inquiry into facts relating to old-age security systems in effect in Canada and the United States.” His report—Economic Security for the Aged in the United States and Canada—contained no recommendations. It was presented to the Government early in 1959.
In July 1963 the Government submitted a resolution in the House of Commons and issued a supporting statement indicating its intention of enacting a contributory pension plan. The plan originally provided only for retirement pensions and pensions for aged survivors, in recognition of doubts that had been expressed about the constitutional competence of the Federal Government, under the British North America Act, to provide disability benefits and benefits for survivors under age 65. The plan thus limited was incorporated in a bill (C-75) that was given first reading in March 1964.
The Province of Ontario meanwhile had adopted a law in April 1963 requiring every private employer in the Province who employed 15 or more workers to maintain for them a pension with certain vesting provisions. (Under amendments adopted in 1964, maintenance of such a plan is no longer mandatory.) The Province was also studying the possibility of establishing a public pension for Ontario.
The Province of Quebec began developing a pension plan in August 1963, and in April 1964 it announced the details of its own pension insurance program.
So you see, provinces starting their own pension plan is neither new or novel. In fact, this is a dialogue that's been going on for over 60 years. The article continues:
Other Provinces also evidenced considerable interest in pensions—a subject of concern to them not only for itself but because of its implications for savings and capital accumulation.
The various developments at both the Federal and Provincial levels made necessary extensive consultation, therefore, between the Federal Government and the Provincial governments on the subject of pension planning. Four formal Federal-Provincial conferences were held during 1963 and 1964 at which the subject was discussed, including the proposals made by the Federal Government.
In June 1964, agreement was reached with the Provinces for amendment of section 94-A of the British North America Act to empower both the Canadian Parliament and the Provincial legislatures to enact legislation concerning survivor and disability [benefits] as well as.... The Canadian Constitution now authorizes the Federal Parliament to legislate concerning all three types of pensions, but it also provides that Federal legislation shall not affect the operation of any present or future Provincial legislation dealing with pensions.
On the...Federal-Provincial negotiations...the Department of National Health and Welfare of the Federal Government in August 1964...a White Paper—The Canada Pension Plan. This document outlined and explained the pension insurance program that the Government was advancing.
The substance of the White Paper proposals was incorporated in a bill (C-136), which was introduced in the House of Commons for first reading on November 9, 1964. After second reading on November 18, the bill was referred to a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. The Committee recommended certain substantive changes, as well as a number of technical changes. The Government approved and took action on most of these recommendations. The revised Canada Pension Plan...was subsequently passed in the House of Commons on March 29...on April 2. It received Royal Assent on April 3, 1965.
I'm starting with the history here. You can see that, in the formation of the CPP, it was not simply a federal government dictating to the provinces. In fact, it was occurring organically across the nation in various provinces, including Ontario and Quebec. Once again, it wasn't just the federal government dictating to the provinces, “This is how we're going to go.” A spirit of collaboration and co-operation built the CPP into being the trusted source of retirement income Canadians can rely on. The Prime Minister's divisive rhetoric on this is quite a departure from the history of the CPP.
I stand ready to continue, but I understand that my colleagues also want to talk. I often tell my son when he's playing minor hockey that it's important to pass the puck to make sure that other people have their opportunity to shine as well.
With that, I cede my time, but I would like to be put back on the list, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence.
I have MP Majumdar, MP Kurek, MP Blaikie and MP Lawrence.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Chair, it's a real honour to be able to join you and all of the members of this committee here. It's nice to meet many of them for the first time. As the rookie in Parliament, it's a real special place, to be in the company of so many tenured people.
Today is a really important debate in the finance committee. It's affecting my own province of Alberta, which is a part of the country that was a big part of the solution in recovering from the 2008-09 global financial crisis. It's a part of the country that fuels, feeds and supports our national economy as the backbone of our success as a country. That can only happen if it has a partner in a federal government that understands how national unity works and is an ally to our energy sector, to the energy workers and to the people who do great work every single day across a range of issues.
As I think about what we're here to debate, after eight years of Justin Trudeau, provinces have actually never been as divided. This government inherited a legacy of national unity and of a country confident about its future. It has found a way to pit one group against another and traffic in identities, with one region against another. Provinces are planning to just not collect the carbon tax because of their prime minister's unfair application of a temporary pause. His Liberals voted just against a common sense, fair motion to extend this temporary pause to all Canadians.
