44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, as I said, I am pretty certain that driving an electric car will be a good idea in the future, deep into the future. I heard, not too long ago, that a Tesla car probably takes more fossil fuels to build than the Hyundai I drive in my riding.
Of course, we have to protect the environment, but we still have to develop our industries. If we are incentivizing Canadians to buy vehicles that they have no capability to receive or to plug in, then what is the point of it? What about all the rural areas that do not have that capability? What is the government saying to the people in my riding? What are they supposed to do? We have rural, rugged terrain and rural people travelling long distances on bad roads with no places to plug in. There is no way to sell that product.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about the idea of revenue versus spending. We have seen the Conservative Party vote against all of the common-sense tax reform efforts that we have brought forward. We have seen them vote for 2% spending for defence spending, for NATO.
I would love to hear just one idea from the member on a revenue stream that the Conservatives are supportive of, that they would be looking at to deal with the revenue side of our equation.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am really thankful that it was an NDP member who asked this great question. The NDP members were busy selling their soul to join the Liberal Party of Canada. Here are some examples: offshore oil in Newfoundland, build pipelines, develop gas, develop oil, sell gas to the west, and cut Putin off from selling his energy over to the western countries. Canada would make more money and eventually the price of gas would go down—
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 4:20:03 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Whitby.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to today's debate on Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, and to highlight some of the measures in budget 2022 that contribute to a healthy environment.
We know that to protect our planet and to build a stronger economy, we must do even more on climate action. Canada can be in the vanguard and on the leading edge, or we can be left behind. That is, of course, no choice at all, which is why our government is investing urgently in this transition.
Achieving net zero is not going to be easy. That is for sure. It will require all of us, at every level and across every industry. Families and members of the general public are going to have to shift our lifestyles, and that is going to be painful at times.
Our plan is driven by our national price on pollution, which is the smartest and most effective incentive for climate action. In budget 2022, we also have the Canada growth fund, which I am very excited about because it will attract billions of dollars in private capital. We need to transform our economy at speed and at the scale we truly need to meet the magnitude of the challenge of climate change.
For our children, this will mean cleaner air and cleaner water for tomorrow, and it will mean good jobs for Canadians today and into the future.
We know pollution has a cost and that the dangers of climate change are real. Despite what the Conservatives may tell us, climate change is real. Putting a price on carbon pollution is the most effective and efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change. We have seen examples of it in other countries around the world, such as Sweden, the U.K., Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Portugal, Slovenia, France, Japan, Chile and more.
That is why the government introduced a price on carbon pollution in 2019: to protect Canadians from the dangers and costs presented by climate change, to ensure that Canada continues to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and to put us on a path to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Under the federal carbon pollution pricing system, the government applies a price on pollution in jurisdictions that request the federal system and in jurisdictions that do not have a system of their own that meets the federal standard, those being Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. All carbon pollution pricing proceeds—and I do mean all—are returned to the jurisdictions of origin.
In the provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, the federal government returns approximately 90% of the direct proceeds from the federal fuel charge to residents of those provinces through the climate action incentive payments and the other 10% goes to projects to reduce GHG emissions, so despite what the Conservatives keep telling the House, which is that the government is somehow profiteering off the carbon price, in fact it is not true, since 90% goes back to families and households and the other 10% is invested into projects.
Today's legislation, the budget implementation act, proposes to change the delivery of the CAI payments, the climate action incentive payments, from a refundable credit claimed annually on personal income tax returns to quarterly payments made through the benefits system. I supported this change wholeheartedly and I was very glad to see it in the budget implementation act.
For Canadians, this would mean cheques would be delivered more frequently. Payments would start in July 2022—around July 15, in fact—with a double-up payment. This payment would return proceeds from the first two quarters of the 2022-23 fuel charge year and then follow on a quarterly basis after that. Going forward, payments would be received before families had to pay for the fuel charge.
I also want to mention the rate reduction for zero-emission technology manufacturers.
Technology, globalization and a historic effort to fight climate change are also creating new industries and new jobs. It is quite obvious to see how the global economy is changing. We can be leaders in the economy of today and tomorrow, and Canadians can benefit from the good jobs and economic growth that will come with it, but to be leaders in tomorrow's economy, we need to make smart decisions today. We need to attract more investment in the industries that are creating good middle-class jobs for Canadians. We need to make our economy more innovative and more productive, and we need to make it easier for businesses, big and small, to invest, grow and create jobs in Canada, while also reducing their emissions.
Canada is already home to some of the fastest-growing markets for high-tech jobs in North America. Toronto, not Silicon Valley, led high-tech job growth from 2019 into 2020, and Vancouver outpaced New York City.
To maintain that growth and make Canada a more attractive destination for business investment in the clean technology sector, Bill C-19 proposes to reduce by 50% the general corporate and small business income tax rates for businesses that manufacture zero-emission technologies. That is significant.
