Debates of April 17th, 2023

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is so registered.

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

Madam Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

It is an honour to rise today to speak to this budget bill, which is a very important budget. I have been sitting here for quite some time listening to Conservatives routinely talk about the government spending too much money, but then the same speakers in the same speeches talk about all the places where we should be spending more money. I am getting mixed statements coming from the other side of the House on what we should be doing. Nonetheless, I would like to address some of the points I have heard today.

First, I am going to start with the issue of the debt and deficit we have in Canada. There is no doubt that we are still coming down off of the debt and deficits that were taken on during the pandemic to support Canadians. It is a public policy that we decided on in this country, as most OECD countries did, if not all to at least some degree, to take care of Canadians, our constituents and residents, during the pandemic. That is exactly what we did. We ensured they had the supports they needed.

We are obviously coming down off of that. The deficits are getting smaller as we move away from and put the pandemic behind us, but it should be said that, in comparison to other countries, when we compare the inflationary impacts of Canada to the United States, for example, the United States is seeing much steeper inflation, especially as it relates to items such as groceries, which the Conservatives always want to bring up.

I am not saying all of this because I am trying to say we should not be worried about inflation. We should, and it something that we do need to tackle. What I am saying is that inflation has been happening globally. It is something that the world is experiencing. Yes, there is a lot of credit to the argument that it had to do with the supports that went out. It is not due exclusively to that, but, globally speaking, when we look at that, we can draw a correlation to it. However, we should not suggest that inflation in Canada is happening in isolation from the rest of the world or, more importantly, that we would have had the ability to control inflation in isolation from the rest of the world, especially when we consider how globalized our economy is.

We have more trade agreements with other countries than any other country in the world. What does that mean? That means that, when we build things, things are flying across the border. I will give a perfect example. I do not know if members know this, but 80% of the nylon that goes into airbags comes from the Invista plant in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. It makes the nylon, and that nylon will probably travel somewhere to the United States where it is made into the fabric. It then maybe goes somewhere in Mexico through the NAFTA agreement to be fabricated into the airbag, then it probably passes to another country to create the airbag that goes into the steering wheel, and from there the process continues.

My point is that we are a globalized country that has significant trade with many different countries. The unfortunate reality of that is that inflationary impacts are not something we can control in isolation from the rest of the world. If we tried to take an inverted approach and only focused within Canada, saying we will do things without the rest of the world, we would be left behind. As a matter of fact, if we look at the United States and Donald Trump's approach when he was president, we see that he took that approach, and he was unsuccessful in doing it because of that globalization, and it still saw more inflation than Canada did.

I respect the argument because it is a great talking point. It points the blame at somebody, but the reality is that, when Conservatives point the finger at this government to say it has caused all of the inflation in this country, it is ludicrous. It just does not make sense, and it is unfair.

Having said all of that, it is also worth pointing out that, despite the challenging times that the world is seeing right now, Canada continues to have the lowest deficit in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Why is that important?

It means that, as our economy is growing, and as we are seeing new industries and we are expanding, we are able to keep that deficit in check, relatively speaking, against other countries. Also, very important is the fact that Canada continues to maintain a AAA credit rating.

We should all be concerned about the inflation we are seeing throughout the world. We should certainly be concerned about how it is impacting Canadians here in Canada, but to suggest, for a second, that it is something that we could control while also, at the same time, engaging in the globalization and the global trade that we do, is just wrong. It does not make sense, and any economist would tell us that. It is extremely disingenuous when we hear from the opposition that that is the case.

I also find it absolutely remarkable, and I have said this a number of times, that if people believe that the Prime Minister of Canada, whom the official opposition is very critical of on a daily basis, is responsible for inflation in our country, then they would somehow have to also accept the fact that he is responsible for inflation throughout the world.

To my Conservative colleagues, I would say that, for somebody they do not have a lot of faith in to do anything, to suddenly be giving that individual credit for affecting global inflation is truly a remarkable feat. They cannot have it both ways, despite the fact that Conservatives would like to do that.

