Debates of June 15th, 2026

Income Tax Act

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me acknowledge the help I have received in the conception, analysis and presentation of this bill. Janice Tran, the CEO of Kanin Energy in Calgary, provided me with the inspiration, and numerous alternative energy experts have provided their input to this bill since it was first introduced in the House. I thank them all, and I note the importance of having a channel to bring forth great ideas from Canadians for consideration in Parliament for how we help grow our country and help it prosper.

The best way to start this speech about this private member's bill, entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act, heat recovery tax credit, is to first say what the bill is intended to do. To illustrate that effectively, some context is required. First off, for the sake of those who have little background in tax incentives with which we attempt to motivate business investment in this country, let us illustrate how an investment tax credit works. A non-refundable income tax credit allows a company to deduct the amount of the credit from the taxes it has payable to the federal government in any year.

Let me give an example. Let us say that a company earned pre‑tax profits of $10 million in one taxation year. Assuming an effective federal tax rate of 15% on those earnings, that would mean the company would owe the government $1.5 million for that taxation year. Their after‑tax profit, in that case, would be $8.5 million before other taxes payable to other jurisdictions. If we look at an investment tax credit of 30%, and we assume an investment in that equipment equal to $10 million, then the 30% tax credit would mean that the company could take a credit against its taxes equal to $3 million. Note that in this case, this amount would be more than the amount payable in the year's taxes, so a portion of the credit would still be available for credit against future years' taxes payable. For the company's sake, when management makes decisions about how it would invest, it would effectively reduce the capital cost by that 30%, predicated upon the fact that the company would be taxable, and any amount due in tax credits in future years would also be time‑valued. The result is that the cost of the $10‑million equipment, in the company's estimation, would be reduced by 30% or thereabouts, so the investment could meet an “investment cost of capital” analysis. The company could take actual cash flow from the taxes it would have otherwise paid to justify why it would be spending $10 million up front. There are other complications, such as the half‑year rule, that I will not address here, but I hope this illustrates the case.

The reason governments allow investment tax credits for selective purposes is because they are trying to motivate investment in sectors or uses that, all other things being equal, would not occur. In the illustration I presented, the government will not be collecting $1.5 million in taxes that year and a similar amount the following year.

Governments cannot do that always and everywhere because it would then not have corporate income tax collection as part of its revenues. That tax collection line in 2025 amounted to about $97 billion, 19% of all the revenue the Government of Canada collected. Therefore, we need to be selective about how we apply investment tax credits in order to have a functioning taxation system and in order not to worsen our escalating deficits and unsustainable debt situation that Canadians are facing.

That should lead listeners to the next question: Why should we apply an investment tax credit to waste heat recovery? Put differently, what is the problem we need to solve and how does this approach fit the solution? Let me provide some background. In Canada, the industrial sector amounted to 54% of Canada's end‑use energy demand in 2021. The main use of energy in the industrial sector is heat production, which is used in various industrial processes. By application, the sectors with the greatest opportunity are chemicals and primary metals, followed by cement and glass production and pulp and paper. In these industrial processes, approximately 30% to 50% of heat is lost. That is from a study undertaken by Polytechnique Montréal in 2021. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the equipment available today would capture 13% to 18% of the unused heat resources. The equipment exists to turn waste heat into power. The economics alone are still slightly challenging; however, with a 30% investment tax credit, it would drive the levelized cost of electricity, which is the power derived from the waste heat, down to levels competitive with wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal, most of which receive generous tax incentives to add to our energy supply. In the end, what we are aiming for is energy efficiency.

First, Canada needs more electricity. Last month, the Prime Minister announced a national electricity strategy to double electricity production by 2050, which included financial incentives of various sorts. The irony is that electricity production is a provincial jurisdiction and the policy‑makers who are trying to wedge the federal government into Canada's electricity markets are the same people who made an absolute mess of Ontario's electricity system over a decade ago. The problem energy consumers face is that they do not know what their electricity costs, between the various levels of government that are subsidizing power production in many non‑obvious ways. However, what the ratepayer does not see on their electricity bill, they see on their tax bill, or it is added to the fiscal deficits we are passing on to the next generation to pay. Let us accept that, in the modern construct, producing new electricity production facilities is time consuming and expensive. Therefore, getting electricity from power sources that are producing waste heat may be the most efficient source of new electricity.

