SoVote

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have continued the infamous Harper Conservative tax treaties. It cost us over $30 billion each and every year. The Conservatives splurged. The Liberals should have reined that in, but they have chosen not to. This means, of course, that many other things the government could be doing are not getting done. I want to ask the member to comment on how there is more Conservative splurging tonight. They are trying to delete six words in the bill that are not substantive at all. The cost to taxpayers tonight will be nearly $100,000 for each word. Conservatives seem to spend like drunken sailors when they have the ability. Tonight they are holding Parliament up, and it is costing us $70,000 an hour for this debate on six words. What does the member think her constituents would think of the Conservative waste of half a million dollars tonight?

152 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

May/8/24 8:03:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy we are seeing right now is, unfortunately, not surprising. I do not see any common sense at all in spending this much time debating a motion that wants to remove six words from the title of a very important bill. As I said earlier, there are important things we could be debating. I know that many constituents in my riding are questioning what exactly this Reform-Conservative-Diagolon party actually stands for and whether its members have any right to be here.

86 words

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

May/8/24 8:04:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber. Before I start my remarks on the bill, I seek the Speaker's indulgence for just a moment. I was notified earlier today that a dear friend and former colleague of mine, Matthew Vaccari, had passed away. He succumbed to cancer. He leaves behind two children and his wife, Heather. Matt and I worked very closely together at Canada Life. I know a number of people at that organization who are very upset and sad and, of course, his family. Matt was a wonderful human being, someone who was full of energy and who always had a positive attitude. It is with a heavy heart that I extend my condolences to his family for their loss and to all the people who worked with him and who knew Matt. He was a wonderful human being. It is a pleasure to speak to any financial legislation that the government brings forward. I know that there is a lot of debate tonight about the short title and some words, but the truth is that we are talking about a bill that would increase energy costs for Canadians. In Bill C-59, the EIFEL restrictions would impose an additional cost on public utilities in this country. We had witness testimony at the finance committee from a public utility in Nova Scotia that said that the bill would directly increase the energy costs of ratepayers in Nova Scotia. I understand that it may be inconvenient for the government, or for other parties who support the government, that Conservatives are doing their due diligence, taking their time and looking at ways to slow this legislation down because it would increase the cost of energy for Canadians at a time when they can least afford it. Wisdom has been chasing the Liberal government for a long time, but it has just not caught up with it yet. How is it possible that, in an affordability crisis, the government thinks it makes sense to introduce tax legislation that would directly increase the cost of energy for certain Canadians in this country, in particular Nova Scotia? There is no debate about it. There is no—

370 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/8/24 8:06:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as members would know, many interruptions have taken place this evening, saying that members needed to be relevant. The member started off talking about the amendment, and then he went right into the bill itself. I am just suggesting that if the Conservatives want us to be relevant to the actual amendment, then so should the Conservatives.

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 8:07:12 p.m.
Watch

If I may, the hon. member is being relevant because he is explaining why the stalling is necessary. That is how I understand it, and I do listen to what is being said. The hon. member for Simcoe North.

39 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:07:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, you are tough but fair, and I appreciate you, wholeheartedly, for your very wonderful ruling. I will continue.

20 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/8/24 8:07:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would just note that occasionally we get passionate in debate, but Conservatives did not call a point of order on the previous member who spoke, the member from Cohasset, Massachusetts.

38 words

Cohasset

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 8:07:58 p.m.
Watch

I really do not think that is an appropriate point of order. I would like the hon. member to be a little more prudent in the way he accuses colleagues of where they are or are not. The hon. member for Simcoe North.