The other falsehood or talking point we continually hear from Conservatives, and I would like to take the opportunity to try to once again set the record straight, as I am broken record, and I have been saying this for five or six years, respects the carbon tax, or what we, and I, like to call a price on pollution. I will explain why that is in a second. If the term of the day is “carbon tax”, I am happy to entertain the discussion.

What Conservatives always leave out when they are talking about that, every single time, is the fact that there is a rebate. Although the price on pollution might triple by 2030, and not a couple of days ago, as the Conservative rhetoric would like people to believe, although that may be increasing, and it does increase every year, so too does the rebate. The rebate is reflective of how much people are paying and what they are paying on that price on pollution, or that carbon tax.

That is important because of my reason why I prefer to call it a price on pollution as opposed to a carbon tax. A tax is something that is intended to be collected into general revenues and then used for supports, income redistribution to support those in particular hardships who need it at various times, and that is not what this levy does. It takes the money and then returns that money to Canadians. It is the exact same amount. Whether one made $1 million dollars last year or $10,000, we all got the same amount based on the number of people in our family, in our households.

Now, a very valid question would be why we would even bother doing that if we are giving the money back. I think it is actually a good question, and a lot of people ask that. There is a very simple explanation for it. Economists throughout the world resoundingly agree that, when a price is put on something, it changes the behaviour in the marketplace. It incentivizes people to make different choices.

If people are making very environmentally friendly choices and they are paying just a little into that price on pollution, they stand to gain more back than they put in. That is an incentive to incentivize people to make different decisions as it relates to the choices they are making when they are making purchases.

Those are two very important things that I wanted to bring up in this debate, because I think they are germane based on the discussion I have heard thus far. I will certainly be supporting this budget. This is a budget that respects the circumstances we are in and that we have just come out of, and it is a budget that looks towards the future to invest in people and in businesses throughout our country.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a very short question: What set of circumstances would the member envision where the ratio of debt to GDP would drop? If the Deputy Prime Minister stated last year that it was always going to drop but this year it did not, circumstances changed, what set of circumstances would allow for some responsibility here?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I am so glad that I was asked it.

The reality is that if our economy continues to grow, and grow at a faster pace, which it is through immigration, through investing in people and businesses, then we are taking on debt and our net benefit, our net bottom line, is actually ahead. That is why Conservatives have done it. That is why Liberals have done it. That is why, out of the last 16 budgets introduced by Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney, only two ran surpluses. Every other run ran a deficit, because they all understood the economics would be the exact same. I guarantee the member that if the Conservatives end up on this side of the House, they will continue to do the exact same thing.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, since my colleague mentioned the environment a few times in his speech, I want to engage him on that issue.

Much like the Bloc Québécois, many groups recognize that the budget contains some positive measures for the environment. However, everyone sees eye to eye on criticizing the investments in carbon capture and storage, as this only offers a vague hope of a transition to a cleaner economy.

Why, on the one hand, are we investing in greener technologies while, on the other hand, we keep funding a technology that is not well developed and that itself generates greenhouse gases?

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

Madam Speaker, that is another great question.

I appreciate it, but I do not think the future is in carbon capture. However, I do know that we have a limited runway in front of us to protect our environment for my children, the member's children and all members' children and grandchildren. We have to throw everything at the problem that we possibly can at this point in my opinion.

So, if investing in carbon capture is not the best solution, I would agree, is it a solution that we can use at least in the interim? Possibly, and I want to see if that will materialize. I want to see if it is a possibility. At the end of the day, of course, I do not want to be capturing carbon forever. I do not want that to be the solution. I want to move away from the problem of even having to capture the carbon in the first place.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the carbon tax.

That is something that the NDP agrees with. However, his government continues to give subsidies to oil and gas companies. On one hand, the government wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but on the other hand, it is using taxpayers' money to continue supporting fossil fuels that produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases.

Does he not think that is a contradictory position?