Second, Canada needs to further reduce emissions. The lower our emissions profile per unit of output, the better the outcomes for the environment and society. New electricity would have an emissions profile. Some of that profile would be in the capital equipment and some would be in the consumable portion of the equation. We cannot ignore the carbon embedded in the capital equipment and just count the emissions from the variable inputs. That ignores the full carbon costing, which is one of the reasons the world's efforts to reduce carbon emissions are failing.

Similarly, there is a footprint to the production of the equipment that would be required to produce power from waste heat. We must recognize that this equipment is an add‑on to an existing system, so its footprint per amount produced is less than any new build. In the case of capturing waste heat and producing electricity from that heat, the new variable emission amounts to zero, so the power profile has a near zero carbon footprint. This policy serves a great environmental purpose, one that gets results with respect to flatlining emissions and produces power with no new emissions. As we need power, the most environmentally friendly power would be that with zero net new emissions.

Let us address the competitive landscape, because Canada is not the first country to undertake this exercise. The United States, in particular, instituted a similar 30% investment tax credit for waste heat‑to‑power investment in 2022. By 2023, 63 manufacturers across various industries had installed equipment resulting in the production capacity of 812 megawatts of power. For comparison, Canada's most recently completed hydro dam, Site C, in northern British Columbia, has a capacity of 1,100 megawatts. That dam cost $16 billion and took 11 years to build. If we scale back the U.S. experience by a factor of 10 roughly, therein lies the outcome we can target in Canada: about 80 megawatts of new electricity per year with no new emissions. I will note the importance of timeliness in our approach, because Canada is now a net importer of electricity, so speed matters, execution matters and cost‑effectiveness matters.

What is missing in Canada's set of tools is a credit for waste heat‑to‑power, which is available and being deployed effectively in other jurisdictions. This seems like low‑hanging fruit with its cost savings, new electricity production and no new variable emissions profile for that electricity. It is probably the most cost‑effective and feasible way of accomplishing our goals, which is to produce more electricity with a lower emissions profile. Why have we avoided it? I am certain federal officials have seen this approach. The answer is in the mindset of the embedded decision‑makers.

In Canada, our energy production system counts on three well‑built and necessary infrastructures. There is the electricity grid, for which various input sources make electricity. There is our natural gas distribution system, which is not just for heating homes, but used for many industrial processes as it is the most efficient source for generating heat, and many industrial processes will always require heat. There is also our mode of fuel distribution network, primarily fossil fuels. Think of each of these distribution systems as representing about a third, give or take, of Canada's power production and consumption. Think of the combination of the three representing an infrastructure asset base that has served as the envy of developing countries.

Generations of Canadians have built an infrastructure on which we all depend. Doing away with any of these three power distribution infrastructures would weaken our power profile and increase the risk of an overall system failure.

When I mention the embedded decision-makers, I am appealing to the new representatives on the government side of the House to overrule the entrenched ideology that has put our country in the box we are in. The ideological attempt to penalize Canada's hydrocarbon energy systems is misguided. That includes our natural gas distribution system, an essential tool for our continued economic advancement. Perhaps if we approached the most easily accessible solutions, we would get better outcomes.

The Liberal government has represented itself to Canadians as having changed from the painful, divisive ideology that defined the former prime minister. Unfortunately, we see that the rot the government brought to our energy systems in Canada runs deeper than just the elected representatives. It is now entrenched in what seems like the actual decision-makers in the government, the embedded ideologues who are still driving the government's aimless policies.

Five years ago, the Liberals voted down my last private member's bill to provide an investment tax credit for enhanced oil recovery. This spring, the Liberal government decided to put a form of that credit into the budget. However, the credit it has put forth is uncompetitive with our peers and it has caused confusion as to its stringency requirements. A policy that still leaves Canada as the least competitive among our peers in our approach to this technology is one that will continue to see capital allocated elsewhere.

No data is more consistent than that which has shown the great egress of capital from investment opportunities in our country. In that sense, the Prime Minister is accomplishing his objectives. What one cannot get one way, one gets another way, in this case, pretending one has a credit, making a big announcement and ensuring it is functionally unviable. I sense the same approach with the investment tax credits for greener power production.

For the ideologues, the perfect is the enemy of the good. The approach I am proposing in the bill would be very good for Canada. Let me appeal to those voices on the Liberal side of the House with whom I have worked to build goodwill in our approach to Canada's energy system. As was our mantra when I embarked on hearings across Canada for the Conservatives' economic growth council, I say to my Liberal friends to take our ideas, please. These are better for the country.

