Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2026

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (heat recovery tax credit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Income Tax Act

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-269, which seeks to amend the Income Tax Act.

The member for Calgary Centre's bill seeks to create an investment tax credit for certain heat recovery equipment. The bill's objective is laudable, as heat recovery technologies can help businesses recover the thermal energy generated by their operations and use it productively, rather than letting it go to waste. Some technologies make it possible to use waste heat to generate electricity, improving energy efficiency while also helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This raises two questions. The first is this: Should we encourage the development and use of such technology? The answer is yes, and that is already happening. The current tax system already provides support for investments in this type of technology. The real question, then, is this: Is the tax credit proposed by the member the right tool for the job? In this case, the answer is no.

When we look at the bill as a whole, it is clear that it has some fairly major problems.

First of all, the bill is much broader than it seems at first. It is presented as a way to support technologies that produce electricity using waste heat, yet the text of the bill goes much further. The definition of qualifying equipment is quite broad, such that the tax credit would apply to several different types of equipment used in industrial heat recovery and energy generation. This is an important distinction. When we create a tax incentive, it is important to know exactly what we are trying to encourage, because that will dictate what activities will qualify for the tax credit and how much it will cost taxpayers.

In the case of Bill C‑269, the stated objective and the means proposed to achieve it are not perfectly aligned. This would have significant fiscal implications. According to the Department of Finance's analysis, a narrowly focused tax credit for waste heat‑to‑power technology could cost roughly $70 million per year. However, Bill C‑269 goes much further. It could apply to a broad range of equipment used in industrial heat recovery and energy generation processes. As a result, its cost would be considerably higher.

That is one concern, but it is not the only one. The tax credit proposed in Bill C‑269 would be permanent, unlike the clean economy investment tax credits that are currently available. Those credits are time-limited to encourage investment in the short and medium terms. A permanent tax credit does not create the same incentive for businesses to invest quickly. In addition, certain integrity rules that apply to many of the existing tax credits were not included in Bill C‑269. For example, the bill does not provide for eligible capital costs to be reduced by other government assistance received.

In short, Bill C‑269 does not achieve its apparent objective, which is to specifically support waste heat-to-power equipment. The eligibility is defined too broadly and could include a wide range of equipment, at a high cost to taxpayers. We also need to take into account the tax measures that already exist. There are already tax incentives for waste heat-to-power equipment.

For example, the productivity superdeduction announced in budget 2025 reinstated immediate expensing of clean energy generation and energy conservation equipment. In practical terms, this measure allows businesses to immediately write off the cost of certain eligible investments rather than having to deduct it over several years.

We have gone even further. In September, the government announced the new productivity mega deduction. Building on the superdeduction, this measure will allow businesses to immediately write off the cost of a much broader range of investments.

These measures are already helping to drive investment in new equipment and accelerate the adoption of cleaner, more efficient technologies.

Bill C-269 proposes a new incentive in an area that already benefits from substantial tax support. As currently drafted, the bill could provide an additional tax benefit for investments that already receive preferential treatment. Before introducing a new permanent 30% tax credit, we should consider whether it genuinely addresses a need that is not already covered or whether it would simply duplicate existing measures.

Significant changes to the tax system should normally be considered as part of the budgetary process. Tax credits cannot be assessed in isolation. We must examine their cost, evaluate whether they are likely to achieve their intended objectives and, above all, consider how they interact with existing tax measures.

Bill C‑269 is a good example. As I just explained, some of the investments that the bill seeks to encourage already qualify for tax incentives. The budgetary process provides a way to assess the impact of this kind of situation. It allows us to more effectively examine different measures, compare their costs, analyze their benefits and, ultimately, determine whether a proposal is both necessary and advisable. An exhaustive examination also makes it possible to study how a proposed measure will affect public finances.

Simply put, we cannot support the bill as drafted. Waste heat to power is a good environmental policy, but Bill C‑269 is not the right way to encourage it. The government agrees with the bill's underlying objective. We want to encourage Canadian companies to invest in cleaner, more efficient and more productive technologies. To do that, however, we have to choose the right tools.

The tax credit proposed in Bill C‑269 is overly broad. It has significant design shortfalls, and it would be permanent. It would duplicate tax measures that already support such investments. The bill's intentions are good, but a sound fiscal policy requires more than good intentions. A fiscal policy has to be carefully crafted. The measures it introduces have to be well targeted. They have to fit cohesively with existing measures and be implemented in a way that uses public funds responsibly. For these reasons, we cannot support the bill.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-269. My colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan previously indicated where the Bloc Québécois stands on this bill. As she already said, although it is clear that the bill does need some improvement and some clarification, the idea behind it is fundamentally good, especially in a context where the goal is to reduce our carbon footprint as much as possible and produce increasingly cleaner energy.

The bill's sponsor, the member for Calgary Centre, actually talked about that in his speech. Given that this is what we are striving for, studying Bill C‑269 would be worthwhile, so it should be referred to committee. Although the bill is not perfect, we do believe that it can at least be improved. We think it makes sense to work on it, and we hope to hear from experts and witnesses who will be able to shed further light on its substance.

The Bloc Québécois agrees in principle with the bill. We will vote in favour of it at second reading. Unfortunately, we have already heard the Liberals say that, although they agree with the rationale behind the technology and its use, they believe the bill is far too broad. They are concerned it may overlap with other tax credits. They believe it is not sufficiently cohesive. It is a bit of a shame that this is the reason they are refusing to refer the bill to committee, where any imperfections and kinks it may contain could be worked out.

The bill is sponsored by the Conservative member for Calgary Centre, who mentioned that it was drafted with the help of Kanin Energy and Janice Tran, who certainly has a stake in seeing the bill passed, since the company provides consulting services and develops projects in the field of heat recovery and energy efficiency. While there is certainly an economic interest, it also appears that experts supported the drafting of the bill.

We support this initiative in part because Quebec already has measures in place to promote heat recovery and reuse. For example, Hydro-Québec offers financial assistance programs to help businesses adopt heat recovery technologies in their buildings. According to reports, in some cases, up to 85% of the heat that is usually lost can be recovered through the use of appropriate technologies.

There are several forms of heat recovery, including water-loop systems and recovery of heat from chillers. We know that chillers are widely used in the growing number of data centres that are being built. Heat can be recovered using plate heat exchangers, cassette heat exchangers or heat wheels. There are numerous technologies available.