I have constituents who I now represent who called and told me that they might be losing their house at the end of this year. Their costs are going through the roof; their mortgage is out of control. They have three children they're trying to feed and put through school. They asked why only one part of the country gets relief from this painful carbon tax. Why, in our own backyard in Calgary, do we not feel like we are eligible for that kind of relief?
Provinces have also taken the federal government all the way to the Supreme Court to fight their unfair energy policies. They are at the natural resources committee now trying to ram through another bill that is bad for Alberta, which is Bill C-50, the unjust transition bill.
With this bill, I think there's some expertise we could reflect on that is non-partisan and comes from a place of love for country and the unity we represent. I'd love to take a minute here, with your permission, Chair, to explain some of the thinking that came to us as early as last year.
One of the greatest scholars in this country is a woman named Heather Exner-Pirot. She's at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. She's a senior fellow there who leads on Arctic, energy and critical minerals. She's one of the most important thinkers of our time. I can say she's a dear friend and former colleague of mine.
Back in May, 2022, she published a really important article entitled “Ottawa's 'just transition' needs to be challenged for encouraging fantasy around oil and gas”. I think that says something. It's about a government that divides Canadians on the basis of region and traffics in fantasies that undermine a wellspring of support for this country.
Our energy industry has the capacity to lower international emissions if we could only get other countries off dirty coal. Our energy has the ability to partner with first nations in true economic reconciliation in this country. Our energy sector would have the capacity to fund whatever entitlements the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal partner, Mr. Singh, would invent next. It would rebuild our armed forces. It would defeat Russia, Iran and China in their ambitions to have hegemony around the world.
I think her article is quite apt and worth paying attention to. Let me share it with colleagues around the table at this point. She writes:
A fantasy has emerged in Canada called a “just transition.” In this paradigm, the transition from dirty fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy in the form of solar panels and windmills will create a prosperous, low-carbon future with a thriving green economy. Taking action now will make our economy stronger and more competitive.
The catch is that workers and communities who depend on the oil and gas sector will be disadvantaged. The “just transition” ensures no one is left behind, with workers given the supports to succeed in other, more sustainable, fields. So committed is the federal government to this version of reality, that it is planning to introduce legislation in its name, to codify its “people-centred just transition principles.”
We've heard “peoplekind” before. Maybe that's not her intention or what the intention was in the preamble for this legislation.
She continues:
The first and most obvious challenge to this premise is that there isn’t much of a transition yet. Global demand for oil and gas is as high as it has ever been. Whether you think this is good or bad, it is a fact. Years of underinvestment in production, now topped with sanctions on Russia, mean that prices for LNG and refined products are at record levels. Energy experts think crude oil will soon hit $180 a barrel or higher. Even if demand does eventually match up with supply, it still makes sense for the western world to maintain some production of its own, instead of relying on OPEC and Russia. Canada, by far the world’s biggest oil exporter that is a democracy, should be the last man standing.
Furthermore:
It seems almost farcical to dedicate legislative effort and taxpayer dollars to training programs for unemployable oilpatch workers, or to help oil and gas regions become economically viable. Canada has never exported more crude and bitumen than it does now, buoyed by the recent completion of the Line 3 pipeline, the reversal of the Capline pipeline, and global markets taking whatever we could muster. But labour, especially experienced labour, is a constraining factor, and is hampering growth, even with wages at three times or more the Canadian average.
These are high-quality jobs that Heather is describing, with people wearing boots, vests and hard hats and getting things done for this country. She adds:
The joke is they need to start retraining coders to become drillers.
This is an argument she's making pitched to modern reality:
Critics might concede that, yes, although there is a temporary reprieve in demand, in order to save the planet we need a transition, the sooner the better. The idea seems to be that we can, or should, stop using petroleum products, and any oilsands project or pipeline we build now is destined to become a stranded asset. This is the fantasy that “just transition” encourages. But it needs to be challenged.
Thank God Heather is doing that challenge here, in stating:
The average Canadian thinks of petroleum use in terms of pumping gas into their vehicle, and therefore subscribes to the fallacy that when we all drive electric vehicles, the need for fossil fuels will disappear. But there are infinite uses for hydrocarbons. They are an incredibly flexible, available, and useful molecule, and even when we stop using them for combustion
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I have point of order, Chair.
