Debates of March 23rd, 2023

Finance

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, what I have offered up is not one solution. We need robust supports and services for families, like dental care, universal child care, pharmacare, guaranteed livable basic income and investment in affordable housing with rent geared to income. We need a comprehensive strategy to tackle social inequality.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues for engaging in what I believe to be a really important discussion today.

To be clear, Canadians are suffering right now. In my community of Edmonton Griesbach, one does not have to look far to see the devastating impacts of poverty. There are community organizations with some of the biggest hearts and biggest hugs one can imagine, but that does not go far enough when we see critical under-resourcing and underfunding of some of the most essential services our country needs to offer. When we do not offer them, we see community organizations having to do that work, the work of health care, the work of mental health, the work that is required to ensure that regular everyday people can maximize their opportunities.

People living in absolute poverty, living in the absolute worst situations one can imagine, if they have no homes or supports, are driven to a place in life where they may seek, for example, substances, which they abuse. They will fall down the rabbit hole of trying to find mental health services and will be unable to find them. It is a kind of labyrinth of poverty that our country has created, and we can address it and fix it. We are wealthy country.

We would not know that by looking outside. We would not know how wealthy our country really is by the conditions of workers. We would not know how wealthy our country is by the lack of clean water in first nations communities. We would not know how wealthy our country really is until we look at the bonuses big CEOs get. These are questions of our society, of our economy, questions about what kind of Canada we want to build.

When I speak to folks in my province of Alberta, they are scared. They are scared of a crumbling health care system that is being driven into the ground by private huge megacorporations that would seek to benefit and profit off those who are sick, and it is being allowed by the politicians for whom they pay.

Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta, right now is allowing for-profit surgeries in my home province. It is shameful when seniors are waiting in emergency rooms day after day not knowing if they are going to get the care they need.

I speak to many young people who are struggling to even imagine an idea of owning a home. Even worse, some of them are living on our streets, the most vulnerable in our society. Who put them there? It was not solely the actions of individuals who got them there. It was our society that participated in a manufactured condition.

We are seeing a mental health crisis. When I see people in my community struggling to get the supports they need, there are often massive barriers. One of the biggest barriers is money. There is a lack of public mental health care, and that lack of public health care downloads costs onto our existing health care system. This massively and exponentially compounds the problems we are seeing in our hospitals.

Hospitals cannot be the one-stop shop for all problems in society. We need to reinforce our hospitals and reinvest in them, but we also need to create more mental health supports with real professionals who can ensure that the work of mental health and the kinds of supports needed in that kind of care are met.

We are witnessing a drug-poisoning crisis. It is killing Canadians. It is a crisis that has touched every community that we all represent in this place. Whether it is young people, seniors, business owners or teachers, they are dying because we are not doing anything about the drug-poisoning crisis. We can do more.

When driven to absolute poverty, the increase in crimes goes up. These are crimes of desperation. People do not want to see themselves in a penitentiary, but when they find themselves there, we have to ask ourselves as legislators, as people who represent our constituents, how did they get there? It is not, as I said before, the actions of just individuals; it is the conditions of poverty that we have placed upon them.

There is an answer to this, and the New Democrats have been steadfast for decades to distinguish between the needs and wants of Canadians. The needs of Canadians are the things I spoke to: good public health care; a good, strong public mental health care system; housing stock that can ensure that low-income folks can get into those homes.

We need to address the drug poisoning crisis. We need to make sure that there are resources invested in mental health. We need to take seriously the inflictions of poverty and the outcomes they present. We can ensure that our economy actually works for those who are working to build it.

There seems to be a problem with our conception of where wealth comes from in this country. People think CEOs get up in a day and produce all this money. No, it is workers who show up every single day, like the small business owners in my community. They are not only those who offer their philanthropy to those who need help, but they are also the same people who are suffering in their own right. They are seeing huge costs passed on to them, and they cannot afford to compete with these megacorporations that are dodging taxes while simultaneously gouging Canadians. How can a small business compete with that? It is not possible.

We need to protect those in the working class in this country. They need strong wages. We do not have a labour shortage in this country; we have a wage crisis. When we increase the wages of everyday workers and they can see the value of their labour produced in their paycheque, that is a good day for workers. It means they can actually put food on the table, pay their bills and pay their mortgages.

However, the problem gets worse. It is not just ensuring that workers have good wages but also ensuring that these companies are held to account. We are seeing some of the largest tax avoidance in our country's history taking place right under our noses today, and I will speak directly to some of the facts on this.

The tax gap has almost doubled in the last three years. Corporations are walking away with $30 billion in tax avoidance. We could close the tax loopholes today if only we had the courage of the government to see this as a serious problem.