A number of heat recovery projects have already been developed in Quebec. Take, for example, Les Fraises de l'île d'Orléans, a farm that captures and uses waste heat from the QScale data centre in Lévis. I mentioned data centres earlier. In the Eastern Townships, the Humano District project has a data processing centre directly on site so that it can use the waste heat to heat its buildings, preventing the emission of nearly 400 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year. In this case, two companies with similar needs and outputs teamed up. There is also the Zibi development, which is located not far from here, right next to the Kruger plant. We know that, in the winter, Kruger meets the heating needs of the people living in the Zibi development. The waste heat is used for residential heating. There are a lot of agricultural projects across Quebec, particularly greenhouses. Serres Toundra in Saint‑Félicien, the Demers greenhouses in Drummondville and Serres Sagami in Saguenay all use waste heat to heat their facilities.

There are a lot of projects out there, but that brings me to my first question: Would this type of project, where the heat is used for purposes other than the generation of energy, be covered by Bill C-269?

Clause 10 of Bill C-269 defines “qualifying heat recovery equipment” as:

...equipment acquired by a taxable Canadian corporation after December 31, 2025 — other than equipment whose primary function is the generation of energy — used all or substantially all to recover heat produced by industrial processes and to convert it in order to generate energy...

The “convert it in order to generate energy” part is important because, as I understand it, a project that directly uses the heat produced would not be eligible. This raises another question. December 31, 2025, is the date from which projects would begin to be eligible. This measure is intended to encourage businesses to purchase equipment that converts heat. However, when a deduction is granted retroactively, is it really an incentive? That is the question. After all, tax credits represent money that the government is forgoing. We want to ensure that this is an effective measure that incentivizes businesses to make the switch, rather than simply covering expenses that have already been incurred.

However, the issue raised by the Liberals regarding the targeted nature of the measure is also interesting. Does this measure duplicate other existing tax credits? I would like to float an idea I had. Could a business that purchases heat recovery equipment combine this measure with other existing tax credits and potentially see its bill reduced by more than 30%, or even 50%, 60%, 70% or 80%? Perhaps their purchase could turn out to be practically free if the tax credits are combined incorrectly.

Are all projects equal? That is an important question. If the goal is to replace the electricity generated by a nuclear or thermal power plant, then that seems worthwhile. However, if a company is allowed to generate its own electricity to replace the power produced by hydroelectricity, the environmental benefit is not the same. Is there a clear statement of what this tax credit is intended to achieve? After reading the bill, I do not believe there is. There is no system for comparing the environmental benefit of these measures, and we have to expect that not all projects will be equal.

In addition, as we know, oil and gas companies are already receiving numerous subsidies and tax credits while posting record profits. Is the tax credit primarily aimed at them? It is a valid question. They are making far less effort than businesses in other sectors to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, yet they would once again receive a tax credit most of them do not financially need. Would this not create an imbalance among the businesses that could qualify for the tax credit, both in terms of effectiveness and in terms of the need to financially support businesses in transitioning to cleaner, more environmentally friendly energy sources?

We hope to get answers and clarification on all these questions at committee. That is why we support passing the bill at second reading so it can be referred to a committee for further study. Witnesses will then be able to provide their views, particularly on the importance of ensuring that such measures serve as genuine incentives and target the right businesses and outcomes, so that the revenue forgone by the government translates into meaningful environmental benefits.

I would add to that another aspect that goes a bit beyond the bill but is still worth considering. We know that direct subsidies are generally easier to trace. Usually, any direct subsidy that a business receives has to be proactively disclosed. When the government grants a business a subsidy, that information is public. However, the same does not apply to tax credits, which are generally included in a business' tax return, which is confidential. This makes it difficult to determine, after the fact, who received the equivalent of what amount and which types of businesses these measures reached. That is true of all tax credits, including this one. That is one more reservation I would add to the list I just mentioned.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Calgary Centre's putting forward Bill C-269 to address a gap in the system. I knew the member long before I was elected last year, so I know he is deliberate when he addresses a problem. When first notified, I was in disbelief that there was not already a capital cost allowance, CCA, group to address this issue. As a CPA in public practice, I spent a fair amount of time scrolling the details of different classes of capital costs to see where specific pieces of equipment fell for my clients, so I am glad this bill would address the gap in today's legislation.

For a couple of generations now, the tax law has not been about calculating a tax bill; rather it has been about changing human behaviour. Rules have been installed to penalize certain actions and reward others. Now, there are incentives either way to change how society behaves. In so many of the current government's pieces of legislation, there are unintended consequences from the bills, but I believe that Bill C-269 would very much address the problem correctly. This legislation would encourage industries to have green practices, not by changing their main industry but by dealing with by-products of their process. Therefore, the legislation would still encourage a good practice, not by punitive actions that could end an industry but by encouraging a practice of using its heat by-products to create power. In Yellowhead, I have a long list of industries that could be a good fit for this program, including the Mondi pulp plant, the Amrize cement plant in Exshaw, as well as the forest industry and oil and gas industry, all in my riding.

While these industries represent important opportunities for their workers and communities across Yellowhead, I also want to bring attention to an issue that has raised serious concern among my constituents. While back at home last weekend, I heard from countless constituents about the Liberal government's decision to cut the search and rescue dog program in Banff. This program saves lives. Since being made aware of the issue just over a week ago, my petition has gathered close to 10,000 signatures in five days and my office has received hundreds of emails. Last Friday, we sent a letter to the environment minister and the Parks Canada CEO, and we are awaiting their responses. The government needs to fix a problem it created and reinstate the rescue dog program in Banff. I do not think I have ever had as many media emails or interviews as I have had in the last week about this issue. I want to thank the local, national and international media for helping to bring this to people's attention to correct the issue. I recognize that this is not the issue we are speaking to today, but I did not want to miss the opportunity to tie that in with the safety of our parks.

Bill C-269 is a practical piece of legislation that seems common sense to me and deserves the attention of the House. This is about making better use of resources we already have, reducing waste, strengthening our economy and creating opportunities for Canadian businesses. In simple terms, this bill would give Canadian businesses an incentive to recover energy that would otherwise be lost, and put that energy to productive use. This is an obvious, easy choice for a government that seems to have a hard time keeping its environmental commitments.

I represent a large rural riding where people understand the importance of getting the most out of every resource. In communities back home, our economy is built on people who work hard, invest in the businesses and make productive use of the resources around them. A forestry operation cannot afford to waste valuable resources, a mine company cannot operate without reliable power and a manufacturer has to watch its operating costs. These are not foreign economic concepts for the people I represent; they are everyday realities. That is why I believe that Bill C-269 deserves the House's support.