The Standing Orders require that during the debate all members speak to the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the motion and the amendment to the motion. I don't see the relevance of what the member is speaking to as to the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
On the point of order, yes, could we just speak to the relevance of the motion or the amendment, please.
Conservative
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
I think it's very relevant given that we are talking about the amendment that this Liberal government's policies such as the carbon tax and Bill C-69.... When we say "This Liberal government's policies" in the amendment, I think it encapsulates everything my friend and colleague is so eloquently talking about. Even inside the amendment it says that these kinds of policies are leading to greater division in our country. He's making a case for how divided Canada is after eight years of this Prime Minister. I think it's very relevant.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I do agree. I think a number of these things are covered in the amendment. However, I do find passing strange that Conservatives at this table have spent more time talking about the elver eel population in Atlantic Canada than they were prepared to spend talking about the CPP before they moved an amendment so they could talk about something else. I'm just saying this.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
I was about to raise a question of privilege that my point of order wasn't being recognized. I know how much members at this committee have expressed their appreciation for those types of points in the past.
It is great to be here with colleagues.
On a point of order, I think you'd find unanimous consent to commend the member for Calgary Heritage for his excellent remarks so far.
He's certainly doing a much better job representing the people of Calgary than the chair of the natural resources committee, who was repeatedly trying to shut down the interventions of Conservative members who were simply trying to defend our beloved province.
I think the member is speaking to the unity that used to exist in this country, the unity that sadly no longer exists after eight years of this Prime Minister, who is no longer worth the cost.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think it's quite clear that Mr. Genuis is not raising a point of order. As much as I have heard about this fantastic filibuster that the Conservatives are engaged in at the natural resources committee, this is the finance committee, and before the finance committee at the moment is a motion on the Canada pension plan.
November 20th, 2023 / 7:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're talking about the motion, yes, but we are going to go back to MP Majumdar.
The floor is yours, MP Majumdar.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
I appreciate the guidance that I'm getting from colleagues around the table. It shows you, Mr. Chair, that they underestimate the essential use that Canadian energy has to the national unity of Canadians, the health of their retirement and their savings, and how misguided their amendment to the motion has been. It's something that I think is absolutely relevant to get into, in terms of understanding the power of our energy sector and the ways it can be used to ensure the pensions of all Canadians.
If we had national unity around these issues, then this wouldn't even be an issue to begin with. If Albertans felt that their energy sector was taken seriously, unlike now, in which it's being denigrated by members across the way.... It is unsurprising, frankly. This has been their MO for quite some time—eight long years, I've been advised. That is how long they've been against our energy sector.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to introduce Dr. Exner-Pirot's work and her findings about how our fossil fuels and their molecules are “incredibly flexible, available, and useful...even when we stop using them for combustion, demand for them for other uses — plastic, textiles, rubber, packaging, detergents fertilizer — will continue to grow.” This is a bedrock of our national economic life and what feeds our pensions.
“They are also essential in the production of solar panels, wind turbine blades, batteries and thermal insulation” in our energy ingenuity, which is certainly something that Conservatives stand to support in promoting every aspect of our economic life.
Dr. Exner-Pirot continues, “Likewise, oilsands bitumen components like asphaltenes and resins are used in many products that light crude cannot provide, and can be developed into advanced material such as carbon fibre, which in turn could displace carbon-intensive steel.”
We're talking about the component parts of Canadian energy, the manufacturing process that feeds our pensions and in which our national unity needs to be upheld.
She says:
The more immediate question, however, is if we will stop using hydrocarbons for fuel. Here, the pragmatist must concede that the problem with fossil fuels is not the fuel per se, but the emissions. It is going to be far cheaper and faster to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into carbon capture, than it will be to replace tens of trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuel infrastructure with brand new energy systems.
LNG can already be produced and burned with very low emissions, and blue hydrogen (derived from natural gas) does even better. Japan and other countries that are pragmatic in their energy deliberations are already preparing for that version of the future.
Fossil fuels have been demonized....
“Demonized”, she writes. Demonized, she said, because she knows that this is part of the record of division that the Trudeau Liberals are imposing across this country.
She continues:
and so it has become popular to want to eliminate them, alongside Big Oil, as part of a just transition. That is not practical, in fact it's impossible. The smarter strategy—which Canada should be leading instead of sabotaging
—that's to the point of national unity—
is one that focuses relentlessly on eliminating the emissions caused by burning hydrocarbons, and using them for clean energy and materials instead.