I will take a moment to talk about the $30 billion, which can go a long way. We are going to see a budget in a short few weeks, and it is going to demonstrate a massive underfunding of public services if we do not ensure that we close these tax loopholes.

Canadians deserve to know that when they show up to work for massive corporations, these corporations are also paying their fair share. When regular, everyday folks are paying exorbitant tax and seeing that these megacorporations are not, there are doubts about the efficacy of our tax system. Moreover, it creates a kind of distrust, which is growing across Canada.

We need to fix our tax system, in which corporations see massive profits, with some up 60%, while simultaneously seeing their tax gap go down. This is creating a massive revenue problem. For the government, and in speaking directly with the commissioner of the CRA, it is a massive issue.

The CRA needs resources to ensure that it can tackle this. However, right now, these resources are being directed to a witch hunt of little old ladies who took CERB in the most desperate time of need instead of going after the rich corporations that have massive windfall profits. Instead of taxing them, we are going to use CRA to attack these poor folks. We are calling for an amnesty for these folks.

I will conclude, as there will be a vote on this amendment in a short while, with regard specifically to the amendment that has been brought by the Conservative Party. New Democrats have been fighting for years to see a pan-Canadian licensing that would make sure we have a standard so that we can increase our workforce, particularly in health care, right here at home. We can do this by ensuring that those who bring those skills here actually have the ability to enter our workforce quickly. We have been calling for this ever since the leader of the official opposition was in federal cabinet, as a matter of fact. Therefore, we are very happy to see the official opposition adopting a very important policy that New Democrats have fought for, and we welcome that.

However, my colleague on the finance committee tells me that this specific program was not raised during the committee hearings on the budget, and so it actually was not heard. The Conservatives did not mention it. To be clear, we want action on this issue, but we will be opposing the amendment because we think it is important that the House have a chance to concur in committee before the budget day next week. It is important that we have that.

I will conclude with that, and I thank my colleagues.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively. I heard the part of my colleague's speech where he talked about not having a labour shortage but a wage shortage. I may have that slightly incorrect, and he can correct me.

I found that to be very interesting. I would agree that, especially since the pandemic came along, the divergence between the haves and the have nots is getting worse and worse and greater and greater. We know that what makes the most successful society, both economically and from a societal perspective, is having a strong middle class in there.

Can he expand on that and his suggestions in order to help remedy that?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the middle class in this country is important. These are the folks who ensure that our economy is continuing to function. They are contributing every single day. They are showing up to work and making sure that they can put food on the table.

The people I am thinking about are those who the middle class often leaves behind. This class of people is growing in this country. Those who need, who are in desperation and who cannot afford to put food on the table are the ones falling behind.

It is incumbent on the government to ensure that no one falls behind, particularly when it comes to the needs of Canadians, health care or mental health. We can make the investments that lift these people out of the condition they are in. They do not want a handout; they want a hand up. We can provide that to them because they are people with dignity. They are people with tremendous stories and life experiences who deserve the respect that every worker needs.

I will conclude with this. We can eliminate poverty in this country. It is not a matter of money; it is a matter of will.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I found interesting was about the drug addiction crisis that we are facing in this country. One thing the Conservatives are focused on doing is providing more treatment for people who need to receive it.

Many mothers have come to my office to talk to me about either somebody in their immediate family or an acquaintance, and how their son or daughter is unable to get the treatment that they deserve because of a lack of beds and a lack of access. Treatment is what these people need so that they have hope to be able to get their lives back on track so they can become regular members of society once again. Would the member agree with me on that?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my comments on the opioid crisis and the drug poisoning crisis by mentioning the lives that have been lost. We have already lost thousands across this country. People who die cannot seek treatment. That is the problem we have. One can have as many beds as they like, but if we are not addressing the stigma and the barriers to getting that support, we are not doing these folks any favours. We need to ensure that we understand the critical points of how this crisis is affecting us. We need to understand that poverty plays a role in that.

We can ensure that people have options. Most times, these folks often need access to what is a health care problem in their lives. We can, of course, ensure that there are benefits towards treatment. However, that cannot be the only solution. There is no silver bullet to this problem. We need to have a holistic solution that addresses the conditions in terms of why people are entering this kind of state. That means anti-poverty measures; ensuring that we have good, safe access to a safe supply; and ensuring that we can meet these people where they are at.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He talked a lot about poverty and lack of income. I would like to ask him about seniors.

The Bloc Québécois recently held a conference in the riding of Shefford, where our critic lives. We heard from experts on the subject. Unfortunately, they confirmed our interpretation of the Liberal government's policy of not increasing old age security starting at age 65. It is the Liberal government's way of getting seniors to work. The message the government is sending them is that they need to get out there and work if they do not have enough money.