Many industries produce substantial amounts of heat as part of their normal operation. I think about a lumber mill, manufacturing facility, processing plant or anything in the energy sector. These facilities use significant amounts of energy to work the machinery, process materials and produce the goods that Canadians and the international markets depend on. During those processes, a huge amount of heat is produced. Some of the heat is useful, but most of it is lost. That heat represents energy that has already been paid for, energy that has already been produced and energy that could be put to another use.

Waste heat to power technology allows businesses to capture some of that heat and convert it into electricity. The technology is commercially available. It can be installed at existing facilities, and the electricity can be used on site or, in some situations, put back into the grid. We are not talking about building an entire new power plant. We are talking about making an existing operation more efficient.

This opportunity is particularly relevant in Alberta. We have an economy that relies heavily on natural resources in industry. These businesses are essential to our provincial economy and benefit Canada as a whole. They also represent opportunities to recover energy that might otherwise be lost. Our energy industry has invested heavily in technology, innovation and operational efficiency. Companies are continually looking for ways to produce more with fewer inputs, improve the environmental performance and reduce operating costs. Waste heat recovery is another step in that direction. It is important to recognize that it is not simply an Alberta issue. This is a national economic opportunity.

I also want to speak about the tax credit itself. This is where I think the bill takes a very practical approach. Canada already has investment tax credits that support clean electricity technologies, including wind, solar and hydro. Bill C-269 proposes to extend an incentive to qualifying equipment that recovers industrial heat and converts it to electricity.

The proposed tax credit would be 30% of eligible capital costs. Something that is very important to me is that it would be non-refundable, which means it is a tax credit that eligible businesses could use against tax they owe. It is not a cheque from the government, and it is not an unconditional grant. The important point is that the business is still investing in its own capital. It is still taking responsibility for the project, and it is still making decisions based on its own operations and commercial needs. We should be encouraging that type of private sector investment. The economics have to work. Equipment has to meet the requirements, and businesses have to make sound investment decisions. Government should establish a reasonable framework and allow businesses to determine where the opportunities exist.

This is a matter of Canadian competitiveness. Canadian companies should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because our tax system fails to recognize an opportunity that other jurisdictions are encouraging. We should want investment to happen here. We should want Canadian workers installing the equipment, Canadian companies supplying the technology and Canadian businesses benefiting from the electricity. We should want the economic activity and tax revenue that comes with a stronger industrial sector in Canada. We should be doing everything reasonable to encourage innovation and investment, rather than creating additional obstacles for the businesses that support our economy.

Ultimately, Bill C-269 is about common sense. It recognizes that we do not always need to build something new to produce more value. Sometimes, we need to make better use of what we already have. Canadians want practical solutions, not announcements of ambitious goals. We need to respect taxpayer money, and we need to create conditions for businesses and communities to succeed. For those reasons, I am pleased to support this legislation, and I encourage all members of the House to support sending Bill C-269 to committee for further study.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-269, the heat recovery tax credit act, introduced by my Conservative colleague the member for Calgary Centre.

At its core, the bill is about common sense. It is about making better use of energy that Canada already produces, strengthening Canadian industries and creating the conditions for businesses to invest, innovate and grow. It does not create another government bureaucracy or impose new regulations on Canadians. It encourages private sector investment and gives Canadian businesses an opportunity to turn otherwise wasted energy into an economic advantage. That is the kind of practical, results-driven approach Canada needs.

The heat recovery tax credit act proposes a 30% non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it into electricity. Why is my colleague's proposal important? Electricity demand is growing. Steel mills, cement plants, chemical facilities, pulp and paper operations and refineries all use significant amounts of energy to generate heat. Much of that heat escapes through industrial processes and is lost. Estimates suggest that between 30% and 50% of heat generated through industrial processes may be wasted. That is energy Canadian businesses have already paid to produce but cannot fully put to productive use.

The technology exists to recover some of that lost heat and convert it into electricity. It is proven, commercially available and already in use, but upfront costs can discourage investment and uptake, particularly when the tech falls outside of a company's core operations. That means projects that could lower operating costs, improve efficiency and generate electricity may never proceed. Bill C-269 would help close that gap by encouraging businesses to invest their own capital in technology that delivers measurable economic and environmental benefits. It is about unlocking investment, not putting government in charge of it.

As the Conservative shadow minister for infrastructure, I certainly recognize how critical reliable, affordable electricity is to Canadians' everyday lives and, in a major way, for Canada's economic future. Canada needs more power. Advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, data centres, population growth and, of course, new industrial development all increase demand for electricity. Canada's ability to attract investment, develop natural resources, build infrastructure and compete internationally depends on reliable, affordable energy and electricity. The question is not whether more electricity is needed but whether legislators and policy-makers will create the conditions for the private sector to produce and use it.

Canada needs major energy and infrastructure projects, but those projects require significant investment, complex approvals and years of planning and construction. Opportunities to generate additional electricity from infrastructure projects already built and operating cannot be overlooked. Waste heat recovery can be installed at existing industrial facilities without requiring additional fuel. Some systems can be deployed in as little as 12 to 24 months, rather than waiting years for new generating capacity. That means more efficient infrastructure, additional reliable electricity and the value add of potentially lowering operating costs for Canadian employers. Depending on the facility, electricity generated through waste heat recovery can be used on site or supplied to the grid to strengthen local power supply.

Canadians should not be forced to choose between a strong economy and better environmental outcomes. For too long, Liberal governments have approached environmental policy through higher taxes, more regulations and additional costs on the industries and workers that drive Canada's economy.

Conservatives believe in innovation, Canadian ingenuity and practical solutions that deliver results. When a manufacturer can recover energy it would otherwise waste, lower electricity costs, improve productivity and reduce emissions at the same time, that benefits businesses, workers and the environment. Waste heat recovery can generate electricity without additional fuel or additional emissions from the recovery process. It allows businesses to do more with the resources they already have and use. There should not be limits on what Canadian innovation can accomplish when industry deploys productive uses for energy that would otherwise go to waste.

In Lakeland, the County of Vermilion River has demonstrated how natural gas recovered from oil field operations can be put to productive use instead of being vented or flared. That project uses a different technology, but it demonstrates the same principle. Recovering wasted energy can create economic value and deliver environmental benefits.