43 words

Accuses

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:08:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be from Simcoe North. As I was mentioning, at a time when Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, the government's stated policy objective is to make energy more expensive. We are the only country on the planet that has increased the cost of energy through direct carbon tax increases and now also through an indirect increase by imposing additional taxes on public utilities, which is commonly referred to as the EIFEL restrictions. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I speak to this bill tonight, especially on the short title. I think we can think of many better titles for this bill, including “the Government of Canada wants people to pay more”, “the Government of Canada does not think people pay enough for energy” or “the Government of Canada is just out of ideas”. Those would be far better titles for the bill. There were some competition provisions in this bill, which also raised some concern. The government has made very significant and substantive changes to competition policy in the last three budget bills. Each time, interestingly enough, it says that these provisions are monumental and that it has made these great changes to the competition policy that have never been seen before, but only a few months later, it brings in some more changes. I say that because it has had a lot of time to think about what it would do with competition policy. The government proposed a number of substantive changes, and I have to give my NDP colleague credit, who is now the new member of the finance committee. He sliced up and diced up the government's competition provisions in this bill like never before. In fact, the government should be embarrassed that the competition provisions it put forward in Bill C-59 were completely redrafted by its coalition partner. It had multiple months and years to think about the provisions it wanted to change. When it finally said that it had the best changes, it got absolutely railroaded by its supply and confidence partner. That should be embarrassing for the government. That is why we are here debating this bill and debating the title. If members want another title for the bill, as this is a government that is out of ideas, how about, “we think people can pay just a little more”. That is what the bill should be called because energy bills are going up for people in Nova Scotia with this bill. In addition, the number of drafting errors in this bill are significant. There was a provision called the dividend deduction rules. As soon as the budget bill was tabled, some smart individual did not think that the government understood how it was going to affect individual life insurance policyholders and that maybe somebody should call it and give it a lesson. It took eight months for it to explain how a particular life insurance product worked when participating in whole life insurance. It eventually brought in a significant amendment to fix it. This bill was delayed because of all the drafting errors in it and because the government did not even understand how these significant changes would affect the cost to Canadians. These are the reasons for which we are trying to delay the bill. The government does not have a sweet clue about what some of these amendments do. Now the government is saying that it has to pass the bill because the market is asking for the investment tax credits. Guess what? We can pass the bill tonight if the government wants to, and no one can use the investment tax credits because the CRA and Natural Resources Canada still have not put out the guidance required for companies to take advantage of the investment tax credits. If the government was so serious about getting this bill passed, it would have had all of its homework done, but it does not. Maybe the dog ate it. I do not know what the excuse is, but the Liberal government is not ready. It is out of ideas. It chose to delay this bill until now. It was the government that had drafting errors in the bill. It decided to make energy more expensive in the bill. The government tried to indirectly make life insurance products more expensive in this bill, but then it realized that five million Canadians would have to pay more for their life insurance products because they were trying to find revenue somewhere and tax the big banks more and tax financial institutions more, not realizing that those costs for that product are passed directly to consumers. I was very pleased to speak against the short title of this bill, if that means we can keep energy costs lower for some Canadians for just a little longer. I welcome the wonderful questions from the member for Winnipeg North, as I know he always has a zinger.

837 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/8/24 8:14:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint the member, but I am sure that he could imagine how this might seem, to people following the debate, as though the Conservatives are acting like fish out of water, flipping and flopping all over the place. The member said that they want to hold up the bill and that they do not want the bill to pass. He seems prepared to admit that the Conservative Party just does not want the bill to pass, which is why they are holding it up, yet the person who moved the motion that he was actually debating said that the government cannot pass this legislation. Does he not see the inconsistency in the discussions that Conservatives, or the reformers across the way, are having with their collective Conservative mind?

135 words

Debating

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:15:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what happens in the Liberal caucus, but we have a lot of individual members here who have individual aspirations, individual reasons for how they vote and individual reasons for why they feel compelled to speak. The reason I am speaking tonight is that the energy bills of the people of Nova Scotia are going to go up as soon as this bill passes. I think it is irresponsible to do anything but try to prevent that from happening just a little longer.

88 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/8/24 8:15:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to work with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. He always has a thorough knowledge of the issues and makes constructive suggestions. I want to ask him about the amendment to the Competition Act. He referred to it in his speech. For years, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been announcing a comprehensive reform. However, the reforms have come in bits and pieces, in Bill C‑56 and Bill C‑59. The commissioner of competition told us it was not enough, that it would take this and that. Public officials replied that if we did such and such, it would affect something else that was not in the bill. In fact, we were supposed to have a bill to reform the entire Competition Act. Does my colleague think that doing things this way amounts to incompetence on the part of the government?

154 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:17:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed working with my friend at the finance committee. I think he asked a very relevant question. The short answer is that, yes, it definitely shows the incompetence of the government because, every few months, the Liberals see a shiny new bauble and decide they are going to change the Competition Act. One would think that the Liberals have had enough time, after being in power for nine years, nearly a decade some might say, to do things properly, yet they chose piecemeal amendments, which they say are monumental every single time, but the amendments do not actually hang together. One wonders what is really going on over there.

114 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/8/24 8:17:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rather shocked to be here tonight debating a Conservative amendment to change a short title. As this is costing Canadian taxpayers $70,000 an hour, the Conservatives will be wasting $420,000 tonight to change a title. I ask my colleague if this is how he is going to manage public finances if, by some misfortune, his party ever comes to power.

66 words

Short

Mr. Adam Chambers

May/8/24 8:18:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member likes to talk about wasting money, but the NDP members are supporting the government for incredible amounts of corporate welfare. The NDP has chosen to support this bill with tons of corporate welfare in it and has chosen to support a budget that has tons of corporate welfare in it, but it has only a pittance for those with disabilities. They are turning their backs on a primary constituency for themselves and then trying to lecture us about spending money properly. Members of the NDP are supporting an incredible amount of corporate welfare and are turning their backs on one of their primary, normal constituencies.

110 words

The Speaker

May/8/24 8:18:51 p.m.
Watch

I see the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is on his feet, but unfortunately he is not in his seat to ask a question. I am terribly sorry. To be honest, colleagues, we are now about 15 seconds over the time for questions and comments. It was going to be a particularly short question.

56 words