Following a speech by Tako Van Popta (Conservative)
“Madam Speaker, before I start speaking to the act to amend the Excise Tax Act, I just want to reflect for a moment on the four Canadian Armed Forces members who were killed in a training exercise at CFB Wainwright over the weekend: Sergeant Morgan Wong from Alberta, Private Shaun Farrell of Saskatchewan, Private Aidan Goulding of North Vancouver, British Columbia, and Private Hayden Lykkemark from my hometown, Langley, British Columbia. I offer my condolences to their families, their friends and their fellow soldiers. Of course, our prayers continue for the 39 people who were injured. We wish them all the best. I will be sharing my time with the member for Oshawa. Today we are talking about the Canadian fuel affordability act. Canadians should understand why Bill C-38 exists in the first place and why it is here and being debated. The legislation was introduced by the Liberals, but it was not the Liberals’ idea. This bill exists because Canadians pushed back and Conservatives fought for them. We fought for them because we understand that the affordability crisis hits home. Certainly, people in my riding are telling me about that. For months, Conservatives warned that rising fuel prices during an affordability crisis would make life more expensive for families, tradespeople and commuters. The Liberals insisted that higher fuel taxes would not significantly impact affordability, but today, after months of pressure, they are effectively admitting what Canadians already knew: taxes on fuel matter. It matters a lot, because it is inflationary. When fuel costs go up, everything goes up: trucking, farming, delivering, manufacturing and processing. All these costs get passed on to consumers, and that is why Conservatives support extending the fuel tax suspension. Any relief for working Canadians is good news. Let us be honest. Bill C-38 would not solve the underlying problems of our current affordability crisis. It would simply extend temporary relief before these taxes would eventually return in a matter of a couple of months. Canadians do not need temporary Liberal band-aid solutions. They need a government that understands affordability and recognizes that families are already stretched to the limit. Bill C-38 would be a step in the right direction, but it would be a small step. Conservatives will keep fighting for lower costs, lower taxes and a more affordable Canada. Let us talk about what fuel prices mean in the real world. Today, drivers in British Columbia pay the highest gasoline prices in Canada. According to my research on GasBuddy yesterday, regular gasoline in Langley is roughly two dollars a litre. I know that is what I paid. In Calgary, it is about $1.45 a litre. In Hamilton, it is about $1.70. Imagine a family that drives a pickup truck or an SUV with a 100-litre tank. To fill up in Langley costs $200. In Calgary, it is also expensive but $55 less. In Hamilton, it is also expensive at $170 but $30 less than what we pay in Langley. For many working Canadians, this is not just a one-time investment. It is not even a monthly investment. It is a weekly expense, week after week. We can imagine all the thousands of dollars extra that British Columbians are paying compared with other Canadians, and that amounts to thousands of dollars every year that could better go toward groceries, mortgage payments, kids’ sports or retirement investment savings. That is why Conservatives continue to argue that the government should stop treating gasoline and diesel as a source of tax collection. Canadians deserve relief. They deserve a government that understands just how fuel prices affect everyday life. There is an important lesson that often gets missed in the affordability crisis. Affordable living is not just about prices. It is also about income. I am going to take just one example. In Bellingham, Washington, about an hour’s drive from Vancouver, gasoline prices are often similar to what drivers in metro Vancouver pay, yet fuel generally is more affordable for Americans. That is because affordability is ultimately determined by purchasing power. Two people can pay the same price at the gas pump, but if one earns significantly more, fuel consumes a smaller portion of their paycheque. That is the challenge that Canadians are facing today, and I would say that this is right across the board, right across the country. Canadians are not just dealing with high prices. After 10 years of Liberal Party mismanagement of our economy, we are dealing with stubbornly weak productivity growth, slower wage growth and declining purchasing power. That is what we have after a decade of the Liberals. The former Liberal finance minister recognized this as a problem. I heard her say in the House once, during one of her budget speeches, that Canada’s lagging productivity measures is Canada’s Achilles heel. I guess she tried to convince her fellow colleagues that it was a problem, but they continued focusing on the distribution of wealth rather than growing the Canadian economy. That is still the problem we have today. Yes, lower fuel taxes help and affordability relief matters, but Canadians need something bigger. They need a stronger productivity growth. They need more investment. They need better-paying jobs. The goal should not be just to make us less poor with a temporary band-aid solution. The goal should be to make prosperity possible again. That is what Conservatives focus on. Canadians are asking a very reasonable question: Why are Canadians selling raw resource material at a discount to Americans only to buy refined product back at market value? There are two reasons. One is that the Lower Mainland does not have enough refining capacity to fill the demand for gasoline, fuel and diesel. The second is because, with the lack of market diversification for Canada, we have one buyer for a product and that is the Americans. Therefore, we are price takers, not price setters. We sell crude oil produced in Alberta to the Americans at reduced prices and we buy back a refined product at fair market value. It is the opposite of what financial advisers tell us, which is to buy low and sell high. We do the opposite with our energy economics. Just across the border sits the Cherry Point Refinery near Blaine, one of the largest refineries in the northwest. Much of the crude oil process in Washington state originates here in Canada and is refined there. It comes back to us as finished product. That means higher prices at the pump, fewer Canadian jobs, less investment, lower government revenues and weaker economic growth. Canadians should not wonder why one of the world’s richest countries in energy production struggles to fully benefit from its own resources. Affordability is not just about taxes, but about infrastructure, energy policy, market access and ensuring Canadians benefit from their own resources. Bill C-38 provides some welcome relief, but Conservatives are fighting for something much bigger. The real issue is not simply the cost of gasoline, but the cost of living. Canadians are working hard, playing by the rules, doing everything they were told to do that would lead to success, yet too many are falling behind. The price of fuel is behind most of the inflationary pressure. Canadians deserve a government that understands how these costs compound. That is why Conservatives support fuel tax relief. We will vote for this bill, even though we think it is not enough. It is a small step in the right direction. Our objective is lower taxes, higher wages, more investments, stronger economic growth and greater energy security for Canadians. Conservatives will bring back the Canadian promise that a good job would buy an affordable home, on a nice street, in a safe neighbourhood, with a fridge full of affordable food, and a car in the carport with affordable fuel.”
Statement grade
C+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 71. The grade is held to 66, 30 above Relevance.
66 / 100, held down by Relevance
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 42%Procedure 20%The question 38%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Madam Speaker, Claims · 12 wordsI am glad the Conservatives are, in fact, voting for Bill C-38.1Procedure · 20 wordsWe could talk at length about some of the differences in policies with respect to the excise tax on gas.ProcedureClaims · 31 wordsThe bottom line is, much like the province of Manitoba a number of years ago, the federal government has also decided to do it, 2Unearned certaintyand the bill gives it the extension.3Procedure · 7 wordsMy question for the member is this: ProcedureThe question · 44 wordsEven though we are working together to pass this legislation, why does the Conservative Party not support our seniors on fixed incomes regarding our dental program or our children who are receiving food in our national school program, both of which are absolutely essential?4Claims · 14 wordsIt is generational change that was required and we have provided that generational change.The question · 7 wordsWhy do the Conservatives not support it?Off point