Bill C-269 would build on that principle by encouraging investment in equipment that converts industrial waste heat into electricity. More than ever, competitiveness must be at the centre of this discussion. Canadian businesses compete internationally every day for customers, capital, contracts and jobs. When manufacturers decide where to expand, they look at energy costs, taxes, regulations and the overall investment environment. When Canadian companies face higher costs and more barriers than their competitors, Canadian workers ultimately pay the price. Investment opportunities are lost, projects are delayed, and jobs and talent move elsewhere.

Meanwhile, other countries encourage businesses to adopt industrial efficiency technologies like my colleague outlines here. The U.S. provides investment tax incentives for waste heat recovery. American facilities have used these systems to generate electricity from energy that would otherwise be lost. Canada should not stand on the sidelines while competitors create conditions that attract investment. Our manufacturers, resource sectors and workers deserve the opportunity to compete and succeed here at home.

Bill C-269 would help address a gap in Canada's tax system and encourage investment that might otherwise flow to competing jurisdictions. There is no doubt this legislation does not try to solve every challenge facing the energy system through another massive government program. Instead, it is a targeted measure built around private sector investment designed to achieve real outcomes. Businesses must make qualifying investments in equipment that produces tangible results. They make the decisions, choose the technology and take responsibility for the projects. Government's role should be to create the conditions for investment and success, not to stand in the way of Canadians who want to invest, innovate, build and work.

Canada already uses investment tax credits to encourage other clean energy technologies, like solar, wind and hydroelectric power. Waste heat recovery has not received the same targeted treatment despite its potential to generate electricity from energy already available. If the objective is more reliable electricity, greater efficiency and lower emissions, this technology deserves consideration too, and the opportunities extend across the country. In Alberta, waste heat recovery could support refining, petrochemicals and industrial manufacturing. In Ontario and Quebec, it could benefit steel, cement and chemical production. In British Columbia and Atlantic Canada, it could help forestry and pulp and paper operations. Across the Prairies, it could support food processing and other energy-intensive industries. This is not a proposal limited to one province or one sector. It has applications across Canadian industry, from coast to coast to coast.

Canada faces a serious productivity challenge. For too long, productivity growth has lagged behind that of our major competitors. Businesses need confidence to invest in equipment, adopt technology, expand operations and create opportunities for workers. That confidence does not come from government announcements or promises. It comes from affordable energy, predictable rules, a competitive investment environment and the ability to get projects built. Sometimes that requires major reforms like cutting red tape, removing regulatory barriers and accelerating approvals, and sometimes it requires a targeted change that unlocks private capital for opportunities already within reach.

That is what Bill C-269 would do. Instead of allowing valuable energy to go to waste, it would encourage businesses to put it to work. Instead of putting another burden on industry, it would create an incentive to invest. Instead of forcing a choice between economic growth and environmental improvement, it would support both. The impacts are clear: more electricity, lower operating costs, stronger productivity, reduced emissions, more competitive Canadian industries and more efficiency all around. Those are results Canada needs.

Canada has abundant natural resources, world-class industries, innovative businesses and capable workers. What Canadians need are the conditions to put those strengths to work. Canada cannot tax and regulate its way into prosperity. A stronger economy cannot be built by making it harder and more expensive to invest and produce in Canada. Energy, investment and opportunities already available cannot be wasted.

Bill C-269 is a practical opportunity to support Canadian industry, strengthen electricity supply and encourage innovation without unnecessary government intervention. I encourage members of Parliament everywhere to support it at second reading so the committee can hear from industry, examine the evidence and consider how this measure could support Canadian businesses and workers.

Again, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Centre, who has been concerned with ways to increase energy efficiency and productivity across the Canadian economy for years.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the constituents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, especially when we are talking about something important like Bill C-269, which has been brought here by my colleague. I support it.

I come from a small reserve in Kitamaat Village. For those who do not know, we are basically the heart of industry in northwest B.C. For the last 70 years, we have been the heart of industrial development.

Kitimat has an aluminum smelter, which at one time was one of the dirtiest smelters in Canada if not North America or the world. Our band then supported the modernization of that smelter into one of the cleanest smelters in Canada, or North America, producing a high-quality product for the world. That old smelter was dumping out a lot of CO2, carbon and heat, not just into the atmosphere but into our waters. Heat is a form of pollution. It does, in fact, affect the environment. Nature does not like extreme heat. It does not like artificial heat. If members do not believe me, they should come to Kitimat.

At a time when there were no regulations being enforced, or in existence, the heat itself actually caused a lot of problems in terms of the seaweed, salmon and shellfish going away. Now we are starting to fix that with updated technology and learning more about what heat means.

What is being talked about in Bill C-269 is the capturing of waste heat and turning it into electricity. This is at a time when the topic seems to be reducing our carbon footprint, but also how to make Canada more competitive and how to diversify our economy and try to reduce our reliance on the U.S. economy.

I do not understand why there is opposition to this bill. Members can call it what they like. They can call it value-added or manufacturing. They can call it whatever they want, but it is an efficient way to take something that would normally get into our environment and make use of it.

This is especially true in British Columbia when talking about electricity demand and supply, where the conversation has now shifted to Site C, the multi-billion-dollar dam in northern B.C., not being enough for B.C.'s demand. It is not enough, and given the politics, I doubt I will see another dam being built in my lifetime, so we have to think about other ways to meet that demand.

Vancouver actually put a ban on using natural gas for new home builds. That ban was reversed last year because the electricity demand could not be met. In fact, B.C., at peak times, has a deficit of electricity, so it imports electricity from neighbouring provinces as well as from the United States. The United States still produces electricity from coal. Yes, the electricity we use when we plug into the wall is green, but we have to trace that back to where it comes from. If it is coming from the United States, and the U.S. is using coal, that electricity we are using is not so green.

There are now different conversations about how to use natural gas for electricity. This is a complete reversal of the conversation that was being held 10 years ago, and it all comes down to the demand for electricity. If we are going to become an energy superpower, like the promise made by our Prime Minister, then we have to look at all the components that go into that, including domestic use. If we can make industry more efficient by capturing waste coming from it and turning it into a usable product to make industry's own operations more efficient, then we should seriously consider it. This should be going to committee.

Canadians do want this. They want us to do more, not only to compete with the United States but also to reduce our footprint and be more competitive.

Nobody is looking forward to the blackouts that are going to come when one of our energy sources goes down. We saw that in B.C. when the natural gas pipeline went down. All the demand shifted to the electricity grid, which is in danger of blackouts. There are energy shortages in the United States, where there are rolling blackouts to keep up with the demand.