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

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting point that NDP members always bring up. They say we are investing in fossil fuel subsidies. However, no, the subsidies have actually been going down. What we have been investing in, which makes it look like they have been going up, is dealing with things like orphan wells.

We should not be in a position where previous companies that have gone out of business left wells behind for society to deal with, but the reality is that those wells are there and we have to deal with them. When the NDP talks about our increase in subsidies, they are adding into that calculation money used for dealing with orphan wells, and I would submit that it is not a subsidy. This is something that we need to do as a society because, as a society, we allowed companies to not deal with them effectively themselves when they should have.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the budget. To begin, I want to talk about something that is not necessarily in the budget but is an area where I sincerely hope the Liberal government left itself some wiggle room. I am talking about the negotiations with the federal public service.

Time is running out. The federal government has been given an ultimatum. It has until Tuesday at 9 p.m. to come to a negotiated agreement for the 155,000 men and women who work for us, for Quebeckers and Canadians, and who need a new collective agreement. Theirs expired two years ago. I think that these men and particularly these women deserve respect. They do not deserve to grow poorer with an insufficient offer at a time when the cost of living is going through the roof. This is evident when we look at the cost of groceries, housing and many other things.

I simply want to reiterate that federal public servants can count on the NDP's support. I really encourage the President of the Treasury Board to give a bargaining mandate that will make it possible to come to a negotiated settlement and show respect for these workers who were there for us and continue to be there for us and who serve all Canadians.

When we talk about investments, when we talk about expenditures, when we talk about investing in our federal public service, for example, but also in other things, such as our social programs, many people will say that this is a difficult situation, that we may not have the means to do that and that we should not make those investments because they are so costly. They will say that there are deficits, that we need to be prudent and responsible. The NDP agrees.

However, it is also essential to have the political courage to put in place measures to ensure tax fairness and, consequently and ultimately, social justice. That is why, as a left-wing party and as progressives, we are concerned about being able to find the money, wherever it is, to invest in people, in our communities, in our cities and towns and in our workers.

Where can this money be? It is interesting because the Canada Revenue Agency recently released a study it conducted itself on what is called the tax gap. The tax gap is an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax that should have been collected from individuals and companies, including major corporations, and what was actually collected. As we know, there are loopholes, tax avoidance and tax evasion. The federal government is still having a hard time taking drastic action on these issues. I was recently in Montreal with a group, a collective called Échec aux paradis fiscaux, that gathered in front of the Canada Revenue Agency to remind it of its own study.

The Canada Revenue Agency assessed the years from 2014 to 2018. This was the first time this type of self-assessment was done on the tax gap. What we learned is that each and every year we lose between $18 billion and $23 billion in revenue that we failed to collect but is owed to us. That is huge. Imagine what we could do with that $18 billion to $23 billion a year that we miss out on. That could pay for dental care for everyone and provide universal public pharmacare to everyone. It would be extremely beneficial for us as society to have better health care and to be able to meet people's basic needs.

Who are the big tax gap villains who slip through the cracks in the system? Those would be the large corporations, which are responsible for 70% of the tax gap even though they represent only 1% of all registered companies. It is not small businesses, the corner stores or the mom-and-pop shops that are finding ways to avoid paying taxes. Large and very large corporations are responsible for 70% of it.

A collective called Échec aux paradis fiscaux has reiterated that there are no concrete measures. There have been no announcements or new measures put in place to recover this shortfall. Once the facts have been established, not by a group of external individuals, but by the Canada Revenue Agency itself, which reports on the money missing every year, I hope the government will listen, acknowledge the problem and take real, meaningful action.

We could also talk about the CEOs, the big bosses of these companies who are seriously lining their pockets, while people are struggling to make ends meet. I have some pretty clear examples. Last year, Loblaws pocketed $1.9 billion in profits, an increase of more than 20%. That is a lot of money. People who go to the grocery store and have to do without things like meat, vegetables and really essential goods for their families are seeing Loblaws pocketing a lot of money and substantially increasing its profits.