However, not everyone is able to return to the labour market at age 65 or more. Some people are sick, and others held very difficult jobs their whole lives. I think it is appalling and unacceptable to withhold money from a segment of society like that. If the government wants to encourage people aged 65 and over to go to work, then it should give them tax credits, for example. However, we should treat all seniors equally without discriminating based on age. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for bringing up an important topic and advocating for seniors. Seniors are the same people who built this country. They fought for our freedoms. They ensured that we have the kind of beautiful blessings we do today. They are asking for basic respect and decency, which begins with ensuring that the systems they built work for them.

The position the government has on not indexing OAS to 65, and instead picking the arbitrary number of 75, is disrespectful. I agree with the member that this is one of the most disrespectful things a government can do. After a lifetime of hard work, these people are left without the supports they need; it is shameful.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that when I first came here today, I did not realize that we would be discussing such an important topic, but I am glad we are. There are a number of recommendations in this report from the finance committee being concurred in at this point. I am looking forward to talking about some of the recommendations in here.

I am going to focus my conversations on two areas that I have great interest in and that are referenced in this report. The first would be with respect to electric vehicles and electrifying our grid. The second is with respect to fossil fuel subsidies and a recommendation in here that references those specifically.

In a prelude to my conversation around electric vehicles and the incentives and recommendations that are in this report, I think it is important to reflect on how far this country and developed nations have come in terms of electric vehicles and zero-emission vehicles more generally speaking.

It is worth noting that in 2017, only 1% of vehicles that were registered in Canada were considered electric vehicles. By 2019, this was at 2.9%. By 2022, in the first quarter, it was at 7.7%, and it is said to be as high as 10% now. This means that 10% of the vehicles currently being registered right now are electric vehicles.

This is very important, and I will attempt to explain why. If people are familiar with the five stages of technology adoption, they are probably familiar with the bell curve that talks about the diffusion of new technology.

Basically, the first 2.5% of people are at the front end of that bell curve. These are the innovators, the people who go out and buy things because they genuinely believe in them. They are willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money, because they can often do so, to be the first people to have these new technologies.

After that, the next 13.5% are the early adopters. These are the people who buy things for the purpose of believing in the cause. They are starting to see a price point that works for their budget, so they go out and buy it.

After that, we have the early majority, at 34%. These are people who are basically buying because they have seen other people do it, and now they want to do it.

We then have the late majority. These are the people buying because they have to at this point.

At the very end, the last 15% or 16% are the laggards. These are the people who have to buy it because they have no choice other than to buy the technology that everybody else has adopted.

I bring this up because, at 10%, we are past the halfway point through the early adopters. Once we hit 15%, the threshold between the early adopters and the early majority, that is the tipping point. Once we hit that point in terms of market penetration, we will see everything start to move very quickly.

If we can say that 10% of the vehicles that are being registered in Canada right now are electric vehicles, we are only 5% away from that tipping point. Once we hit it, things will move very quickly. I think it is incumbent upon government to be prepared for this. It is coming, and it is going to happen.

We know there is an EV revolution. We know we need to revolutionize the way we produce, store and transmit electricity. That is why I was glad to see a number of recommendations in this report that specifically speak to this.

Anybody who has heard me speak in the House around this subject knows that I am very passionate about electric vehicles. I will speak to it almost any opportunity I have. It is important because we have the ability to tackle a very important problem. We have the ability, on an individual level, to tackle a very important issue, and that is climate change.

I am very proud of the fact that there are industries setting up right around my community of Kingston and the Islands. The first would be Umicore, which is actually in a neighbouring riding represented by a Conservative member in the House, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

Umicore is a European-based company that has chosen to come to Ontario. Great credit is due to the folks in the member's riding who were able to do the incredible work to attract this multi-billion dollar company to Hastings—Lennox and Addington. It is going to be building the largest battery-manufacturing facility for electric vehicles in North America.

It is going to be building the largest battery-manufacturing facility for electric vehicles in North America, something like $5 billion, in Hastings—Lennox and Addington just outside my riding, to the west of me.

I think this is incredible because, as we see these new technologies developing and see more and more people being interested in electric vehicles, Canada has the opportunity to be at the forefront of this. We have the opportunity to be ahead of this. We have the opportunity to export the technology once it is being developed here. It is very important. It is very important for our area, but it is also very important for the country.

There is another aspect to this. Quite often the argument about electric vehicles, when I get into discussions with people, whether through social media or in person, is, “Well, what about the mining and the lithium and all of the negative environmental impacts that go into the production of the required elements in order to make these batteries?” The ongoing narrative is that it is extremely harmful to the environment.