This might not seem like a big issue with respect to how it is going to affect us, but everything counts. Everything matters when we are talking about energy efficiency. Yes, Canada is doing a good job, but I agree with our Conservative leader, who is saying that we should be looking at technology to reduce our footprint. Here it is, right here.

This would not cost taxpayers anything. It would make industry more competitive with the United States. The government is talking about incentives that are already in place that could be utilized by industry. Why is industry not using them, then? Why is industry going to the United States and making investments in the United States but not here? It is because converting waste heat to electricity is simply not incentivized in Canada. It makes sense for a company to go to the United States, which actually encourages that type of investment. If we do want to compete with the United States, then we have to seriously consider these types of measures.

With respect to industry in Kitimat, we have had pulp and paper mills that distributed a large amount of heat into our environment. We had a methane export facility, and now we have the largest private investment in Canadian history, LNG Canada, which produces a lot of heat.

The bill would not be the cure for everything, but it would be a good step in the right direction. I do like the comments made by our Bloc colleagues, saying that they could support it in principle and that they agree it should go to committee for more review. I agree as well, but we hear the government already shutting this down without giving the public a chance to see the reality of what this could actually mean to places such as Kitimat and other industrial centres.

We want to attract investment. We want to keep investment here. We do not want what is happening in eastern Canada, where all the companies are starting to move to the United States just for competitive reasons. We do not want that, because when it happens, people start to leave, especially our young people. With the way it is going right now, I can tell the House that I do not agree with giving our young people a leaving Canada tax, when the overall economy in all its forms is what is driving people away from Canada. It is the brain drain, and this is just going to keep building up.

This is what is needed in small measures, for all the reasons pointed out by my colleagues as well as by the Bloc, because ultimately what we are talking about is turning waste into value and treating heat as a form of pollution and addressing it seriously. I am sure every centre around B.C., or throughout Canada, for that matter, that has an industrial centre can see this, and they can see it comparable to other issues that are facing industry. We do want to do good by Canadians and industry, in small measures, medium measures and big measures.

Bill C-269 would be a step in the right direction, and I encourage all my colleagues to encourage the government to accept the bill's going to committee.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real privilege to rise today on behalf of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford to speak to Bill C-269, an act to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to a heat recovery tax credit.

Conservatives believe that we need to empower Canadian business, not with handouts but with broad-based taxation measures to give them a leg-up. We have a history in Canada of providing rebates and tax measures for various projects. Here is another great opportunity to give our Canadian companies a competitive edge.

I think of my own riding, which is a major food processing hub and a major food production hub in British Columbia. We have many greenhouses. When people are driving down the Abbotsford-Mission highway and it is about 1°C or 2°C out, they can see these greenhouses just humming. They use a lot of heat, so why not convert that heat into electricity? Why not allow for that in our Income Tax Act? Why not allow for a change to our capital cost deduction measures to give these businesses a leg-up?

This is a common-sense measure that would provide some incentive for companies to be more efficient. When they are more efficient it causes two things: They make more money, and they do more to protect the environment. These are principles that all Canadians agree on. These are measures that, in the past, the government would have accepted. We hope its members will vote with us today, because this is a common-sense measure to take an incremental step to help our Canadian businesses.

Bill C-269 would introduce a non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it to electricity. It would correct a gap in existing clean energy incentives, which currently exclude waste-to-heat power, despite its strong environmental and economic benefits. The bottom line is this: It would help Canadian businesses turn wasted energy into clean, emissions-free electricity using infrastructure and technology that already exist.

Across Canada's economy, 30% to 50% of industrial heat is wasted. Technology already exists to convert much of that wasted electricity into better usage. Under the existing technologies, and if this bill is passed, it would recover one-third of lost energy. There would be zero new emissions with the application of Bill C-269, no new fuel and no new system overhaul.

The key point I want to stress today is that this would be one of the simplest, fastest and most cost-effective energy opportunities we can take. It is a good-faith proposal that Conservatives are putting forward to provide a solution that would help many businesses in Quebec, Ontario, our manufacturing hubs and the agricultural sector all across Canada. It is a common-sense measure that would spur investment. It would not cost the federal government any money. It would lead to efficiencies in the operation of Canadian businesses. How can we not get behind such a simple measure?

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

The honourable member for Calgary Centre has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who carefully examined this bill, consulted with their constituents and found constructive ways to implement it to make our economy more competitive. I also want to thank them for agreeing to send this bill to committee so that we can examine the details that warrant further discussion.

I will also address some of the government's responses, insofar as the bill is not perfect. As members know, any private member's bill is drafted with the Library of Parliament to replicate the tax credits that already exist. As much as a bunch of regulations would come forth with the bill, those are to be determined at committee as well. I do question the negativism that was brought forward on that.

What I am trying to do, and I think it is the role of all of us as private members, is to find the gaps that are going to make for a better Canadian economy at the end of the day. Waste heat to power is one of the gaps in our system that the United States is exploiting very fulsomely at this point in time. To get back on par with the United States as far as our competition goes, and to get investment back into Canada for these types of common-sense approaches to less waste and more electricity, this would be a winner for everybody.

I do agree there is overlap with other tax incentives, exactly as there is in the United States. We do need to be competitive with it, even in the stacking that happens in those credits. The bottom line is to get this investment happening in Canada.

Here is one of the riddles on this. I am working with a company, and everybody knows the company I am working with on this, to try to get this moving in Canada. That company is out of Calgary, with a suboffice in Houston. It has received a $50-million U.S. investment from none other than the Canada Growth Fund. The Canada Growth Fund is going to invest, alongside a big U.S. investment entity, another $50 million U.S. into waste heat to power. It is going to give the money only when it is approved for the financial mechanism. That is going to happen at this point in time in the United States, because the returns are better.

Canadian taxpayer dollars, again, are going towards investment in the United States. Talk about cutting off our nose to spite our face, we are actually funding more competition from the United States through Canadian taxpayer dollars. That is a ludicrous approach to what we need to do to build this economy.

The U.S. has had this regime since 2020, and we have been playing catch-up ever since. We have been losing investment in Canada as a result of the U.S. being much more investable than Canada is. We have to get ahead of this. I am trying to get us on par, but the fact is, we have to be more competitive in this Canadian economy.