That is the plan that Dr. Exner-Pirot suggested would strengthen our national unity in a time of great division. But this was a year ago. This was before Germany and Japan came to Canada, as a united country, and said “Listen, we need your energy. We want to create revenues for your country in a way that actually helps lower emissions around the world, helps your people be prosperous, helps to deflate the support that dictator oil has been leveraging around the world.” That is certainly something critical to the motion at hand.
I think even further about the kind of opportunity we have, as a country, were we an energy superpower. In fact, Heather Exner-Pirot published a piece in October of this year, just a month ago, where she said, “Canada could have been an energy superpower. Instead we became a bystander”.
This record of division has resulted in a country that has been weakened in its influence around the world. Liberals pretend that a trade agreement is the only antidote to solving the war in Ukraine when, frankly, our gas displacing Russian gas in Europe would defeat the Russians in one fell swoop.
So let's describe the kind of power that Canada could have as a united country. We could have been an energy superpower because the “Government”—the summary says—“has imposed a series of regulatory burdens on the energy industry, creating confusion, inefficiency and expense”.
This is the kind of division we see in the country. Allow me to venture deeper into this, because I think it's an argument worth reflecting on very carefully. This is the stuff that fuels our pensions. This is the stuff that fuels the retirement of every Canadian:
Oil arguably remains the most important commodity in the world today. It paved the way for the industrialization and globalization trends of the post-World War II era, a period that saw the fastest human population growth and largest reduction in extreme poverty ever. Its energy density, transportability, storability, and availability have made oil the world's greatest source of energy, used in every corner of the globe.
There are geopolitical implications inherent in a commodity of such significance and volume. The contemporary histories of Russia, Iran, Venezuela...Iraq [and others] are intertwined with their roles as major oil producers, roles [that] they have used to advance their (often illiberal) interests on the world stage. It is fair to ask why Canada has never seen fit to advance its own values and interests through its vast energy reserves. It is easy to conclude that its reluctance to do so has been a major policy failure.
I will comment here. It's a major policy failure with impact on our pensions and on our economic life, and a major policy failure with impacts on our national unity. Team Canada is certainly not team Canada. It's divided Canada. It's broken Canada. Yet this is despite the fact that, as Heather writes:
Canada has been blessed with the world's third largest reserves of oil, the vast majority of which are in the oil sands of northern Alberta
—my home province and Garnett's backyard—
although there is ample conventional oil across Western Canada and offshore Newfoundland and Labrador as well. The oil sands contain 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, of which just under 10 percent, or 165 billion barrels, are technically and economically recoverable with today's technology. Canada currently extracts over 1 billion barrels of that oil each year.
Just as an aside, when Germany came to Canada, they asked for our natural gas. Had we made that deal with them, the revenue to Canada—Dr. Christian Leuprecht and I have written about this—would be the sum total of $65 billion a day. In its entirety, that revenue to the Canadian treasury alone would be three times the national budget. It would help us pay down our debt. That one deal with Germany would have done so much good in this world.
Let's continue with Dr. Exner-Pirot's commentary here:
The technology necessary to turn the oil sands into bitumen that could then be exported profitably really took off in the early 2000s. Buoyed by optimism of its potential, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper pronounced in July 2006 that Canada would soon be an “energy superproducer.” A surge of investment came to the oil sands during the commodity supercycle of 2000-2014, which saw oil peak at a price of $147/barrel in 2008. For a few good years, average oil prices sat just below $100 a barrel. Alberta was booming until it crashed.
Two things happened that made Harper's prediction fall apart. The first was the shale revolution—the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that made oil from the vast shale reserves in the [U.S.] economical to recover. Until then, the US had been the world's biggest energy importer. In 2008 it was producing just 5 million barrels of crude oil a day, and had to import 10 million barrels a day to meet its ravenous need. Shale changed that, and the US is now the world's biggest oil producer, expecting to hit a production level of 12.4 million barrels a day in 2023.
The United States is now a competitor to Canada in energy production and, in this, it is a vital interest of ours to unlock that potential for our pensions, for our people, for our workers and for our country in every aspect of our national life.
Heather continues:
For producers extracting oil from the oil sands, the shale revolution was a terrible outcome. Just as new major oil sands projects were coming online and were producing a couple of million barrels a day, our only oil customer was becoming energy self-sufficient.