I am not going to stand here and try to dismiss that. I think those are valid concerns, but what I can say is that there is another industry starting to emerge in our country, another industry, located in my riding, that has one of the first plants to do this.

If we can believe this, in the northern part of Kingston, which we call, in Kingston, “north of Princess” because Princess Street is the dividing line, pretty much, for our city, there is an old industrial area. I mean “old” as in going back to the 1940s and 1950s. It was the original industrial area in Kingston, outside of the Shipyards building, which was more along the water. In this area, there is a company called Li-Cycle, which has started to recycle lithium batteries. It receives lithium batteries from throughout the country. These are end-of-life batteries for electric vehicles or batteries from vehicles that have been in accidents and have been written off.

There are actually only two facilities in Canada doing this right now, using different technologies. One is in my riding and one is on the west coast. They take these batteries and can recycle up to 97% or 98% of each battery. They can break them down into the elements in order to create brand new EV batteries.

With fossil fuels, we extract oil out of the ground, refine it and produce gasoline with which we fill up our tanks. Once they are burned, they are gone and they have created CO2, which is in the atmosphere. By contrast, once an EV battery hits its end-of-life stage, it can be transferred and broken down into the original elements to make a new battery, using 97% of that original battery. I think that is very telling about what the technologies have to offer as we move into the future.

Li-Cycle is a great success story. It is actually where the Prime Minister chose to bring the President of the European Commission when she came to visit a couple of weeks ago, to this facility in my riding, which, I should note, is now expanding because the current location is too small. The company is building a new facility, 10 times the size, still in my riding, just more on the west side of the city. I am very excited about that.

I will come to the recommendations in this report, given the prelude I have made to this point.

Recommendation 41 specifically talks about zero-emission vehicles and rebates for low- and modest-income individuals and families. This is a program, according to the report, that was based on another program from California, and I think it has great potential.

Of course, one of the barriers, especially when one goes back to the bell curve I talked about earlier, is that if someone is an innovator or an early adopter, they are paying more than the average person can for these technologies. If we can try to assist individuals to access the technology sooner, we will hit that tipping point sooner. Therefore, I am very glad to see that a recommendation is put in here that specifically tries to encourage and give access to individuals of lower or modest income, in terms of rebates, when they are looking to purchase zero-emission vehicles.

Also within recommendation 41 is a reference to “green cash for clunkers”, which I can only assume is to provide people with money that goes toward green technologies if they trade in old vehicles, which are notorious for being large emitters.

There is also a rebate suggestion, in recommendation number 41, for taxis and car-sharing services. The important thing about that is that the recommendation specifically states that these rebates should be stackable so people do not have to choose between one and the other. Again, it is really trying to help individuals and business owners, as it relates to taxis or car sharing, to penetrate into this market.

Of course, there are the educational programs, also referenced in recommendation number 41, about educating the public on zero-emission vehicles, including how to access them, what they are actually like to drive and what benefits they have for the environment.

I also noticed in here that recommendation number 178 talks about a goal of one million EV parking stalls to be installed in apartments and condos throughout Canada, which is, again, another great recommendation.

I asked my Bloc colleague earlier about Quebec's success, and the reality is that Quebec has had tremendous success in this. Quebec entered into an agreement in 2006, I believe, with California and Ontario to develop the cap-and-trade model. This incentivized electrifying the grid, put incentives into transitioning away from fossil fuels. Ontario, when Doug Ford came along, decided to get out of it. In that short period of time, since Doug Ford has been premier, the difference between Ontario and Quebec, with respect to electrifying the grid and providing car-charging stations, is like night and day.

Last summer, I drove with my wife through Quebec. It is almost impossible not to find an electric vehicle charging station once one enters the province of Quebec, because the province has been so aggressive when it comes to ensuring the infrastructure is there. The federal government needs to take the lead and tell other provinces they need to start being more like Quebec when it comes to the capacity to charge electric vehicles, because it is absolutely key if we are just about at that tipping point.

Doug Ford and the rest of the premiers are going to find themselves in a lot of trouble very shortly, once we hit that tipping point and suddenly they realize they do not have the capacity. I do not want to have to say “I told you so”, but I would like to warn them in advance that this was all foreseeable years ago. Quebec saw it and Ontario saw it; Ontario bailed and Quebec did not. Quebec is now ready for it and will be even more ready as we get toward that tipping point.