The CEO of Loblaws, Galen Weston, recently got a raise and saw his salary go from $8 million to $11.8 million a year. We are talking about $11.8 million a year for someone who is making record profits while people are struggling to pay for groceries. If that is not the definition of indecency, then I do not know what is. It is nothing short of insulting, because while the ultra-rich continue to line their pockets ordinary citizens are struggling and actually paying the price.

Mr. Weston earns 431 times the average salary of his own employees. Our esteemed Mr. Weston earns $5,679 an hour, and he is not the only one in this country, or even the only one in his company, to make that kind of money. Richard Dufresne, a senior executive at Loblaws, got a raise in 2021-22, and his salary went from $1.8 million a year to $5.4 million a year. He started earning about $4 million more in one year. We are still talking about the same company.

Let us keep to the major grocery chains. The annual salary of the CEO of Sobeys is $13 million, while that of the CEO of Scotiabank is $12 million. On average, the CEOs of major Canadian companies earn 191 times the salary of Canadian workers.

The NDP thinks that significant tax measures must be implemented to put an end to this abuse and to stop the select few in the ruling class from lining their pockets while full-time workers are being paid minimum wage, can barely afford to pay their rent and have to use food banks. I share their anger and frustration at seeing the ultra-rich always wanting more, even though they really do not need it.

Getting back to the budget, there are some good things that will improve peoples' lives. I am proud to talk about them because many originated with the NDP. The agreement that we negotiated forces the Liberal government to take the kind of action that it never wanted to take in the past. It is rather amusing to see the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance boast about the new dental benefit, because the NDP proposed the same thing just two years ago and, at that time, the Liberals thought it was a very bad idea. We had to convince them. It took some time. However, this year, children under 18 and seniors aged 65 and over will have their dental care covered. We know how important that is to people's quality of life.

I also want to talk about the GST rebate, which is known as the grocery rebate. That is the new name the Liberals have given it. That was another NDP demand. Next July, people who really need it will receive several hundred dollars.

Those are concrete measures, and we owe it all to the work of the NDP caucus. With the balance of power, with our bargaining position, we have been able to get help for people, and we are going to continue doing that, particularly on issues that affect pretty much everyone, like social housing, affordable housing and home ownership. We want a more just and equitable society for everyone.

I think my time is up. I will be happy to take questions from my colleagues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to pick up on the issue of housing because back in the nineties, there was a big push from all political parties inside the chamber that the federal government not play a role in national housing. I was an MLA at the time, and I believed that that was wrong. We would have to go back generations to see a federal government like the one we have today, playing such a strong leadership role on housing, including the first-ever national strategy on housing.

The federal government needs to play a strong role, but we also need to see the municipalities in particular, as well as the provinces and other stakeholders, step up and play a very important role so that Canadians can get that affordable housing. Could my colleague provide his thoughts about this?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. All levels of government have a responsibility when it comes to housing. That is true. However, the federal government has fallen behind. It is appalling. Nothing has been done for years, and now we have a lot of catching up to do.

As far as Quebec is concerned, it is a shame that it took three years of negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec to finally get the money out the door and see projects get off the ground. We are very behind.

In Montreal alone, there are 24,000 people on a waiting list for social housing. Social housing is the best way to lift people out of poverty and give them a real hand up. The federal government is still not doing enough.

While it is true that a housing strategy has been put in place, it has not been improved and it is not meeting the real needs of people in the community. We want to see the federal government investing more heavily in social housing.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction. There is a Québec Solidaire motion before the Quebec National Assembly that states that health care falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. Quebec is asking for unconditional financial compensation for dental care, and it wants that amount transferred so it can improve coverage for a program it already has.

I would like to know what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie thinks of that request for unconditional financial compensation.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will quickly respond with “a promise is a promise”. We campaigned on that. We promised Quebeckers and Canadians that if they elected us to the House, we would work to make dental care accessible for the most vulnerable members of society and the middle class. That is exactly what we are doing, without interfering in Quebec's health care system. We will not tell hospitals what to do. We will not even open dental clinics. We will take the bill and pay it. That will make a significant difference in the lives of people in need, those without private insurance who cannot afford to see a dentist.

