“We want to produce more electricity in Canada, and our budget includes steps to do that. But corporate taxes bring in up to $100 billion a year. We must be very careful when we give out tax breaks.”

“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.”

“I do not support this bill. Our government already gives businesses tax breaks to buy energy-saving equipment. This bill is written too broadly, it will cost too much, and it does not match our other clean energy tax rules.”

“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.”

“I cannot support this bill. I like the goal of saving energy, but our federal budget already has tax credits that do this work. Big tax changes like this should be handled through the main budget instead.”

“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.”