I also saw that recommendation number 179 specifically talks about EV requirements and putting them into the national building code. Why is this important? Most provinces in Canada rely on the national building code as their building codes. Some provinces, like Ontario and Quebec, have their own building codes, but they are very heavily influenced by the national building code. The recommendation would ensure that, within the national building code, we would tell contractors that, when they are building a new house, they have to put in the hard-wiring for an EV station even if it is not going to be installed now. Running a 10-gauge or eight-gauge wire, or whatever is required for that, at the construction stage is a lot cheaper than asking a homeowner to do it retroactively after their house has been built.

I live in a condo in Ottawa, which was brand new when I moved into it in 2015. I almost fell out of my seat when I saw that it did not have some capacity for electric vehicle charging within that building, as is the case in the vast majority of buildings in the downtown area of Ottawa and in other municipalities throughout this province, for that matter. We need to put it into the building code, to say that, when building a new building, builders have to at least have the infrastructure and the hardwiring in place to ensure we can deal with this when the time comes.

I also noticed that recommendation number 181 is, “Include EV charger installation or EV-readiness as part of energy efficiency programs...in older houses.” A lot of older homes in this country, especially those 40 years and older, have only 60-amp service running into them, and this cannot realistically handle what is required. Therefore, putting incentives in place to help people with older homes upgrade to 100- or 200-amp service would be beneficial in the long run when it comes to EVs.

I am very glad to see all this very important work in there regarding EVs.

I really hope that the government picks up on some of these recommendations, because I think they are very meaningful. I do not know how the committee came to them. I do not know if it was the Liberals or the Bloc or the NDP that pushed these through. My sense is that the Conservatives probably did not have a ton to do with it, with all due respect. However, I am very glad to see these in there. I certainly will reference this when I am talking to my government about these recommendations.

Finally, in the last few minutes that I have, I want to talk about recommendation 6, regarding fossil fuel subsidies, which states, “Divert subsidies from the fossil fuel sector towards the development of renewable and efficient energy sources, while supporting those most impacted by this transition.”

This is absolutely key. There is one criticism I have of my government, despite the fact that many people in the House think I am just here to be the mouthpiece of my government in the House.

Do not nod your head, Mr. Speaker; you are not supposed to have an opinion on this.

If there is one thing I am critical of, it is the speed at which we have been removing fossil fuel subsidies. I know we have been doing it. We have been doing a lot of work on it and have slowly been getting there. I understand there are always circumstances that create scenarios that make things harder to do with great haste.

However, I believe we should not be subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, full stop. That is my position on it. That has been my position on it for a number of years. That is my own personal position. I continue to make that known to those in charge on this side of the House.

Having said that, the NDP will quite often say that we have actually increased fossil fuel subsidies. I might even get a question on this. I would like to say that where we have increased money is by helping certain regions of the country deal with orphan oil wells. I know, and I do not disagree, that those who created the wells should have been responsible for dealing with them at the end of life. However, in many cases they did not.

It falls on somebody to be responsible, and in this case that somebody has to be the federal and the provincial government working together. I do not consider money being used to deal with orphan wells that have been completely abandoned to be a fossil fuel subsidy, when there is no ability to create recourse with those responsible. I consider that the right societal thing to do, regardless of who has to pay for it. If there is any way to go back and get the proper funding from those responsible for paying for it, I would be completely supportive of that. However, I will not just stand by and watch an orphan oil well sit there, and not insist we do something about it. I do not include dealing with orphan oil wells as part of a fossil fuel subsidy.

To that end, we have been moving in the right direction. I want to move faster in that direction. I see that this recommendation specifically talks about moving there quickly. It talks about using those funds specifically to support those most impacted in this transition. There are a ton of new opportunities and new technologies out there. I think the government could do very well by helping those transitioning into working in these new clean technologies. There are tremendous opportunities in the future.

I am not here to advocate, in any way, that we abandon the sectors of our country that have supported this country for so long. Rather, I am here to say we should do our part in helping them transition. This recommendation is a very good one in that regard, and it points us in the right direction.

I thank the movers of this motion for allowing me to join this very important discussion today. The good news is that I do plan to stay here for the next 10 minutes to answer any questions my colleagues have.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

First, I just want to apologize to the member. I was just agreeing that I could understand why members in the House would think you were a spokesperson for the government. Second, I am waiting for my invitation to see the battery recycling organization, because those battery packs are complicated to work on, let alone recycle.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. At the very end, I heard him acknowledge a province, and he did not name it, but it was pretty clear he was talking about Alberta. He thanked it for supporting the country for so long. I would like to make sure we do identify or be clear about which province the member was talking about.

That was quite an acknowledgement from the member about an industry the Liberal government has attacked and vilified. From time to time, it has negatively characterized the entire province. The member acknowledged the extent to which it has been financially underwriting the public services the entire country relies on. I do thank him for that.