I can talk about the bill from our last Parliament. The bill in 2021 was called an act to amend the Income Tax Act (capture and utilization or storage of greenhouse gases), and the Liberals voted against that too. Now here we are, five years later, and they have come forward with a bill on enhanced oil recovery and carbon capture that was half as effective as it needs to be in order to be competitive with the United States. These are things we need to move forward with at pace and at the time when they are necessary. We have lost five years, and we are still half as competitive in that credit as we need to be vis-à-vis our major competitor for investment in that sector.

The U.S. has had this, as I said, since 2020. The primary beneficiary of it in the United States is the chemical industry. Think about how much waste heat comes from the chemical industry. It has exploited that in the United States and done a number of retrofits, making sure that it is very competitive in the chemical industry as a result. That is something I think we need to replicate here in Canada to get that investment back in this country so it makes more sense to invest here.

I know that we have spoken about a lot here, but one of the things I always like to talk about is how much the government has spent on environmental measures. This is an environmental measure because it would get more electricity from the same amount of hydrocarbons and other power being produced. We would be capturing that and turning it into something real: less waste and more electricity. It is a cheap way to do that. However, in the last 10 or 11 years, the government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on its environmental policies, all of which have resulted in almost net-zero reductions in CO2 emissions and a whole bunch of deindustrialization of the Canadian economy.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 4, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Opposition Motion—Federal Procurement

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

moved:

That, given that,

(i) in response to the trade war launched against Canada by the Trump administration, the Prime Minister promised that "whenever the federal government spends, we will select Canadian suppliers by default," and pledged to "ensure the federal government buys from Canadian suppliers",

(ii) when the Buy Canadian Policy took effect on December 16, 2025, the Prime Minister said Canada would become its own "best customer," and the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement declared that the government was "putting Canadian workers and industries first",

(iii) in April 2026, the Prime Minister promised to build Canada strong with "Canadian steel, Canadian aluminum, Canadian lumber, Canadian workers",

(iv) in June 2026, the Canada Revenue Agency awarded a security services contract worth nearly $12 million to Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation, a subsidiary of the American multinational Allied Universal,

(v) Allied Universal's subsidiary G4S reportedly holds contracts worth US $83 million with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda, and Allied Universal has reportedly received contracts worth more than US $290 million in 2026 alone from the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security, ICE's parent department,

(vi) the contract was awarded over a Canadian bidder that is a not-for-profit and the largest employer of veterans, whose offer differed by roughly $80,000, less than one per cent of the contract's value which represents less than half of the $175,248.48 that, according to the government's own response to an Order Paper question, was spent on in-flight catering for the Prime Minister and his delegation during a 10-day international trip to China, Qatar and Davos, Switzerland in January 2026,

the House call on the government to respect veterans, follow its own Buy Canadian Policy, cancel the Canada Revenue Agency's security contract with Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation and award it to a Canadian supplier.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Since the beginning of the trade war with the United States, the Prime Minister has made repeated statements encouraging Canadians to buy Canadian and support Canadian businesses. That is wonderful. We obviously have no objection to that. He even promised that the federal government would give preference to Canadian suppliers for its own contracts. However, in June, the Canada Revenue Agency, a federal entity, awarded a security services contract worth nearly $12 million to a subsidiary of an American multinational, at the expense of the Commissionaires, a not-for-profit Canadian organization, formerly known as the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which is the largest employer of veterans in the country.

I think it is a good time to talk about this because, as we know, it is Veterans' Week. Members know that this is an important annual occasion, but it also ties directly into the matter before us today. We are talking about a $12-million contract, but the difference between the two bids was only about $80,000, or less than 1% of the contract's value. That is a striking example of the contradiction between the Liberal government's promises and its decisions.

I will take a moment to explain what the Commissionaires are, for the benefit of Canadians who are following our proceedings and who might not know what I am talking about. This organization was founded over 100 years ago to provide employment opportunities for military members as they transition out of service. Even today, it helps veterans put their experience and skills to work for the benefit of Canadian society. I myself served in the Canadian Armed Forces for over 20 years and I am aware of the reality of the transition to civilian life. After a career in the military, military members often have to start over again, find a new job and get the skills they acquired within the Canadian Forces recognized. I can say that it is a challenge for military members because, often, civilians do not understand what these people did in their occupations, in their work with the Canadian Forces. Commissionaires play an important role in this transition. That is why I think it is particularly regrettable that an organization like that loses a federal contract under the present circumstances.

I want to come back to the Prime Minister's commitments. We have an expression in Quebec: se péter les bretelles. I do not know if my English-speaking colleagues use that phrase. Se péter les bretelles is when the Government of Canada says it is going to buy Canadian. The Prime Minister has even said that Canada will be its own best customer, while the Minister of Public Works and Procurement goes so far as to state that the government will give priority to Canadian industries and workers. As recently as last April, the Prime Minister promised to build Canada strong using Canadian steel, Canadian aluminum, Canadian lumber and Canadian workers. Then, just a few weeks later, the Canada Revenue Agency awarded a contract to Universal Protection Service, a subsidiary of the multinational company Allied Universal.

Why do we even have a buy Canadian policy if the government is not going to support a Canadian organization that employs veterans? It always comes down to the same thing. It is not enough to simply make grand announcements. The public hates that aspect of politics. The government says it is going to be strong here at home, that Canada is going to be strong, that it is going to buy Canadian and hire Canadians, but then it turns around and gives contracts to Americans. Did someone not get the message? The government really needs to keep its promises when these kinds of announcements are made.

There is another fundamental issue in the debate that concerns us today, namely the decision to choose a company to replace the Commissionaires. It is important to note that Allied Universal also owns a company called G4S, which, according to reports, has $83 million U.S. in contracts with the U.S. agency ICE, the notorious immigration agency responsible for carrying out the mass deportations ordered by the Trump administration. Allied Universal was awarded a contract worth more than $290 million U.S. from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2026 alone.

Where is the consistency? We are not saying that an American-owned company cannot do business in Canada. What we are asking, however, is that the government abide by its own policy of employing Canadians first and foremost. That is where buy Canadian begins.

We also need to put these numbers into perspective. Some may argue that it was cheaper, that it cost $80,000 less. Yes, but that amounts to less than 1% of the contract's value.

To make a comparison, according to information we obtained in response to an Order Paper question, catering services aboard the Prime Minister's plane and for his delegation during a 10-day trip to China, Qatar and Davos last January cost $175,248.48. That was just for catering, for meals on the plane. That amount is twice the difference between the bid that favoured the American company and the bid submitted by the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Granted, it is not the same kind of difference, but it is a matter of principle. The principle stands. Approximately $175,000 was spent on a 10-day trip. That is double the $80,000 difference.