Specifically, taxpayers would be able to apply reduced tax rates on income from specified zero-emission technology manufacturing or processing activities. It would be 7.5% where that income would otherwise be taxed at the 15% general corporate tax rate and 4.5% where that income would otherwise be taxed at the 9% small business tax rate.
For example, eligible zero-emission technology manufacturing would include manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels, equipment used in hydroelectric facilities, geothermal energy systems, zero-emission vehicles, electric vehicle charging systems and energy storage equipment.
It would also include the production of biofuels from waste and the production of hydrogen by electrolysis of water. The reduced tax rates would apply to taxation years that begin after 2021 and would be gradually phased out, starting in taxation years that begin in 2029 and being fully phased out for taxation years that begin after 2031.
This proposed rate reduction should encourage businesses to make short- and medium-term investments in the manufacturing of zero-emission technologies and help Canada reach net zero by 2050.
Building on investments to encourage businesses to create clean technology, Bill C-19 would also make it easier and more affordable for Canadians and Canadian businesses to adopt clean technologies.
Canada's capital cost allowance, the CCA system, determines the deductions that a business may claim each year for income tax purposes in respect of the capital cost of its depreciable property. With some exceptions, depreciable property is divided into CCA classes, and a CCA rate for each class of property is prescribed in Schedule II to the Income Tax Regulations. Accelerated CCA rates of 30% and 50% are available for investments in specified clean energy generation and energy conservation equipment. Further, such investments are currently eligible for immediate expensing.
Today's legislation expands the list of eligible equipment to include equipment used in pumped hydroelectric energy storage, renewable fuel production, hydrogen production by electrolysis of water and hydrogen refuelling. The measure would apply to equipment that was acquired and became available for use on or after April 19, 2021.
Expanding the CCA will encourage investment in a wider array of clean technologies that can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and support reaching Canada's 2030 target and net-zero emissions by 2050.
In addition to this, Canada's budget 2022 makes many other suggestions and proposes to make strategic investments to help Canadians switch to zero-emission vehicles by making them more affordable. First, there is a new purchase incentive that proposes $1.7 billion over five years to extend the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program until March 2025. It will ensure the eligibility would be broadened to support the purchase of more vehicles, including vans, trucks and SUVs.
We have also allocated $500 million to charging infrastructure through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and $400 million over five years through Natural Resources Canada for charging infrastructure in suburban and remote communities as well.
We have also made strategic investments that are left over from budget 2021 that are still rolling out to help transform and decarbonize our industries. Many of those investments have helped with the manufacturing of electric vehicles here in Canada.
I would note one in Oshawa, just next door to my riding. GM Canada has announced a massive transformation that will use $259 million from the federal government to create a $2-billion transformation to help produce electric vehicles here in Canada. That will increase supply. I have heard other members talk about how they have been waiting a while for their electric vehicle.
These many investments are helping us fight climate change while building a stronger economy, which is 100% the way forward, and I am sure that they will also help to alleviate the pressures on Canadians today with the cost of living increases that we have seen.
1513 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member seems like quite a decent fellow, but I will just say that his comments and the Liberals are just out of touch.
His comment was that we would have to shift our lifestyle and that it is going to be painful. Right now in the Vancouver area, gas is $2.35 a litre. It is 40% to 50% higher than it is right across the line in the United States. People are struggling. They are struggling with making ends meet. They are struggling at the pump.
Is the hon. member quite fine with the pain that Canadians are feeling at the grocery stores and at the gas pump from the Liberals' initiatives, including the carbon tax?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite both for acknowledging that I am a decent person and also for his good question. I do appreciate it.
I would say that the pains that we are experiencing today are the direct result of about 30 years or more of inaction when it came to climate change. We have known that this was coming. It has gotten so bad that it is reaching our doorsteps today, and our government has a comprehensive plan for tackling climate change while building a stronger economy and making life more affordable for Canadians. There will be short-term pains, but there will be long-term gains, and that is what we are working toward: a long-term vision that sees a cleaner future for our children and grandchildren.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
I want to pick up on something he said. To admit that we have seen 30 years of climate inaction is to admit that this government is responsible for a large part of that. I have a question that I think deserves very clear answers.
We have heard a lot about investing in the transition, but the latest report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was quite critical of the transition. The commissioner said that “the federal government was not prepared to support a just transition to a low-carbon economy”. He also said that the government was not up to the task of ensuring a fair transition for workers, citing the coal industry in particular.
If they close one door, they have to open another, unless of course, they do not really plan on closing the first door. That is my question.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciated the work that the hon. member and I had the opportunity to do together in the last Parliament when we were on the same committee for a period of time.
I think that a just transition and having equitable opportunities for workers who are transitioning from one part of the economy to another and supporting their re-skilling and transition to the new clean technology industries is vital.