In summary, the bill would provide an incentive, an investment tax credit, to motivate industrial power users to invest in equipment that would increase Canada's electricity production with no new emissions. That means more power without more emissions, energy efficiency improvements, productivity enhancements and lower business costs, making Canadian manufacturers more competitive. Let me appeal to all parliamentarians to see the obvious good in all of this.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very sensitive to the need. As the Prime Minister has clearly indicated, we want to be able to increase electricity production here in Canada. We recognize that. I think that we have a number of measures that are within the budget. Many discussions are ongoing between the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers and different levels of government. Working in collaboration is really important.

I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts in regard to how careful we need to be when we talk about anywhere from, let us say, $80 billion to $100 billion, which is collected annually through corporate taxes. We have to be very delicate in the way that we use tax breaks in general, with respect to that level.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think, in my speech, I addressed that very clearly, but I will give another data point for the hon. member.

All of the government's investment tax credits for clean energy production amount to the expected spending of $103 billion, between when it started a handful of years ago and 2035. In fact, because it is a misguided approach, only $22 million of that money has been spent, That is because it is misallocated. We have to go for the low-hanging fruit here first of all. The low-hanging fruit is the waste heat that is already being produced, which we can cost-effectively get into our electricity system.

I hope my colleague looks at this from a cost-effective perspective. I have, and I think it is our best approach going forward.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill. I will have an opportunity to talk about it a little later.

I have a question about oil and gas companies, which already receive tons of investment tax credits. Does my colleague believe that these companies would also be included and that they would also be able to benefit from the tax credit he is proposing in his bill?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to clarify that this is not a credit for oil and gas production. It is a credit for manufacturers that use mainly natural gas, but also other types of fuels and sources that can produce heat. They are the ones who would benefit from this bill.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague described, waste heat to power is a well‑established technology that captures excess heat from industrial processes and converts it into reliable baseload electricity, while producing no additional emissions or fuel use.

Can my hon. colleague explain how this pan‑Canadian opportunity would be especially beneficial to the forestry sector and other resource sectors in western Canada, and particularly in British Columbia?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the thing about this tax credit is that it is manufacturing. It is across Canada. I mentioned some of the industries across this country that would benefit enormously from this as it would reduce their costs and give them an electricity source they can actually gain some revenue from. Every tax credit should have a benefit as well, at the end of the day. With this benefit, there would be more power for the country and more revenue for the companies that use this tax credit, it would lower costs all across the country and it would make us more productive as an economy.

Of the industries involved, pulp and paper is one that produces a lot of waste heat to power. Using this credit would give the companies more electricity to use on site, and they could potentially put it back into the grid if they use some other equipment.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could clarify what the actual cost would be. We have heard the government talk about billions of dollars, whereas he countered that it would be quite a bit less.

What would the cost to the taxpayer be if these credits were enacted in Canada?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a complex question, but I appreciate it, because we have to model this somehow. We talked about the credits that exist. The government expected $103 billion for its investment tax credits. Of that, only $22 million has been allocated so far. This one would bring about 83 megawatts of power into the grid. The production of extra power for this would probably offset the credit that the government would have to take out of its revenue.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate on private member's bill, Bill C‑269. I thank the member for Calgary Centre for putting it forward. I appreciate all members' private member's bills. They are an opportunity for us to work on projects and ideas and bring things forward. I appreciate the hard work that goes into that.

As we know, the bill proposes a set of amendments to the Income Tax Act to establish a new, permanent 30% non‑refundable investment tax credit for certain heat recovery equipment, which would be available as of January 1, 2026. In short, the intent of the bill is to support the adoption of certain heat recovery equipment, including waste heat-to-power technology.

I should make it clear from the outset that this is an objective that our government considers very worthy. For example, waste heat-to-power technologies capture heat that is typically lost during industrial processes and converts it into electricity. Common applications include energy‑intensive industries such as oil and gas refineries, steel mills, cement kilns and many others. By utilizing energy that would otherwise be wasted, this process can improve energy efficiency while also helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are, indeed, the sorts of objectives our government supports, and these are the sorts of technologies we would like to see adopted to help achieve these objectives. That is why we already have measures in place to support the adoption of energy‑efficient technologies, which are helping us meet our goals of improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me clarify. With budget 2025's productivity superdeduction, for example, we have reinstated the accelerated investment incentive, as well as immediate expensing for manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment for clean energy generation, energy conservation equipment and zero‑emission vehicles. The productivity superdeduction also provides for immediate expensing for productivity‑enhancing assets and capital expenditures for scientific research and experimental development. It introduces immediate expensing for manufacturing or processing buildings and it includes the reinstatement of the accelerated capital cost allowances for liquefied natural gas facilities, but only for those that are low‑carbon liquefied natural gas.