Could the member comment on the amendment to the motion made today and the blue seal system that has been proposed by the opposition? Does he agree that we should move toward recognizing credentials? Will the member be supporting the amendment and getting this recommendation before the government?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I left anything to wonder, a lot of what I was talking about was Alberta. I would not say it was about Alberta exclusively, but indeed Alberta and the fossil fuels sector have supported this country for a very long time. Although I am very much in favour of moving away from fossil fuels, I am not here to say I would turn my back on those who have helped this country for so long. Indeed, I agree with the recommendation that specifically talks about helping the transition so Alberta and those other affected regions can see new opportunities and benefit from those new opportunities.

With respect to his question, I cannot support the amendment because the amendment says that we delete everything else beforehand, but do I support the idea of the blue seal program? It is a great program. I must admit I did not hear the entire amendment and do not have a copy of it, but if it is what I understand it to be, there are a lot of individuals with skills in this country who need to be accredited. We need people working in this country, and we need to do everything we can to ensure those who have the skills to the standards of Canada have the opportunities to participate in those workforces.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely congratulate the hon. parliamentary secretary on his speech. It was excellent from start to finish. It was profound, well thought out and backed up with facts. I thank him.

It warms my heart to see that the committee report we adopted so collaboratively is being discussed today and to see that some proposals are being put forward. On the issue of the electrification of transportation in particular, we really collaborated across party lines. It warms my heart to see our efforts pay off in the House today.

As an aside, we also made a number of suggestions for combatting tax evasion and tax avoidance, which we worked on together. The hon. Liberal member for Pontiac did an outstanding job on that.

I have a question. Battery recycling is something the hon. parliamentary secretary talked about in his speech, and it really caught my attention. It is often pointed out that it takes a lot of resources to make batteries for electric cars. I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on that.

Is recycling economically viable? How feasible is it right now? Is the industry ready?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is economically viable. It is to the point where there is a company in my constituency called Li-Cycle that is building a new facility 10 times the size of its existing facility. It is clearly something that is economical, because this is going to be a booming industry.

The reality, and this is what I was trying to say in my speech, is that, when we talk about fossil fuels to run vehicles, we are extracting fossil fuel from the ground and we are burning it. When we are done burning it, it is pollution in the air and that is the end of the story. We then extract more.

With electric vehicles, we are seeing this new company. It is just at the beginning of the technology, and it is already able to recycle 97% of the battery. It is taking the battery, ripping it down to its core elements and then giving it to the battery manufacturing plants, which are building brand new batteries out of it. Although lithium needs to be mined originally, every time after, that same lithium can go on to serve many vehicles as the recycling process gives the opportunity and the ingredients to make new batteries.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up the condition of orphaned wells across the country, particularly in my home province of Alberta. It is no secret these orphaned wells, some of them dating back many decades, are a huge pollutant. Indigenous communities are the communities that are the most impacted by these sites. I grew up in an area in northeast Alberta just north of the Cold Lake oil sands, and this location has one of the largest numbers of abandoned and orphaned wells.

It has been known by the government, ever since the first orphaned well happened, that these sites would need remediation. Why did the government not take action to ensure the companies put aside money to ensure these projects would actually be remediated in a proper way? Why did our environmental laws allow for these kinds of projects and not have the enforcement necessary to hold these companies accountable?

I agree that today taxpayers are stuck, unfortunately, with the problem, which years of delay, mismanagement and ignoring the oil sector's misdealing have presented. Why not ensure the corporations, moving forward, are actually held to account to put the resources aside to clean them up themselves?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely excellent question, and I wish I knew the answer to it, but I do not.

I was in municipal government before coming here, and the minute we built a brand new building, we had already started building a reserve fund to deal with the challenges the building would face years and decades down the road. If one goes into a municipality and wants to build a new building, they have to give the municipality a deposit on the site plan. If they do not deliver on the site plan, the municipality can come in and pay for it. Why on earth that was not set up for oil wells, I do not know. I can respect the fact that the times must have been different then. I do not know what the circumstances were like, but in hindsight, it was just not the right thing to do by all the previous governments that dealt with this.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague, while speaking, brought up the issue of batteries and the importance of them for the electric vehicle industry. I think they are also a really important thing for energy storage, and they make renewable power generation, such as solar and wind, much more viable going forward. I should congratulate him on having adjacent to his riding one of the biggest battery plants coming, and Li-Cycle in his riding has started a processing facility recycling unit.