This was a contract that supported veterans, people who had left the Canadian Forces and who, thanks to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, were given a valuable opportunity to work in civilian life and put to use the knowledge and skills they had acquired in the field of security. The decision is incomprehensible.

Remembrance Day will be observed in a few days' time. People across the country will honour the men and women who have worn our nation's uniform. Our respect for them is not limited to November 11. It calls for concrete actions. The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires offers veterans exactly that: an opportunity to keep contributing to society. The federal government should keep that mission in mind when it makes its decisions.

The motion therefore calls on the government to uphold its commitments to veterans, follow the buy Canadian policy, cancel the contract awarded to Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation and award it to a Canadian supplier.

The Prime Minister promised that Canada would become its own best customer. These are not my words; they are his. Today, we are asking the government to move from words to action. The contract must be cancelled and the decision reversed.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's statements and one of the things I find interesting is how they are trying to draw a comparison between flight expenses. The first thing I get a flashback to is when I was sitting in opposition and Stephen Harper actually paid over $1 million to fly a car to India so that he would be able to drive that particular car. I am wondering if the member could reflect on a comparison where there were dozens of people that had flown over.

I am very much aware of and supportive of the Commissionaires, and I will continue to be so.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are once again trying to deflect by bringing up a matter concerning the security expenditures incurred by the then prime minister, Mr. Harper. The fundamental issue is what the Prime Minister himself said: buy Canadian first and foremost. In this case, however, a contract is being awarded to an American company, even though a not-for-profit corporation, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, can do the work. That is what they should be answering for, instead of trying to distract from the issue.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it seems obvious to me that, for $80,000, the contract should not have been awarded to a foreign company. That said, I would like to ask my colleague some questions about the flexibility needed to justify keeping a contract in Canada, even when doing so is not the most competitive option from a strictly economic standpoint.

Has my colleague given any thought to that aspect of the issue? As members know, there is a buy Canadian policy, but even that is rather vague in terms of what it actually entails. For example, when we talk about 70% of contracts, are we talking about the number of contracts or the value of those contracts?

I would appreciate some clarification from my colleague on that point.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for her excellent question. This sort of ties in with industrial benefits. In defence procurement, for example, there is often a requirement that a certain percentage of the work be carried out by Canadian industry. We can all agree that $80,000 is roughly the average salary of a federal employee. It is not a large amount of money, but the decision itself is important. What does not sit right, what simply does not make sense, is awarding a $12-million contract to an American company instead of to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires.

Generally speaking, when the Prime Minister says we must prioritize buying Canadian, the government's procurement policies should reflect that commitment. Of course, abuses must be prevented. That is why clear rules and rigorous oversight are essential. So far, we have seen nothing but lip service.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to answer a very simple question. What are the ministers good for?

We have a Prime Minister who made a big promise. He said we were going to buy Canadian. That was the big promise. He said we were going to be our own best customer, yet now we see that, on such an important issue, at a time as important as the month of November, just a few days before Remembrance Day, the Prime Minister is not keeping his word and is awarding a contract to an American company rather than to a non-profit organization made up of veterans.

What kind of message are the ministers sending to Canadians when they cannot even keep and uphold the Prime Minister's promises?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Indeed, what message does that send? It sends a highly negative message when a Prime Minister solemnly declares that we are going to fight the Americans, fight Donald Trump and buy Canadian, only for the government to do the exact opposite of what he said.

My colleague is right to wonder what the ministers are doing. What has the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement done to change the rules and bring them in line with the Prime Minister's direction? In fact, absolutely nothing has been done. Again, all we get are words, words and more words. In fact, the reality is completely at odds with what the Prime Minister has called for.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to put Canada first, as a remarkable group of Canadians did in 1925, almost 100 years ago exactly, when they came together to form the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, an organization that hired First World War veterans to do what they have always done best: protect their fellow Canadians.

A century later, the Commissionaires is still the largest non-governmental employer of veterans anywhere in Canada. It protects our public servants, and for years, it protected the offices of the Canada Revenue Agency. By every account, the agency was happy and satisfied with its exceptional work. Then on June 16 of this year, under the Prime Minister, the CRA handed the nearly $12-million contract to Universal Protection Service, a subsidiary of Allied Universal, an American security giant with ties to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation program, otherwise known as ICE.

How much did Canadians save by elbowing out of this contract our veterans and giving it to the American parent company? It was a measly $80,000, less than 1% of the contract value. Obviously, when we take into account the taxes the commissionaires would have paid on their salaries back to the Canadian government, that amount is probably eliminated altogether. This is not a one-year deal. It runs for two years and can be extended five more after that, for a total of seven. That is seven years that our veterans could be shut out of this important work.

The head of the Commissionaires for the Great Lakes said that he had never seen a contract this size change hands on such a slender difference when the client was happy with the work of the Commissionaires. Here is the part that should make every member of the House stop and think. The government's own tender said, “This solicitation is open only to Canadian suppliers.” If it was only open to Canadian suppliers, how is it that an American-owned subsidiary got the deal? The answer is that the government's so-called buy Canadian rules allow any foreign company to simply open a Canadian address in order to compete for Canadian-based work. As long as someone has a post office box, they can be from anywhere in the world and get a job paid for by Canadian tax dollars.

The commissionaires themselves were shocked. One said, “Any foreign company can set up an office in Canada” and, in the words of this commissionaire, “poof”, the entire contracting rule goes up in smoke. To use another metaphor, it is maple-washing when an American giant with a Canadian mailing address counts the same as a 100-year-old charity, the largest employer in the country of Canadian veterans.

Do members remember when the Prime Minister said only a few months ago that Canada is “at war” with the United States? Now he is hiring them to protect our tax office. That is not exactly the thing to do.

This is not an accident. The contradictions are a pattern. On the U.S.-Canada file, the Prime Minister says one thing and does exactly the opposite. It is all an illusion for his political benefit. He is all talk and no results. He is out of touch while Canadians, in particular Canadian veterans, are out of money. Let us go through the list of these contradictions.

He promised a buy Canadian policy, and then he increased the amount spent on American firms by 55%, to a total of $7.8 billion, of which the betrayal of the Commissionaires is just one example. In January, he told the world that we are in a “rupture, not a transition” with the U.S. Then he went on to say that our ties with the Americans had become our biggest weakness. Days later, he said that Canada and the U.S. would be “stronger together”. He warned against a world of fortresses in his Davos speech. Then he gave another speech where he said that he was in favour of something called “Fortress North America”. He said that “integration” had become “subordination”. Then he wanted more integration to, in his words, “make America great again”.