I am very eager to go see Quebeckers and tell them that, thanks to the NDP, they can now have nice teeth, a beautiful smile, and pay their dental bill.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my brilliant colleague for his remarks. He spoke a bit about the excess profits in the grocery sector. This is something I have heard about from constituents. They go to the grocery store and are astounded by how few groceries they can buy with the same money that just months ago, if not years ago, bought much more food to put on the table. Then they turn on their television and see that the CEO of a big grocery corporation is getting a raise in the millions of dollars. I think for many people, this is simply unacceptable. What approach would my colleague have liked to see in this budget to properly tackle the issue of grocery prices?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, it appears that a millionaire's appetite for spending millions of dollars of ordinary people's money has no bounds, even though people are going hungry and would like to eat real food. One thing that was not in this budget but that the NDP is proposing is a wealth tax. This would ensure that wealthy families with substantial means would pay for some of the investments needed to truly make it possible for people to help those most in need and to lift people out of poverty. That is the minimum for social justice.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague and political mentor, the member for Repentigny.

We are here to talk about budget 2023. As an economist, I have to say that it is rare to have so many questions after looking at the numbers. If the Liberal government is looking for a title for this year's budget, then I would humbly suggest, “Transparency? What is that?”

When I came out of the lock-up, I was both disappointed and worried. First, I was disappointed to see that certain necessary measures had been left out of the budget. I am talking mainly about the EI reform the government has been promising for years now. The government is once again failing unemployed workers. It is taking their money but excluding a huge portion of the people who fund the system and completely abandoning them. Now, the government is refusing to reform the system, despite the many promises it made in that regard. What is more, we are on the verge of a recession. A recession means job losses, making it all the more important to have a good EI system, but that does not exist.

The government also forgot about seniors. There are no measures to improve their situation, even though we know that they are being hit particularly hard by inflation.

Obviously, I was disappointed with the budget. However, something bigger was exposed in this budget, and that is a blatant lack of transparency. Unfortunately, that is a Liberal hallmark nowadays. That is borne out by everything going on these days, be it cases of Chinese interference within the government itself or donations received by organizations with close ties to the Prime Minister. It is still the same so-called logic that is based on contempt for taxpayers, contempt for the public. The government is telling taxpayers that it will do as it pleases and that they cannot ask any questions because no answers will be provided. That is really problematic because transparency is a pillar of democracy. Without transparency, there is no democracy.

The budget provides several examples of this lack of transparency. The first is that, now, there are fewer and fewer grants and more and more tax credits. Tax credits, as my colleagues know, are not obvious to the average citizen. A company submits an application, it is processed by the Canada Revenue Agency, and the average citizen cannot see who is receiving that tax credit.

At the same time, the budget announces that more and more funds will be granted to and managed by Crown corporations. Once again, Crown corporations are not exactly models of transparency. Let us begin with the example of Crown corporations. They are not subject to the same disclosure regulations as government departments, for example.

As members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, we look at departmental spending line by line. Anyone can find out how much a department has given in grants, not tax credits, to an organization. Unfortunately, the same cannot be done with Crown corporations, because they are only required to disclose information to the same standard as the private sector. That is problematic. If the federal government is increasingly using its Crown corporations as a vehicle for funding its activities, they need to be subject to the same level of transparency and disclosure standards as the rest of government. Again, this is a cornerstone of democracy. It is foundational.

Consider, for example, Export Development Canada, or EDC. It is one of the tools the government uses to invest in energy production projects. This Crown corporation has been in the news recently because it supported the oil and gas industry in various ways to the tune of $8.1 billion for the year 2020. This was reported in the media.