We are leveraging private capital. We put a price on pollution. We are cutting taxes on clean tech. We have helped businesses switch to zero-emission vehicles. We have changed the capital cost allowance to increase investment. We are making it easier to drive a zero-emission vehicle. We are supporting sustainable agriculture. We are investing in nature-based solutions. We are greening procurement and we are building a cleaner electricity grid. I do not know how many more fronts we could fight climate change on.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member spoke about how well his government is doing fighting the climate emergency. However, this view certainly has not been shared by environmental groups, which have called the Liberal climate plan magical thinking. For example, Keith Brooks indicated that our pledge in terms of Canada “is weaker than most major European pledges, and weaker than that of the U.S.”.
This is from Keith Brooks, who is responsible for Environmental Defence programs. He went on to say that “Canada’s Emissions Reduction Plan is the most detailed climate plan this country has ever had, and yet it indulges in magical thinking in proposing that oil production can increase”—
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 4:35:11 p.m.
- Watch
I have to interrupt the hon. member to give the member for Whitby an opportunity to answer.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member opposite always asks good questions. I also appreciate the work of Environmental Defence, which is an organization that I had the opportunity to work with many years ago. It does incredible work and is constantly providing a critical edge to the work of our government.
No doubt, we can constantly increase our ambition, but I believe that we have the most comprehensive climate action plan that Canada has ever seen. I am happy that we are moving forward aggressively on many different fronts to fight climate change and build a stronger economy. That is what we need to do. It is the task ahead of us, and we are making those—
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 4:35:54 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brantford—Brant, Public Safety; and the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Foreign Affairs.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this afternoon's debate on Bill C‑19, which affects public finances, of course. I will have the opportunity to come back to that in a few seconds.
Today being June 6, I would like to begin by honouring the memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, to liberate all of humanity from the Nazi menace. We owe them our eternal gratitude.
Let us turn to the topic that has been affecting all Canadians for far too long now: inflation. Unfortunately, this problem will not go away overnight. Inflation is affecting everyone to varying degrees, from humble workers to retirees, students and business people. Unfortunately, as economic studies from top universities have found, it is having more of an impact on the least fortunate citizens.
Inflation is currently hovering around 8% in Canada. We would have to go back 30 years to find such a high inflation rate. As I was saying earlier, it is the least fortunate citizens who are the primary victims. No one will accuse members of the House of being the least fortunate, to say the least, considering how much we earn a year. If anyone has a problem with that, they should know that there will be 338 positions available in three years. We have to keep the least fortunate citizens in mind, and the government has a duty and a responsibility to do something to soften the blow for many Canadians and Canadian families.
The member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the deputy leader of the official opposition, kicked off today's question period brilliantly with the sad fact that according to media reports, 20% of families have chosen to eat less in order to save money because of inflation. This is a G7 country with an abundance of natural resources ready to be developed wisely. We also have an active, intelligent, articulate and healthy population that should be able to curb this inflation. Unfortunately, we are living in the shadow of this government, which is slow to act and curb inflation.
Let us not forget that this government got elected in 2015 by saying it would run three small deficits and achieve a zero deficit by 2019. However, during its first mandate, each deficit was more staggering than the last. Then the pandemic started, and it was party time. The chequebook was wide open, and no one was paying attention to how much was being spent.
Why am I bringing this up? It is because, in times of economic prosperity like we experienced in 2015, when the budget is balanced, it is the perfect time to set aside any surplus. Canada was in an enviable position. We recovered from the global crisis of 2008, which was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, better and faster than any other G7 country. Our country had the best debt-to-GDP ratio because our economy was strong.
The Liberals were elected because they promised to run small deficits, but their deficits were massive. Now we are paying the price. When the government spends freely and operates at a deficit, sooner or later, the piper must be paid. The government injected too much money into the economy, and that sowed the seeds of inflation.
When the pandemic struck, we all understood that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. It was a crisis, and we agreed with providing immediate help, lots of help, just like every other country. Nevertheless, we were aware that, when a government prints a lot of money, that money has to be paid back eventually.
That is why we constantly reminded the government that what it needed to do was help business owners, businesses and especially families and workers, but that it also had to control spending. That is not even close to what happened. Two years ago, during the first summer of the pandemic, we sounded the alarm about the fact that too much money was being given to people who could have worked. People got $2,000 a month to stay home and do nothing rather than work.
During the summer, hardly a day went by when I was not hassled, and rightly so, by entrepreneurs, restaurant owners and people who needed workers, but who were told by young people in their twenties that they had enjoyed working from home the previous summer and did not see why they should go back to work this time when they could get $2,000 and still stay at home.