I would like to ask him whether he agrees with me that the weakest link in the entire ecosystem of battery manufacturing is the mining of the critical minerals that are required for the manufacture of batteries. The federal government has entered into an agreement with various provinces, such as its agreement with Ontario. We tried to align the resources, timelines and regulatory process to fasten up the mining projects.

Does the member agree with me that this is the weakest link and that we need a team Canada approach to make sure we get the real mining companies started in extracting and delivering the critical minerals required for the battery industry?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Li-Cycle is in my riding. However, the new plant that is opening is in a Conservative riding next door to me, so I think it is something that both Liberals and Conservatives should be celebrating.

To his question, I would say that the weakest link is in the mining. He is absolutely right. We have all seen those videos on Facebook. We have all seen the reports on the conditions in which individuals are required to mine these products and minerals. We are rich in our resources, with respect to those. We have standards in this country that will ensure that it is not one of the weakest links, and I think there is a great opportunity there for Canada moving into the future.

I certainly think we need to establish that as soon as possible. I think that our government is working on it, and the only other thing I would say is that, when we talk about these technologies, they are evolving very quickly, and there are new opportunities coming along. We are just in the earliest phases of this. As time goes on, it is really going to take off and we are going to see incredible progress.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary has opened up a personal reflection on his deep commitment to climate action. I saw that in his face when we debated here in the emergency debate in October 2018 when the IPCC said the future of humanity is at stake and that we have very little time. I put it to the hon. member that we are in no better position now than we were in October 2018 because we have not taken the immediate action required to ensure we have any hope of holding to 1.5°C or 2°C.

As uncomfortable as it is, I would ask him to rethink the commitment to continuing to say the government is on the right track because the government continues to boost fossil fuel production, promote building the Trans Mountain pipeline and live in a world of cognitive dissonance. It believes it is doing the right thing while it keeps its foot on the accelerator to climate hell. I am sorry, but that is the reality.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do remember that debate vividly. It was a very emotional and passionate debate on all sides of the House. I would do anything in my power to expedite this even faster. I realize the UN recently said we have to make significant changes by 2040, if I recall what was just released. Anything I can do, I am more than willing to work with my colleague on that and push our government, and any government for that matter, to work harder and faster on this.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, any tax increase on Canadians during a cost of living crisis is just plain wrong. I have opposed the increase happening on April 1 to the carbon tax. I opposed the payroll tax increases that took effect earlier this year, and for years I have spoken against the automatic alcohol escalator. With the budget coming up next week, these are tax increases that were imposed on Canadians, and are going to be imposed on Canadians, unless the government decides to reverse its course. Those are key recommendations I would have as we debate the concurrence of the recommendations made to the government.

Canadians cannot afford to pay higher prices with smaller paycheques. They cannot do it. That is the type of relief for Canadians that I am looking for in the budget. The automatic excise escalator on alcohol is an especially insidious tax. It is a tax that automatically takes effect, in this case next weekend, without a confidence vote in the chamber, without compelling government to come to the chamber to allow elected members to have their say on it. That is why last March, I tabled Bill C-266, an act to abolish the excise duty escalator on alcohol.

Last night I had hoped to have an opportunity to get some remarks on the record about that, but there were some extraordinary events for those of us who were here. I will not get into what happened, but it resulted in my inability to get into that debate, so I want to add some remarks today as we debate the concurrence motion. That is a recommendation I would have hoped to see in this report, and it is what I would hope the government would do in its budget next week because the right thing to do is to repeal the escalator.

I know what the Liberals are going to say. They are going to say that the excise escalator makes the excise tax just like other kinds of sales taxes that go up each year as prices rise. They will say that all kinds of things, including benefits paid to Canadians, are tied to inflation, so why not tie the excise tax on alcohol to inflation. They are going to say this increase is so small that nobody will even notice. They are going to say that.

It is false when they claim that the tax increase is less than a penny on a can of beer because they are deliberately and purposely ignoring the effect the increase of the excise tax has on a chain of other taxes that are applied after. There are the provincial markups, there is the provincial excise tax, there are the sales taxes by both federal and provincial governments, fortunately not in Alberta, but everywhere else in Canada. Therefore, these taxes are taxes on taxes and there is markup on that tax, so it is more than what they have falsely claimed to be less than a penny per can of beer.

I meant to say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kelowna—Lake Country. I look forward to her remarks. She is from a region that produces wine and the escalator is dear to her as well.

A couple of weeks ago I was in my own neighbourhood and dropped in to Al's Pizza. I think most members in this chamber would probably recognize a place like Al's Pizza. It is a good solid family restaurant that serves the neighbourhood. He has been in business for 35 years, and everybody knows Al's Pizza in the neighbourhood. It is good pizza. It makes a great carbonara. He is a good guy.