In the election, he promised that if the Americans put tariffs on us, he would respond with dollar-for-dollar tariffs. He said that Canadians were in no mood for any concessions. Two months later, he admitted that his government had already moved off of dollar-for-dollar tariffs, and then quietly, he dropped reciprocal tariffs altogether.

His energy minister said that energy was the best leverage we had in our negotiations for a deal. A week later, the Prime Minister said that resources were not leverage at all. At the summer 2025 G7 conference, he promised a deal within the coming 30 days. He missed that deadline, and almost a year and a half later, there is still no deal and there are still no wins.

On the Gordie Howe bridge, the Prime Minister said he had secured a deal to ensure that no tariff revenues would go to the United States until all of Canada's debt to build the bridge was repaid. After all, we had built the entire thing with our money. Then it came out that in fact the Americans were getting half of the net tolls from day one, not waiting until we paid off the enormous debts we incurred to build the bridge.

Last week, the Prime Minister said that he was willing to wait until there was a new president before we get a deal. To be clear, that means two and a half more years of American tariffs killing Canadian jobs. How out of touch was that? However, worry not, because less than 72 hours later, he put out a tweet saying that he had called the president and restarted formal talks for a mutually beneficial trade deal in the coming weeks. We hope he is serious this time. We hope this is for real, but forgive us if we hesitate to pop the champagne until we see the actual results. It is an incredible reversal to say in the span of three days that he is willing to wait two and a half years without a deal and then say that he is kicking off negotiations to complete talks in the next several weeks.

The Prime Minister has a phrase for this. He calls it “the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.” He was right about this phrase. He just did not realize that he was describing himself, because after all the speeches, all the slogans and all the deadlines, where are the results he promised? His single biggest promise in the last election was that he would deliver a great deal with the U.S, he would handle Donald Trump and he would negotiate a win. There is still no deal, still no tariff relief and still no results. Our economy has flatlined, 110,000 jobs have been lost in two months, there is a 9% increase in food bank demand, homebuilding is down rather than doubled, as the Prime Minister promised, and Canadian veterans have been pushed aside so an American company could guard our tax office.

The Prime Minister will do anything to keep us distracted from his costly failures here at home. That is not leadership. It is political theatre. We do not need more grandstanding over the next month and a half from the Prime Minister. We need him to actually get the deal he promised.

We as Conservatives have laid out a clear plan on how to get that deal. It starts with using the leverage we have. We have the things that Americans need. We have 10 of the 12 NATO-defined defence minerals right beneath our feet. Let us unlock their production and put them in strategic storage facilities, along with a new above-ground oil reserve that we can provide tariff-free to allies on a right-of-first-refusal basis to incentivize them to remove their tariffs. Let us align with our key trading partner to combat China's abuse of our country. Let us use our massive military buildup and our willingness to take on more responsibility protecting our share of the continent as further leverage to get the tariff-free deal that we want.

None of this should stop us from solving the problems we have here at home. Our youth need jobs and homes. Our families need affordable food. Our economy needs homegrown growth. Criminals need to go to jail. Drugs need to come off our street. Government spending must fall, and we must ultimately deliver for the people. All of these things are in our hands.

The Prime Minister likes to say that we want to be masters of our own destiny. We could not agree more, but we cannot be a master of our own destiny if we are constantly making excuses about what we cannot achieve. There is no tweet from the U.S. president that can stop us from fixing our problems here at home. Let us save Canadians money, save their jobs, keep them safe, fix broken immigration and, most of all, put Canada first. Putting Canada first means putting our veterans first and voting for this motion.

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

Madam Speaker, putting Canada first has meant, coming out of the last federal election, as the Prime Minister made very clear, looking for opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S. border while we continue to negotiate the best deal. I realize that the best deal might not necessarily be on the same timetable as the leader of the Conservative Party, who thinks he can just tap his heels together and, voila, a deal is achieved. That is dreamland.

At the end of the day, would the leader not agree that as we wait for the best deal we can get for Canadians, it is critical that Canada and the Prime Minister continue to look at other nations as a way to increase our trading opportunities?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, we could not agree more, and that is why we are so disappointed that the Prime Minister got absolutely zero results at his grand summit last week. Zero European countries signed on to ratify the free trade agreement we already have with the EU. Zero of them opened trade to Canadian beef and pork, and there was not one commitment to cancel the planned carbon tariff that that continent is threatening to impose on the already besieged Canadian industry.

Instead, we have a Prime Minister negotiating that in secret, potentially putting our sovereignty at risk. Our message on that is clear. Yes, we want to trade with Europe, and yes, we want to honour our NATO commitment, but we will never support Canadians paying taxes to the EU, following EU laws or accepting EU-style migration. We have our problems to fix here at home, and Conservatives will put Canada first to fix them.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, today's debate is primarily about Canada's sovereignty and the need to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money is not sent to the United States. s there not a contradiction in the Conservatives' position, given that one of their priorities is to support the oil and gas industry, including by building pipelines using public funds, in other words taxpayers' money, when not only are 80% of the companies in the oil and gas sector foreign-owned, but 60% of them are American-owned?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to say this. We are not proposing subsidies for oil companies. That has never been our position, because the oil industry is extremely profitable on its own. The government just needs to cut red tape and federal taxes so that private investors, private sector workers and private companies can build projects and develop our resources.

I am going to say exactly the same thing in English that I said in French, because I want to make it clear that we do not say one thing in one language and the opposite in the other. We do not think there need to be bailouts, handouts and carve-outs for any industry, including the oil and gas industry. Instead, we believe in getting the government out of the way and off the backs of all industries. Oil and gas is wildly profitable on its own. The government just needs to get out of the way, repeal the antidevelopment laws and taxes, and let builders build, investors invest and workers work.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind all Canadians that the reason the CRA was able to issue this $12-million contract to a U.S. company is that the Liberal government removed the right of first refusal to the Commissionaires for security contracts, which had been in place since 1945. When I asked the Liberals, in this chamber, why they did it, they refused to answer the question.

Considering the Commissionaires is the largest not-for-profit employer of Canadian veterans in Canada, is the Leader of the Opposition as frustrated as I am with this affront to our Canadian veterans?