Because the [U.S.] was such a reliable and thirsty oil consumer, it never made sense for Canada to export its oil to any other nation, and the country never built the pipeline or export terminal infrastructure to do so. Our southern neighbour wanted all we produced. But the cheap shale oil that flooded North America in the 2010s made that dependence a huge mistake as other markets would have proven to be more profitable.
If shale oil took a hatchet to the Canadian oil industry, the election of the Liberals in 2015 brought on its death by a thousand cuts. For the last eight years, federal policies have incrementally and cumulatively damaged the domestic oil and gas sector. With the benefit of hindsight in 2023, it is obvious that this has had major consequences for global energy security, as well as opportunity costs for Canadian foreign policy.
This is a country that, when united, could be performing way above where we are today. She continues:
Once the shale revolution began in earnest, the urgency in the sector to be able to export oil to any other market than the United States led to proposals for the Northern Gateway, Energy East, and TMX pipelines. Opposition from Quebec and BC killed Energy East and Northern Gateway, respectively. The saga of TMX may finally end this year, as it is expected to go into service in late 2023, billions of dollars over cost and years overdue thanks to regulatory and jurisdictional hurdles.
Because Canada has been stuck selling all of its oil to the United States, it does so at a huge discount, known as a differential. That discount hit a staggering US$46 per barrel difference in October 2018, when [West Texas Intermediate] oil was selling for $57 a barrel, but we could only get $11 for [Western Canada Select]. The lack of pipelines and the resulting differential created losses to the Canadian economy of $117 billion between 2011 and 2018, according to Frank McKenna, former Liberal New Brunswick Premier and Ambassador to the United States, and now Deputy Chairman of TD Bank.
As an aside, these are people who understand how our economic life is managed and how our people can retire safely. Furthermore, she adds:
The story is not dissimilar with liquefied natural gas (LNG). While both the [U.S.] and Canada had virtually no LNG export capacity in 2015, the United States has since grown to be the world’s biggest LNG exporter, helping Europe divest itself of its reliance on Russian gas and making tens of billions of dollars in the process. Canada still exports none, with regulatory uncertainty and slow timelines killing investor interest. In fact, the United States imports Canadian natural gas—which it buys for the lowest prices in the world due to that differential problem—and then resells it to our allies for a premium.
We're being taken by the nose, because the Prime Minister is more interested in dividing Canadians rather than uniting us around our mutual success. Moreover, Heather notes:
Canada’s inability to build pipelines and export capacity is a major problem on its own. But the federal government has also imposed a series of regulatory burdens and hurdles on the industry, one on top of the other, creating confusion, inefficiency, and expense. It has become known in Alberta as a “stacked pancake” approach.
Let's now get into the anatomy of how the Prime Minister has divided Canadians and is undermining the unity of the country when it comes to our CPP or any other proposition that we have for the world. She states:
The first major burden was Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium.
Do you remember that one?
In case anyone considered reviving the Northern Gateway project, the Liberal government banned oil tankers from loading anywhere between the northernmost point of Vancouver Island to the BC-Alaska border. That left a pathway only for TMX, which goes through Vancouver, amidst fierce local opposition. I have explained it to my American colleagues this way: imagine if Texas was landlocked, and all its oil exports had to go west through California, but the federal government banned oil tankers from loading anywhere on the Californian coast except through ports in San Francisco. That is what C-48 did in Canada.
It's a brilliant analogy. Furthermore, she continues:
Added to Bill C-48 was Bill C-69, known colloquially as the “no new pipelines” bill and now passed as the Impact Assessment Act, which has successfully deterred investment in the sector. It imposes new and often opaque regulatory requirements, such as having to conduct a gender-based analysis before proceeding with new projects to determine how different genders will experience them: “a way of thinking, as opposed to a unique set of prescribed methods,” according to the federal government. It also provides for a veto from the Environment and Climate Change Canada Minister—currently, Steven Guilbeault—on any new in situ oil sands projects or interprovincial or international pipelines, regardless of the regulatory agency’s recommendation.
This is the division incarnate that Prime Minister Trudeau has deployed against Alberta's energy sector, against Albertans and against the national unity that compels our CPP.
Heather continues:
The Alberta Court of Appeal has determined that the act is unconstitutional, and eight other provinces are joining in its challenge.
This is the image of a divided country.