Together, these measures that form the productivity superdeduction would lower costs, spur investment and reduce Canada's marginal effective tax rate to 13%, reinforcing Canada as the most tax‑competitive country for new business investment in the G7 and supporting the adoption of cleaner and more efficient technologies.

I would add that we see numbers going up for investments in this area. Business investment has gone up by over 10% for new machinery and equipment. It has also gone up about 13% in IP protection, which is also included in the immediate expensing measures we put in budget 2025. These measures are already starting to take some effect in the economy, and we are seeing business investment where we have not seen it in past years.

Of course, a cornerstone of our new economic plan is an exceptional and unprecedented suite of clean economy investment tax credits, which will help attract investment from here in Canada and from around the world through tens of billions of dollars in incentives. These clean economy investment tax credits are providing businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build in Canada. They are already attracting major job‑creating projects, ensuring that we remain globally competitive, from new carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry to new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses. These new clean economy ITCs would put Canada on track to achieve a net‑zero economy by 2050.

I appreciate that one of the intentions of this private member's bill, Bill C‑269, is to address a perceived gap in the design of those clean economy investment tax credits. However, as I have already noted, certain energy-efficient equipment generally already benefit from the immediate expensing measures that are part of the productivity superdeduction. Therefore, Bill C‑269 is aimed at a target that is already being hit by some of these other measures.

Moreover, in the way the bill is currently structured, it would hit more than just the intended target. That is because the eligibility under the proposed tax credit is defined very broadly and could include not only waste heat‑to‑power technology, but also a much wider range of equipment used in industrial heat recovery and energy generation processes. While a narrowly focused tax credit for waste heat‑to‑power technology could cost roughly $70 million per year ongoing, the proposed tax credit would be available to other types of heat recovery and energy generation equipment, and its fiscal impact is expected to be significantly higher. Opening the door to energy‑efficient technology could create a significant new precedent in this regard.

The proposed new tax credit in the bill also has several inconsistent features that would introduce significant new policy precedents and irregularities into the investment tax credit regime. The proposed tax credit would be permanent, for example, while existing clean economy investment tax credits are time‑limited to encourage investment in the short and medium term. The proposed credit also lacks certain integrity rules that apply to many of the other clean economy ITCs. For example, eligible capital costs under the proposed credit would be reduced by other government assistance received or unpaid amounts, as is generally the case with the clean economy investment tax credits. It is also the case that Bill C‑269 proposes a non‑refundable tax credit, while all of the other ITCs are refundable, which is another inconsistency that I would point out. This would result in the lack of a tax refund and it would be used only to deduct from taxes owed, which is a significant inconsistency with the other ITCs that we have offered.

These are all important facts that should be taken into account when considering Bill C‑269. Having done so, our government cannot support the bill in its currently structured form. Changes to tax laws are ideally considered as part of the budget process so that all relevant facts can be taken into consideration. The budget process also ensures due consideration of the potential fiscal costs of proposed tax measures to ensure that they are consistent with the fiscal framework and overall coherence of the tax system.

I believe we have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to maintain these standards outside of the budget process. I also believe Bill C‑269 does not meet these standards for the reasons I have outlined today. While the bill is laudable in its intent, and I give the member opposite credit for including the technology he is proposing to support, which I believe in, I believe it is duplicative in that there are existing tax supports for investments in certain heat recovery equipment, it is not appropriately targeted and it may have costly, unfair and unintended consequences.

To conclude, I would accordingly urge that Bill C‑269, unfortunately, not be given the support of the House. I appreciate the opportunity to make this case today.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-269 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

First of all, as a proud resident of the north shore, I would like to thank the people back home who work in the energy sector. My riding is the second-largest producer of hydroelectricity in Quebec and in Canada. Obviously, energy is a big part of our identity. I mentioned hydroelectricity, of course, but I am also thinking about projects such as the one in Pessamit, where there are plans to build wind turbines. We want that, too. I am very interested in that work.

I also feel a sense of pride because the north shore, like Quebec, built this hydroelectric network on its own, without financial assistance from the government. It is a source of pride for me. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the workers in the industry, particularly those at Hydro-Québec. There are privately owned dams, but there are also Hydro-Québec dams. In fact, Hydro-Québec suffered a major power outage back home this morning, and they are still working on it. I wanted to mention that. It is affecting a lot of people in our region, and I want to thank them. They support Quebec's entire economy and industry. I just wanted to express my thanks. It has to be done, and it has to be done properly.