When a government spends too much money, sooner or later it is sowing the seeds of inflation. Now we are paying the price. When the first seeds began to grow in this inflationary soil, we were the first to sound the alarm a year ago. However, the government did not listen to us, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance took far too soft a tone, saying that it was temporary and everything would be okay. Even U.S. President Joe Biden has admitted that he was not quick enough to curb inflation when the first signs appeared. Now Canada is paying the price.
Was anyone surprised when, in the midst of the fourth wave of the pandemic, in the middle of an election that Prime Minister had said he would not call, he announced that he did not think about monetary policy?
I understand that each of us has our own area of expertise. Even though a prime minister may not necessarily be an expert in every field, he should at least be interested in everything. We cannot help but notice that the Prime Minister's interest was not where we needed it to be today.
One of the factors contributing to the brutal rise in inflation is the price of gas. It affects everyone. We need to stop thinking of gas purely as something we put in cars. It is much more than that. Every time we need food, which is an essential good if ever there was one, it does not fall from the sky. Someone grew the plant or fed the animal that ends up on our plate. Genies do not exist. We cannot simply blink our eyes and fold our arms and have food appear. Someone, somewhere had to transport it, probably in a gas-powered vehicle. That is today's reality when it comes to the price of gas.
I know that some people are very keen environmentalists, and I commend them for it and have no problem with that. However, not everyone can get around by only using public transit. As my colleague said so well earlier, there are regions where there is no public transit. If people want to get from point A to point B, they have to go by car, which might very well consume gas. This has consequences for everyone.
A week ago, this government's former finance minister, the Hon. Bill Morneau, took an indirect shot at his former colleagues when he stated that he was worried about the economy. He believes that the future of the economy is worse now than it was in 2015. This is fitting, because we thought the same thing when he was the finance minister.
He believes that the current government has no long-term vision for Canada's economy and is more interested in sharing wealth than acquiring it. Everyone agrees with sharing wealth, provided there is some. The more we have, the better, because we will be able to distribute more.
It was fitting that the former Liberal finance minister said that, because that is essentially what we were saying when he was minister. I had the great privilege of being his counterpart as my party's shadow minister for finance under our former leader, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I touched on how a Bay Street fat cat came to invest in the House of Commons, which I would consider a positive for Canada as a whole, had he proposed the kinds of measures that made him successful on Bay Street, but he did not. To make matters even worse, Mr. Morneau said that Canada's lack of competitiveness was setting us up for difficult decisions in the future.
Before I take questions from my colleagues, I want to officially say that Canada's number one priority right now is inflation. The best way that the government can deal with inflation is to limit spending. It must also reduce taxes, not increase them.
1437 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the former minister of finance also said that it was not very advisable for the member for Carleton, the wannabe leader of the Conservative Party, to be critical of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Even some of his caucus colleagues said this, even though one of them received a demotion for speaking out against the member for Carleton's policies on the Bank of Canada.
I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that. I realize he could be putting his political future in jeopardy if he says the wrong thing, but does he not agree with the member for Abbotsford that maybe the Conservatives should be a bit more considerate in their criticisms of the Bank of Canada and the bank's governor?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 4:47:03 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to remind the hon. members that partisan politics are not the business of the House.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with respect, my future is not in the hands of my colleague from Winnipeg North, nor in those of any member of the House or the former premier of Quebec. My future is in the hands of the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent, and I want them to decide what they want. I am pleased to serve them if they want me to, but this is not my choice; it is their choice.
Speaking of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, I am quite sure that the hon. member will remember well that his former leader, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, was very severe and very tough on the governor at the time.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. Earlier, he heard me put a question to one of his colleagues about what I think is a very important topic, a major detail, in the budget implementation bill.
The Government of Quebec was allocated $7 billion fund for infrastructure, and it had three years to submit projects. Now it has less than a year left, just 10 months, and $4 billion of the $7 billion could be in jeopardy because of this recent decision.
I have not heard the Conservatives talk about this, which is unfortunate. I do not think that the federal government is a reliable partner to Quebec if it is going to unilaterally break bilateral agreements. I would like to hear what my colleague, the ultra-federalist, thinks about that.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague need not be so effusive in his praise. I do not have all those qualities, as he so aptly put it earlier when he used the word “ultra”. The point being raised by the hon. member, whom I imagine is an ultra-sovereignist, is interesting.
This government was elected in 2015 and promised to create wealth by making significant investments in infrastructure, which took years. Now that it is happening, the government is not living up to its agreements. It is a sensitive topic.
From a political perspective, I would remind the House and my hon. colleague that in 1983 a provincial government that committed to giving certain amounts of money to its public servants unfortunately reneged on its promise and paid a high price.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the constituents of Louis-Saint‑Laurent for their choice of MP. He is brilliant.
We heard from the Standing Committee on Finance that the government was going to make major changes to the Competition Act. Can the member explain the perspective of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology? This is important to many Canadian businesses.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