We know, too, that the Liberal government committed to increasing investments through Crown corporations. Here are two examples. Once again, EDC is going from $12 billion in expenditures to $15 billion, while the Business Development Bank of Canada is going from $18 billion to $20 billion. With this budget, the government is announcing that it intends to keep giving even more money to these entities, which are not very accountable to Canadians, if at all. It is impossible to determine which companies the Crown corporations are investing in, which makes accountability impossible.

Let us take another example from this budget. In a recent announcement, the Department of Finance created the magnificently named Canada growth fund. This budget announces that instead of being managed by its officials, the fund will be managed by a Crown corporation. The problem is twofold. Let me be clear, I am not saying that the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, or PSP Investments, is incapable of managing funds. It is capable, and it does it quite well.

However, managing new public funds is not part of its mandate. It should simply be responsible for managing pensions, as that is its job. That means there are two problems. An investment mandate is again being given to a Crown corporation rather than a department. That is a problem because it leads us to believe that the federal government simply does not trust its officials to do the job. That is a problem. It also does not trust the secret service or artists, let alone separatists. In short, the Liberal government trusts no one, except the totalitarian Chinese dictatorship.

Second, institutions such as PSP Investments are not required to report their expenses the way the departments are. Someday soon, when an informed citizen wants to know what the magnificent Canada growth fund has done, all that person will be able to see will unfortunately be total investments broken down by sector. This will not mean much of anything, considering the word “energy” encompasses both renewable energy and sources such as natural gas and oil. This gives us absolutely no information.

Crown corporations are excellent when the government needs an opaque funding vehicle. That is what they are.

Let us look at another example. Throughout this budget, there are tax credits. Nearly half the new spending in budget 2023 comes in the form of tax credits for businesses, instead of subsidies. If the government had any real intention of transitioning to a green economy, then why is it hiding new spending? Why does it want to provide tax credits instead of direct subsidies, which would allow for real accountability?

In total, nearly $19 million more will be granted in tax credits. Here are a few examples. The enhancement of the carbon capture tax credit was openly condemned by the scientific community. Some 400 scientists and scholars announced that they were opposed to this new tax credit, which would not help Canada achieve its targets. The investment tax credit for so-called clean hydrogen is another example. It subsidizes hydrogen produced from natural gas, which is a pollutant. It is not a tax credit solely for green hydrogen. The investment tax credit for clean electricity does not benefit Quebec, which already produces low-cost clean electricity. Once again, Quebeckers' taxes will go to fund environmental initiatives in the rest of Canada.

Ultimately, these tax credits clearly demonstrate that the government is not addressing the source of greenhouse gas emissions, like scientists are asking it to do. Instead, it is focusing on methods that scientists have already condemned as being ineffective, such as carbon capture.

Scientists have drawn a clear conclusion. These technologies are ineffective and economically non-viable. It is just an excuse to increase fossil fuel production.

In closing, if the government were truly proposing deficits or subsidies to get ready for the extraordinary climate crisis waiting on the horizon, the Bloc Québécois would certainly support it. That is clearly not the case here.

I have spoken about several new measures, but at the end of the day, they all stem from the same pattern, if I can put it that way: this government's uncontrollable need to hide information, operate in the shadows and rebuff any outside advice. Being mired in its current scandals, the Liberal government could have taken this opportunity to teach China a lesson about democracy. Instead, it chose to hide. If I have to make transparency my life's mission, so be it. I am 34. I will keep getting in the government's way for a while yet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if I were closing my eyes and just listening to the member, I would think she is a Conservative member of Parliament. At the end of the day, the member says there is no accountability or transparency, but let me give an example of where she is critical. The Bloc party does not support tax credits. That is what she is arguing.

There is a tax credit for tradespeople to acquire the tools that are necessary. In a local hardware store in Montreal or a Home Depot in Winnipeg, tools are very expensive. For carpenters or people who are part of the trades, being able to write them off in the form of a tax credit is of great benefit. Am I now to believe that the Bloc party does not support tradespeople being able to write off, as part of a tax credit, the purchasing of their tools?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not think that my colleague listened to my speech, or else he simply did not understand it. Throughout my speech, I gave examples of tax credits that are supposed to fight climate change and help the environment but that will not actually work. I did not say anything about the tax credit to help construction workers, which unfortunately represents only a very small portion of the budget. The government is not giving those people very much help in this budget. If they lose their job, they may not even be covered by employment insurance.