As for the bill, considering what I just said, I cannot object to my colleague's bill, which proposes offering a tax credit. The bill is relatively simple: It amends the Income Tax Act to grant a heat recovery tax credit.

It is as simple as that. The details may be more complicated, but overall, the bill is straightforward. The Bloc Québécois supports studying this tax credit, which goes hand in hand with the other existing credits. Despite having done so a number of times in the House, we would like to remind members of what the term “heat recovery” means. Obviously, we must agree on a definition before we can move forward. Heat recovery is “the principle of reclaiming heat which would otherwise be lost from a system and, instead, capturing and using it elsewhere to reduce energy consumption”.

We hear a lot about reducing energy consumption, but some would argue that it is a matter of optimization. This is definitely about heat that would be lost. This is not about producing more energy, but rather recovering energy and putting it to good use. We hear a lot about productivity, which is something we care about. Why not make use of the energy that already exists?

I will digress briefly to talk about hydroelectricity. These days, with climate change, we are facing a number of challenges that we have seen on the horizon for a while, but they are becoming even more apparent now, particularly with regard to water levels, which are going down. Some folks are wondering whether new dams should be built. Do we need more? These discussions have been on the back burner for a while, but we have been thinking about it. If energy usage could be optimized, there would be less demand on the system. Of course we encourage that.

In Quebec, Hydro‑Québec already offers financial support programs to encourage businesses to install heat recovery technologies in buildings. Depending on the type of system, up to 85% of the heat energy can be recovered. There are different options, including water loops, cooler heat recovery systems, and plate, cassette-style or thermal wheel heat exchangers. It depends on the system that is used, but the recovery rate can reach 85%. For some methods, it is 20%. It varies, but this is still an opportunity to recover a significant amount of energy and convert it into added value.

There are several projects across Quebec. Some have already been launched and are under construction. There is one right near here, in Gatineau. The Zibi complex is working with Kruger to reuse the plant's waste water in winter to meet the community's heating needs. It is right next door, so why not take advantage of that opportunity?

There are also several greenhouses, in Drummondville, for example, or Île d'Orléans, where energy is being used. This is happening in many different places and across different sectors. I just mentioned the food industry and greenhouses, but there is also the whole issue of residential heating. These are other possibilities.

That said, we agree. Through the government‑owned utility Hydro‑Québec, the Government of Quebec is already helping businesses and manufacturers modify their systems for energy recovery. What we actually want to know is which companies will be eligible for the tax credit. Not all businesses have started working on improving their greenhouse gas emissions. We want to know which ones will be targeted, which ones will be eligible.

Again, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill introduced by my colleague from Calgary Centre. That said, we have concerns about the measure's effectiveness. Since there are other measures to support energy efficiency, we wonder whether this one is as good, whether it is better, or whether it is ultimately worth our while to adopt it. What we would like is for the bill to be sent to committee so that we can discuss it, debate it, and, of course, draw on the expertise of experts and scientists in various fields.

For example, Environment Canada itself could shed some light on this by telling us the cost of such a measure, which might be difficult to estimate. The tax credit does not exist right now, but we know that it is not mandatory, so we do not know who will use it or on what scale it could be used. At the same time, there is the whole issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we want to generate power using this recovered energy, but we need to look at what the benefits will be, because we also want to see results. We see that the government has begun dragging its feet in the fight against climate change, so we would really like to know what additional benefits this would produce.

As I said earlier in a question to my colleague, this bill is very broad, and we are being told that the entire industry will benefit from it. However, the way we see it, even though the oil and gas sector accounts for 4% to 6% of Canada's GDP, it is responsible for 30% or 31% of the air pollution. We see an imbalance there. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we are also talking about one of the most heavily subsidized industries, which already receives billions of dollars in investment tax credits.

We wonder if this will be added as well, because this industry already has everything it needs to make changes and start recovering heat energy, for example, in order to contribute more to the fight against climate change and to improve its carbon footprint. That is what we are wondering. If this is intended to help oil and gas companies, we would like to know that because we do not think that this is the best way to do it. They already have the ability to do this. That is the main issue and the reason why we want the bill to be referred to committee. We are really acting in good faith, so that we can study this objectively and responsibly.