But so far it is the law of the land, and
—for very good reason—
investors are allergic to it.
Federal carbon pricing, and Alberta’s federally compatible alternative for large emitters, the TIER (Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction) Regulation, was added next, though this regulation makes sense for advancing climate goals. It is the main driver for encouraging emission reductions, and includes charges for excess emissions as well as credits for achieving emissions below benchmark. It may be costly for producers, but from an economic perspective, of all the climate policies carbon pricing is the most efficient.
Industry has committed to their shareholders that they will reduce emissions; their social license and their investment attractiveness depends to some degree on it. The major oil sands companies have put forth a credible plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. One conventional operation in Alberta is already net zero thanks to its use of carbon capture technology. Having a predictable and recognized price on carbon is also providing incentives to a sophisticated carbon tech industry in Canada, which can make money by finding smart ways to sequester and use carbon.
Isn't it amazing that the energy sector that helps our country recover from economic calamity and from postpandemic planning is also the same sector that's leading innovation and energy transition technology? It's this ingenuity that needs to be unlocked that Heather describes so perfectly here.
She continues:
In theory, carbon pricing should succeed in reducing emissions in the most efficient way possible. Yet the federal government keeps adding more policies on top of carbon pricing. The Canadian Clean Fuel Standard, introduced in 2022, mandates that fuel suppliers must lower the “lifecycle intensity” of their fuels, for example by blending them with biofuels, or investing in hydrogen, renewables, and carbon capture. This standard dictates particular policy solutions, causes the consumer price of fuels to increase, facilitates greater reliance on imports of biofuels, and conflicts with some provincial policies.
Again, a policy of the federal government is pursuing division at every turn across this entire country.
Heather adds:
It is also puts new demands on North American refinery capacity, which is already highly constrained.
The newest but perhaps most damaging proposal is for an emissions cap, which seeks to reduce emissions solely from the oil and gas sector by 42 percent by 2030.
Listen. This is an all-out attack on common sense.
Moreover, Heather, says:
This target far exceeds what is possible with carbon capture in that time frame, and can only be achieved through a dramatic reduction in production. The emissions cap is an existential threat to Canada’s oil and gas industry, and it comes at a time when our allies are trying, and failing, to wean themselves off of Russian oil. The economic damage to the Canadian economy is hard to overestimate.
In fact, I would contend that what Dr. Exner-Pirot is describing here is how Justin Trudeau is helping Vladimir Putin fund his war machine against Ukrainians, and it's unconscionable that members across the way would just allow that to happen. At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Canadian Prime Minister to be a partner of Vladimir Putin in how he has been murdering and butchering innocent Ukrainians. This is something that you'd think members across the way would care about, but they're not even paying attention to what we're saying here in this moment.
Heather notes:
Oil demand is growing, and even in the most optimistic forecasts it will continue to grow for another decade before plateauing. Our European and Asian allies are already dangerously reliant on Russia and Middle Eastern states for their oil. American shale production is peaking, and will soon start to decline. Low investment levels in global oil exploration and production, due in part to ESG (environmental, social, and governance) and climate polices, are paving the way for shortages by mid-decade.
An energy crisis is looming. Canada is not too late to be the energy superproducer the democratic world needs in order to prosper and be secure. We need more critical minerals, hydrogen, hydro, and nuclear power. But it is essential that we export globally significant levels of oil and LNG as well, using carbon capture, utilization, and storage...wherever possible.
Heather concludes:
Meeting this goal will require a very different approach than the one currently taken by the federal government: it must be an approach that encourages growth and exports even as emissions are reduced. What the government has done instead is deter investment, dampen competitiveness, and hand market share to Russia and OPEC.
This is the devastating cost that the division of Justin Trudeau and his NDP-Liberals had on our Canadian national unity. This is the type of indictment of the kind of leadership that has created problems that we didn't need to deal with had there been in the Alberta energy sector a partner in the national government.
It was partner that was part of team Canada, part of defeating Russia's war in Ukraine, part of lowering emissions internationally, part of economic reconciliation with our first nations, and part of a healthy and vibrant pension life for our people. It was to provide stability and security of a social safety net for the most vulnerable, and part of being allied with workers, so they can get shovels in the ground—
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe my colleague opposite read into the record content that supported the price on pollution, for which I thank him.
Can we get back to the content of the motion that is before us, Mr. Chair?
My point of order is on relevance.