There are reforms that are not included in this budget, which is very problematic. What makes us different from the Conservatives is that we want real change for the environment and a real energy transition. This budget obviously does not address that.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that one my colleague's biggest fans may have been in the building while she was speaking.

Thinking about the topic of her remarks, particularly her remarks about the climate crisis, and thinking about her children and my children, the fact is that despite all of the good words from across the aisle, emissions in this country last year went up. We are giving money to fossil fuel companies at a time when emissions are heading in the wrong direction. How does that feel for her knowing the future we are about to hand our children?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I certainly am very concerned. I even began my speech by saying how troubling it is to see that the budget does not address the real problems. In the end, all this government did was make some nice promises. We are seeing that in many areas.

Unfortunately, we are not seeing anything specific to protect the environment. We are seeing that the government is doing everything it can to maintain the petro-state in Canada. I am very concerned about that, particularly when it comes to the environment. I would like to leave a healthy, livable planet to my son, who members have heard many times. Unfortunately, that will not be the case.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify what I think I understood. Tax credits are harder to track than direct subsidies to oil companies, because there may not be an audit for five or 10 years. The information is being somewhat hidden. At the end of 2023, the government could say that it got rid of fossil fuel subsidies, when in fact they have simply been converted to tax credits.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague completely understood the point of my speech and I thank her. That is precisely it.

Now, instead of paying fossil fuel subsidies directly, the Liberals are going to do it in a roundabout way by giving tax credits. It will be very hard for the average citizen to know where this public money is going. It will even be hard for parliamentarians, yet it is their job to know where our money is going.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as you listen to my speech, you will understand why my colleague from Terrebonne and I, and all our Bloc Québécois colleagues, are working together to denounce the tricks hidden in the budget.

Chapter 3 of the federal budget presented on March 28 includes a number of elements that I would have liked to address in my speech today. The measures for affordable energy, good jobs and a growing clean economy are indeed encouraging. There are investments, which unfortunately are in the form of tax credits, for clean electricity, retrofits, energy efficiency and geothermal energy. These are positive steps. There is good news in the budget at first glance.

I do, however, have concerns. Upon closer inspection, one might notice a deliberately and skilfully designed but reprehensible architecture, where, through the use of a single word, a very specific adjective, the entire industrial ecosystem of the hydrocarbon sector becomes part of the smorgasbord of public funds. That magic word in the budget is “clean”, which appears roughly 170 times in this chapter alone.

I will not go into the funds, the programs, how they are managed, what the funding is for, and the other specifics because there would be too much to say. I want to be clear that there is some good in the budget. Unfortunately, the problem is that these positive measures to help the environment and uphold our international commitments are overshadowed by the fact that the fossil fuel sector has undue access to public money. The government committed to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. Once again, that will have to wait because, clearly, it will not keep its word. Subsidies will become tax credits so they can be hidden. The budget is mapped out until the 2027-28 fiscal year. Clearly, this will not happen by 2023.

I want to talk about hydrogen production, which my colleague also mentioned. There is the investment tax credit for clean energy. It sounds good, and it seems to me that it is not a bad idea. However, the truth is, Canada claims that hydrogen production from fossil sources, and from natural gas in particular, is clean. I am not making that up. There is, however, no credible international organization, scientist, or expert who would say that this is clean hydrogen.

I am not questioning the need to develop the hydrogen energy sector. We should develop it, but it must be done right. The lion's share of the money should be spent on creating a hydrogen production complex with a net-zero or very low greenhouse gas emissions life cycle. We are talking about the production of hydrogen through electrolysis. The government has announced that this tax credit is available for production projects that use electrolysis, but also for those that use natural gas. The funding is also conditional upon the associated emissions being reduced through carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies, known as CCUS.