I would remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill and that we will support it so that it goes to committee, where we can discuss it and learn more about all the sectors that could benefit from the technology. We also want to hear from all the stakeholders in those industries that wish to apply for this investment tax credit to improve their productivity and to reduce their carbon footprint. That is why I hope that we can study this bill in committee.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269, which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre.

One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019. He has an MBA, he has a strong grasp of numbers, and he knows the energy sector inside out. This bill addresses precisely these very important issues, namely energy and taxation, as well as their economic and environmental dimensions.

Before I continue, I want to acknowledge my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, who mentioned earlier that there was a power outage on the north shore. Things are bad when the Manic-5 generating station is down. Needless to say, the people at Hydro-Québec will be sorting this out.

Bill C‑269 targets several extremely important objectives. Its first objective concerns the environment. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and take a much more environmentally friendly approach. We all agree on that, but the way to win people over is definitely not by imposing or forcing things on them. Like I say all the time: Pulling on a flower will not make it grow faster. What we need are positive incentives based on good old common sense. That is exactly what this bill has.

It is also important from a taxation perspective, because we want to let people and companies hold on to more of their money so that they can invest in much more economical and environmentally friendly approaches.

We also have to find ways to use the energy that is currently going to waste. This bill will incentivize entrepreneurs to find new, much smarter ways to harness the energy that their business is generating.

Essentially, here is what this bill proposes. Businesses generate a tremendous amount of heat as a result of the operations taking place in their facilities, but this heat is wasted. Up to 30% of this waste heat could be used efficiently and intelligently. That is smart because it is nothing new. The energy is already there. It is simply a matter of capturing it, storing it and using it in a meaningful way.

When I was preparing the speech I am delivering today, I learned that this involves generating electricity from waste heat. I will not hide the fact that when I saw “waste heat”, I found it somewhat odd, bordering on the absurd, or even a little suspicious. As a result, I would rather talk about recovery, because waste heat is heat that escapes and is lost into the atmosphere, whereas it could be used through recovery.

This brings to mind a fundamental principle in economics and ecology, namely that the best energy is the energy we do not consume, or rather, the energy we use because it already exists. That is precisely the objective of this bill. Some will say that the member for Calgary Centre did not invent the principle behind this bill. Of course not.

For decades now, if not longer, some companies have been harnessing, capturing, storing and making smart use of the heat generated by their operations. The difference is that there is no incentive for that in the federal plan.

We believe that this approach, using or recovering waste heat, should be treated the same as solar and wind energy. It is just common sense. Wind energy has potential, but it is not the answer to everything. Solar energy also has potential, but it is not the answer to everything, either. These come with both challenges and benefits. The same is true of heat recovery. This approach is pragmatic, effective, environmentally friendly and economical. In short, it is a conservative approach.

That is why I urge everyone, including my colleagues in the House, to support this bill, because it addresses precisely what brings us all together. Above all, it is meant to be efficient and cost-effective for everyone.

In fact, this could affect nearly every industry sector. I am going to have to put on my glasses, because there are so many that I have no choice but to read them. We are talking specifically about heavy industry material handling, cement plants, glass manufacturing, chemicals, paper and forestry, as well as mining, energy, and utilities. In short, it affects just about every sector of the manufacturing industry. Thousands of companies would be able to recover this heat through a tax incentive, and that is what the bill proposes.

We are talking about tax incentives. I have to say I am a car enthusiast. People in the automotive industry say it: the greenest cars, aside from100% electric vehicles, of course, are used cars. I say this to make people fully aware and understand that manufacturing a car, whether electric or traditional, has a significant environmental cost, not to mention an environmental impact. Someone who buys a 100% electric used car creates double the benefit, in other words, the environmental impact is lower because it is a used car, and using an electric car certainly produces fewer emissions. It is a win-win situation.

We made an announcement over the weekend. Our leader was there, as was our colleague from Ontario, who earlier announced the private member's bill to eliminate the GST on used cars. A vehicle that has already been manufactured and taxed should not be taxed a second, third or fourth time because people want to buy that used vehicle. The GST has already been paid once. It does not need to be paid repeatedly, especially since, from an environmental standpoint, it is always better to buy a used car than a brand new car. All environmentalists say so.

This is an environmentally friendly Conservative measure. Yes, we Conservatives are environmentalists because we are taking a pragmatic approach. We are prioritizing people's pocketbooks. A consumer who buys a used car may not necessarily have the means to buy a new one. However, this measure benefits both the consumer buying the car and the environment because a used car is much greener than a brand new one. Any environmentalist will tell us that. They may not say that this is a Conservative approach, but it is. I am saying it.

