I used it in the procedure and House affairs committee in the middle of the pandemic, when you guys were filibustering to prevent us from having a hybrid Parliament in order to pass legislation in the middle of a global pandemic. I used the Simms protocol then.
I learned it from Scott Simms, and it is a thing. You can ask the clerk if you like, but the Simms protocol is a thing. It's an informal practice that has been used in many parliamentary committees.
I'm surprised, Mr. Kelly. I know that you were the chair of a committee, and I thought you were a procedural expert. I'm surprised you don't know that. It makes me feel good, though, because maybe I know something you don't know. Who knows? At this moment, it seems true.
Anyway, I'll get back to Cenovus Energy. I'm sure you guys know them. In the pre-budget consultation recommendations they submitted to this committee—they probably would have liked the opportunity to come and testify, but they weren't allowed by members opposite—their recommendation was to “Provide 100% capital cost allowance for new capital investments that will demonstrably improve Canada's economic productivity.” I'll go on to read the rest. They had another recommendation: “Renew and enhance the Accelerated Investment Initiative to restore competitiveness with the U.S.”
Those are two quotes from Cenovus Energy that are straight out of their pre-budget consultation submission. I know that members opposite likely support Cenovus Energy, yet they won't allow us to even study this, hear from them on the BIA or have them come and tell us that we're doing exactly the right thing from their perspective and we're doing what they asked us to do. It's remarkable that members opposite wouldn't even support a major energy company operating in their jurisdiction, but I guess this is what you get with the Conservatives today.
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters is another really important stakeholder. I'm sure we all want to see our manufacturers and exporters do well. In their pre-budget consultation submission.... I remember it because I met with them during the pre-budget consultation. They attended one of the sessions I hosted, and they told me the same thing, which was that they advocated very strongly for these immediate expensing measures.
Now, they didn't call them productivity superdeductions. We relabelled them that way, which I think is a great label. It sounds good, and supercharging our economy is always a good thing. You can't disagree with that, in my view—especially during a trade war. It's universal for me that we want to boost our economy in Canada and have a healthier, stronger economy.
Let's see what the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters had to say in their pre-budget consultation recommendations. This is a direct quote: “expand and upskill the manufacturing workforce” and “enact reforms to stimulate innovation, investment, and the adoption of advanced technologies in Canada’s manufacturing sector”.
That's interesting, because it's exactly what they told me when we met in the summertime before we formulated the budget. They also mentioned immediate expensing and accelerated depreciation, which they have advocated for—I believe—for over 15 years.
We did some things in a previous budget, which were the capital cost allowance and the accelerated investment initiative. However, what we're doing in this budget is significantly more aggressive and provides a lot more benefit for businesses.
Mr. Stevenson wasn't here for this, but on page 88 in the budget, if you're looking for a reference, there's a box that provides information on the costing and the benefits in terms of economic output of crowding in private capital. It says: “$9 billion annually over the next ten years”. That's “$2.7 billion in average annual support for investment” during the years when the immediate expensing and accelerated depreciation measures would apply, with $9 billion annually in benefits. That's a three-time multiplier at least. It's more than that, but it's a significant amount. Over 10 years, $9 billion is $90 billion. I'm no mathematician, but even I can add that up, and $90 billion is better than not having it. It's better than zero.
There's another recommendation, this time from the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, AEM. They put in a pre-budget consultation submission on August 1, 2025. They said:
AEM member companies have the tools required to foster a robust domestic Canadian economy and unleash resources that help meet the needs of Canadians. AEM member products and innovation are essential to building critical infrastructure, supporting housing development, and driving productivity in key sectors such as agriculture, forestry, construction, mining, and energy. By enabling large-scale projects, AEM member products help fuel economic growth, job creation, and regional development across the country. Their contribution strengthens supply chains and ensures Canada remains competitive amid trade disruptions.
They also point to the fact that the industry “supports more than 152,000 workers and contributes $41 billion a year to the national economy.”
They said:
For equipment manufacturers to help build, power, and feed the world, policymakers must make critical infrastructure investments across Canada. AEM calls on policymakers to prioritize export-focused infrastructure project to improve Canada’s economic security and competitiveness for generations to come.
In essence, they're saying they support—I know this because I met with them as well—the productivity superdeductions because their members will benefit from them. Imagine equipment manufacturers in Canada bringing in $41 billion a year to the national economy. Conservative and Bloc members don't want them to have deductions that would enhance their ability to invest in boosting their productivity and growth.
How about the Canadian Labour Congress? They say, “The underperformance of Canada’s economy is a direct result of under-investment in productivity-enhancing machinery and equipment.... US investment in M&E has increased almost 50% since 2008.”
That's exactly why we need to do the very things we're doing in budget 2025. We need to do them to be competitive with the United States and boost productivity. That's exactly what they're saying. By offering tax incentives for investment, we'll have more investments in machinery and equipment, which will boost our productivity.
The Canadian Labour Congress has said multiple times that Canada's productivity growth has been struggling. That's exactly why we want to boost it. I have more to say on this....
Canada's Semiconductor Council, for example, has said the industry “generated $28.8B in output and contributed $16.3B in value added to the economy.” Canada's automotive sector is also very significant, as we know. Both of them support the productivity superdeductions as well.
There are lots of stakeholders and evidence supporting these superdeductions. I urge members opposite to come to their senses, work on behalf of their business communities and not slow down investments in the economy that are truly needed.
It would be great if members opposite were willing to study the BIA, because the budget implementation act has this in it as one small package of measures that will help address the many challenges our country faces and support our business communities right across Canada. I hope they'll come to their senses and agree to this motion.
With that, I'll yield the floor to one of my colleagues.
Thanks, Madam Chair.