The budget provides $5.5 billion over five years to fund this investment tax credit for what the government calls clean hydrogen. The first tax credit opens the door to another gift, another hidden subsidy for the oil and gas sector, the one for investments in carbon capture and storage, which, let us not forget, has been discredited by a host of experts around the world. My colleague talked about 400 signatories. The majority of these people have expertise in science and technology. They asked the Minister of Finance not to agree to funding this false solution, which is extremely expensive, energy intensive, ineffective and impossible to carry out in the short term when we are facing a climate emergency.

They even ignored a very clear report on the subject released by the International Institute for Sustainable Development earlier this year, so very recently. Should this industry, which is rolling in profits, unparalleled record profits, not be funding the rollout of this project itself? Many observers argue that it is high time that the federal government introduced the regulations that will require the sector to fund its own emissions reductions. That, however, is just wishful thinking, as they say.

Who made money in 2022? Canada's six largest oil companies made close to $38 billion in profits. According to media specializing in the energy sector, those companies intend to take a measly half percent, 0.5% of that amount, and invest it in clean technology. Some will say that $516 million over five years is the amount of the tax credits. That is not a lot. It is very little. The lobbyists will say the same thing. Pathways Alliance, where all or almost all of the companies are grouped together, is taking strong action so that governments are paying for as much of their capture projects as possible.

In reality, these producers are getting far more than this half a billion, because the investment tax credit and the clean hydrogen tax credit are interconnected. If these companies actually believe in their vaunted carbon capture and storage projects and their potential, then why do they not invest more in them themselves for the prosperity of their shareholders and their image as good corporate neighbours?

The budget implementation conditions merit our attention. I will summarize two important elements. The budget says, and I quote, “At this time, only dedicated geological storage and storage in concrete are proposed to be eligible uses.” We are therefore talking about carbon storage. The other features of the tax credit show that companies will be able to access these tax benefits even if the activities are not eligible.

By the time an audit is done to ensure that the tax credits actually involve eligible expenses, companies will have used this accounting scenario for five to 10 years to save money, as if they do not already have enough.

Add to this the following unacceptable exemption: “Corporations with projects that expect to have less than $20 million of eligible expenses over the life of the project would be exempt from [producing a climate risk disclosure report].” Simply divide that among projects under $20 million and there will be no more environmental risks.

The cost of solar power has dropped by 85% since 2010. The cost of onshore wind has dropped by 68%. Even the price of net-zero hydrogen has dropped slightly below that of hydrogen produced from natural gas. This was found in early 2022, a consequence of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

For the past 20 years or so, the CO2 capture, utilization, and storage, or CCUS, program has yielded largely inconclusive results. The industry claims that potential emissions reductions from the oil and gas sector only amount to 10%. We are talking about investing billions of dollars for only 10%.

Suncor estimates the capital and operating costs of its Cold Lake project at $14 billion. As for Cenovus, its project will cost $2.5 billion per year until 2050. Can my colleagues grasp what this means? If only we had other places where to put those billions.

This budget does not in any way signal that the government is preparing to end fossil fuel subsidies. It has disguised them. This budget does not give us the tools to meet the target we urgently need to reach.

Spending precious public funds on accelerating investments in energy efficiency, electrification and support for renewable energy is how the government should be using taxpayers' money.

A parliamentary committee studied nuclear waste governance in Canada and tabled its report in the House. We produced a supplementary report. Therefore, I cannot ignore the worrisome position taken by the federal government on the nuclear industry. Some say that the nuclear industry does not emit greenhouse gases. Others say that it is part of the solution. Who is looking into radioactive waste? Is nuclear energy clean? No one knows what to do with dangerous waste materials. Small modular reactors have not yet achieved technological readiness.

I will close by asking what Canada plans on doing with spent fuel. Does the government intend to sell it? I know, perhaps these are projects that will be carried out in the Arctic given that the moratorium will expire at the end of 2023.

Is there going to be oil exploration in the Arctic? I am asking the question. The criticism is not over.