This bill is a step in the right direction. It takes a pragmatic approach. It is meant to put more money in people's pockets and give businesses more funds to reinvest in their operations in order to make them greener, more efficient and more profitable, while ensuring strong environmental protection and sound economic stewardship when it comes to energy management.

As I mentioned earlier, this is nothing new. Incentives are already in place in France, and the results are quite promising. As stated in a press release from CEA Liten, “Lower process water consumption (either direct for steam or indirect, such as for wet cooling towers) is an added benefit.” This makes it a win-win situation.

Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving. However, the government still needs to view it as a green approach, just as it does with wind turbines and solar energy.

That is why I urge the Liberals to support this bill. If, for some reason, they have any doubts, they should recall that three years ago I introduced Bill C-375. The idea behind that bill was one project, one review. It was common sense. People voted against it, but guess what? A year ago, in the Speech from the Throne, the King acknowledged that it was a good thing. He himself said that the government would implement a law ensuring that there is a single environmental assessment for each project. If the Liberals are recycling my idea for Bill C-375, I invite them to do so immediately for the bill—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, at the get-go, I want to recognize the member's objectives. What he is trying to accomplish with the legislation is fairly admirable, but I have a number of concerns with respect to the legislation as proposed, which I can maybe break down into two or three areas.

The first, and I made reference to this in my comments, has to do with the overall revenue that comes to the Government of Canada, even if we break it down in terms of percentages, and how that budgetary process actually works. In a situation like the one being proposed in Bill C-269, I would feel far more comfortable if it had been incorporated as a part of the overall budget, part of the budget planning.

It is important to recognize that a great deal of pre-budget effort is put into where and how best to implement tax credits, in whatever form. Looking at corporate taxes, I believe the member made reference to about $90 billion. I believe it is somewhere in that ballpark, let us say $85 billion to $100 billion. A lot depends on the overall performance of the economy, economic conditions, growth and so forth, and budgetary policies. All of these are factors. Cumulatively, we are looking into millions of dollars that could be used to provide incentive, and that is the essence of what often takes place.

When a government wants to encourage investment, what we try to do is use taxation policy as a way to encourage that. In the last federal budget, there were a number of policy initiatives or tax breaks to encourage and promote capital investment. That is something that governments in the past have done. Something that this Prime Minister and government are very much focused on is how we can use taxation policy to enhance job opportunities for Canadians and, in this particular case, to look at ways we can not only enhance job opportunities but also improve our environment. That is how I see the specific bill being brought forward.

I can recall, for years, driving by the community of Regina and seeing those gigantic flames coming from the refineries. The member made reference to cement plants and other industries, where we have actually seen significant improvements over the years. Technological advancements have enabled industries with a lot of heat generation that would have escaped and could be used in other forms of energy the mechanisms to capture that and convert it into another energy source. We have seen a great deal of technology being used over the past number of years to improve the conditions, but is there more? The short answer to that is yes, there is more out there.

I believe that with the right type of capital investment, when looking at Canadian technology we will in fact see more energy efficiency. We will see more capturing of heat then being put into a place where it generates energy. There is a role for the government to play in that. When we look to the last national budget produced by the government, we see there are a couple of initiatives in there that promote and encourage the use of technology, its expansion and the investing in capital to make things more energy efficient. Those are the types of things that can really make a difference. That is why, in part, the private member's bill that the member has put before the House today needs to look at the bigger picture.

Most politicians inside the House of Commons today will recognize the importance of dealing with gas emissions, the greenhouse impact, and how, as policy-makers, we can have a favourable response in comparison with other countries in the world while at the same time looking at attracting investment and building on Canada's energy. Both are very much deliverable, so that when we talk about the year 2050 and having zero emissions, we take the issue of greenhouse gas seriously. One way we can do that is by looking at ways we can modernize, using technology, and promote and encourage capital investment in industries, particularly industries that really contribute to the greenhouse effect. That is how I am going to read the legislation that has been brought forward.

However, as a government, it is difficult for us to support the legislation for the simple reason that within the budget, there are already initiatives that no doubt would address, at least in part, what the member is bringing forward, which then risks duplication in areas where we do not necessarily intend to move. Canadians have expectations in regard to the whole issue of taxation, the $500 billion plus in revenue, of which $85 billion or $90 billion is in corporate tax. The government has the right to have different forms of revenue, but there is an expectation that there is a sense of fairness and that some goals or objectives are established and put into place so that when we start spending the money that we raise, it is spent in a transparent and accountable fashion, and the revenues we generate are also perceived as being fair.