I asked him if his customers could afford higher prices. He said absolutely not. He knows that his customers are strapped. His customers are feeling the bite of inflation. His customers are feeling the bite of the carbon tax. Their paycheques have shrunk with payroll tax increases. They cannot afford to the pay higher prices he has to pass on when his costs go up. He is aware that he cannot pass on higher prices. He is a small business person, so he cannot afford to just absorb a new tax.

However, it is not just Al, who is one restaurateur I happened to speak with. Restaurants Canada has also made this clear to Parliament when it testified before the finance committee. These people are in a competitive tight-margin business. It is a high-cost, low-margin business that cannot afford additional prices. They cannot afford to just absorb this new tax.

There are questions parliamentarians should be asking, and should have been asking before they voted last night on the opposition motion. If my bill, Bill C-266, should come to this Parliament, they need to ask themselves whether Canadians can afford higher prices. Well, we know they cannot. The cost of housing has doubled, interest rates are through the roof and the costs of transportation and groceries have gone up under the government as a result of the government's disastrous policies of running irresponsible deficits before COVID and running irresponsible deficits after COVID. A consistent policy of fiscal mismanagement has fuelled inflation. Therefore, no, consumers cannot afford to pay higher taxes.

Can the industry afford higher taxes? No, it cannot. With labour shortages, the high cost of energy imposed by the carbon tax, ever-increasing business taxes at municipal levels and the high cost of commercial rent, there is no room for a tax like the increase on alcohol. It cannot be absorbed.

The question that should then be asked is this: Can industry support this? What about the manufacturers? Well, the manufacturers cannot afford anything else either. The excise escalator makes Canadian products non-competitive with other producers, so no, our world-renowned vintners, world-renowned wineries and world-renowned breweries and distillers cannot absorb it.

We cannot let this country become a place where a simple pleasure like enjoying a bottle of wine with a loved one becomes an unaffordable luxury beyond the means of working people. We cannot let this country become a place where enjoying a beer with colleagues after work on a Friday becomes a luxury that people cannot afford. It cannot become a place where a family celebration cannot include a toast because nobody can afford any kind of libation. This cannot be a country where the hard-working men and women at Canada's wineries, distilleries and breweries are thrown out of work and rendered unemployed as businesses collapse because of an inability to compete in world markets.

It also cannot become a country where governments no longer have to face a confidence motion in the House and go to electors when they want to increase a tax to fund their spending. This is a basic principle of Parliament going back to the time of King John. When the king or his government, in this case the Prime Minister and his cabinet, wanted to spend more money and tax people, the principle was that they put it to a vote in Parliament and not put tax increases on autopilot. That is why I tabled Bill C-266.

I encourage all members to support the repeal of the automatic excise escalator. It is good policy. It is good for consumers, it is good for workers and it is good for the principles of parliamentary government.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little curious. The member opposite spoke about the importance of making life more affordable for Canadians, yet he voted against child care, which has been proven to make life more affordable for Canadians. The Conservatives voted against every single measure that has come forward to make life more affordable.

The member also spoke about the importance of dealing with the excise tax. We all want to make life more affordable for Canadians, but he mentioned that even though it would be approximately 0.7¢ more on a can or bottle of beer, there are other compounding factors. Can he tell us the precise impact there would be on a bottle or can of beer?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is different in every province. It is fairly complicated. I am not going to give him the run through, because I do not have time. I will merely say that it is quite astonishing that the government's main defence of the automatic excise escalator tax is that it is only raising taxes a bit; it is not raising them that much. Why should people complain? The Liberals are only raising taxes every year on people amidst an affordability crisis.

No tax increase is acceptable at this time. They should reduce that tax, at least back to the level in 2017, before they brought in an automatic escalator. Since then, nobody has voted for the annual increase.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about alcohol taxes. Last year, the Bloc Québécois fought for an excise tax exemption for cider and mead. This exemption should also apply to alcoholic beverages made from berries and to acerum, which is made from maple syrup.

Does my colleague agree that craft liquors are very different from mass-produced commercial liquors and should be exempt from excise duty, just like cider and mead?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I have not given significant thought to the products the member mentioned and the taxes placed on them. My first reaction and instinct is to agree. I do not support additional taxes. Taxes are high in this country, and our taxes on alcohol are among the highest in the world.

The most expensive ingredient in beer, wine or spirits in Canada is taxes. It is more than half of the cost of many products. In fact, Spirits Canada says that for some spirits, up to 80% of the cost at the retail level is tax.

I thank the member for bringing that segment of the market into this debate. My first instinct is to agree with him.