This is why I always find it interesting that some members of some political parties will say that we are subsidizing certain industries excessively. Well, there are also certain industries that contribute to the tax base excessively. There needs to be a balanced approach to dealing with things. That is why when I look at the issue before us today, I think of the accelerated capital cost allowance, as an example. The government has talked about the productivity superdeduction, which is an accelerated investment. These funds include, in part, clean energy generation and also, in part, energy conservation equipment.

The bottom line is that as much as the member's objectives are admirable, I would suggest that many of the concerns that the member has brought forward are actually dealt with in the national budget. In part of those budgetary processes, there are many different stakeholders, in particular within our energy sector, that we have been working very closely with. The Prime Minister has been very clear. We want to make Canada a superpower on energy. In doing that, we have to make sure we have the proper taxation laws to support that.

In essence, Canada is, arguably, the most competitive country for new business investment in the G7 today. We need to have a balanced approach, and that is something on which our Minister of Finance and Prime Minister are working with not only the national caucus but the many different stakeholders, including reviewing legislation such as what the member has brought forward.

The bottom line is that, I believe, what we currently have in place would meet the needs of where we are today.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre.

It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away. It is interesting to hear them complain about costs. This is, of course, from the same Liberal government that funded, through its green energy accelerator fund, companies that used that funding to go abroad and actually fund ISIS. Yes, a company that was convicted in France and in the U.S. of using that funding to actually fund ISIS, this Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars to. Under the same fund, it gave tens of millions of dollars to an overseas Chinese EV company that was named as a war sponsor supporting Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Yet, when the Liberals have a chance to support a common-sense bill that would help Canadians, encourage investment in Canada and reduce greenhouse gases, we hear government members stand up and speak against it.

Bill C-269 is a very simple, common-sense bill. It would introduce a non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it into electricity.

I am afraid that is all the time I have at this moment. I look forward to speaking more on it after the votes.

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

The hon. member will have time once the bill comes back.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 12, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government side. Members should keep their interventions to approximately one minute, and they may speak more than once.

I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269.

However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate? Canadians sent us here to debate the issues, not have the government shut down debate. To the hon. member opposite, why is he doing this again?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I do respect the member opposite, despite the many differences we have. However, we are here to deliver for Canadians. We are here to move our agenda forward, fighting to build our economy for Canadians.

In the finance committee, there has been an almost 30-hour filibuster over the last week. We need to move on. We need to move forward for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I suppose I will echo the comments of my friend from the Conservative benches, the member for Edmonton West, a moment ago.

The programming motions, the time allocations, are becoming routine. They used to be rare exceptions. I am honoured to have been serving here for the last 15 years, so saying something as simple as “I have never seen anything like it” might mean something.

The spring economic statement did not, in any way, foretell what would be in Bill C-30. A budget implementation bill is supposed to be about implementing what one reads in the economic statement. This one did not make anything of it. There is one line where we were going to include that regulatory agencies get to consider food security and food prices. It did not say that we plan to deregulate pesticides so that we can use them when they are too dangerous.

I am wondering if the hon. member would explain why it is that we do not have adequate time to study bills in this place under the new administration.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is two for two. I respect the member very much, too. She was my seatmate in the last Parliament.

The spring economic update contains many great things for Canadians: billions of dollars for trade unions, the sovereign wealth fund and money for small craft harbours. We have an agenda, and we need to deliver for Canadians. We need to rebuild, restructure and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of being at the finance committee over the last week or so for a number of the hours the member is speaking about, and I can say that it has not been about filibustering. It has been about asking questions in the only venue that has been made available to us to examine this bill. I have received many emails, phone calls and comments from constituents who are concerned about some of the things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about, such as the pesticide clauses and other changes that are happening to a wide variety of bills. For a bill that would touch so many acts, 30 hours is not enough. We need to be able to examine this bill properly.

I am wondering why the government is determined to ram things through without adequate consultation and risk unintended consequences of bills, as we have seen with Bill C-30.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting on committees for almost a decade, and we know when we are moving government committee business forward and when we are not. I know many Conservatives have admitted that the filibuster is not really even about Bill C-30 but about another issue.

Again, we were elected on an agenda to provide leadership and affordability to Canadians and to build and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago. Now I am experiencing a majority government for the first time in my elected career.

Is this what I am to expect, time allocation, closure and cutting off debate? Is this how the government intends to reflect the minority mandate, quite frankly, that the Canadian people gave it?