John-Paul Danko

“This issue matters to all Canadians, and the opposition should care about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue for all Canadians, and it would be nice if the opposition were interested in what is happening. In the face— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“This disruption is disrespectful. We are talking about real jobs, and thousands of families in Hamilton depend on steelmaking.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about real jobs for real people, and this disruption is extremely disrespectful. Hamilton is proud to be Canada’s steel city, and thousands of families depend on steelmaking. It— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

• Little substance
  ?

  A question from a government member

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Hamilton is proud to be Canada's steel city. Steel is part of who we are.”

“Mr. Speaker, Hamilton is proud to be Canada’s steel city. It is part of who we are. This is— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“Fuel costs are hurting families, but biofuel rules help farmers and create jobs, like at a plant in Hamilton. We removed the carbon tax for consumers. I want the member to say exactly how much per litre the industrial carbon tax adds to the price of fuel.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that the cost of fuel is impacting affordability for families across Canada. The member mentioned biofuel standards, but what he did not talk about is how those standards are supporting the farming industry and also the processing industry. In Hamilton, we have a fairly substantial biofuel plant. Those biofuel standards are an important part of providing business opportunity. He also talked about the industrial carbon pricing. Of course, our government removed the consumer carbon tax, but I just wanted to give him the opportunity to explain exactly how much per litre the industrial carbon pricing contributes to the cost of fuel in Canada.”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price.”

  Said 7 times by 5 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“High fuel prices are a real problem for people in rural areas. But the Conservatives ignore the real reasons for these prices. Global conflicts, like the war in Ukraine, are driving up the cost of oil. Will the member admit that these conflicts are the real cause of high fuel prices?”

“Mr. Speaker, my wife is from Corner Brook, so I had an opportunity to spend some time with family in the member opposite’s riding this summer. I also had a chance to go across the strait to Labrador. I can certainly understand that, in the vast rural landscapes of Newfoundland and Labrador, fuel prices are a real concern for her constituents. I am a little frustrated. I have an ongoing frustration that the members opposite, not just this member, continuously focus on what I would say are silly partisan gimmicks and continuously miss the big picture. In particular, we are talking about the cost of oil and gas as a global commodity, and I did not hear the member opposite reference the causes of the current increase in costs to fuel, gasoline and diesel, which are, of course, the U.S. war against Iran and the conflict of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Her colleagues also mentioned Venezuela and other conflicts. Will the member opposite recognize those as the root causes of the cost of fuel in Canada?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 39 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“This bill lowers fuel taxes to give people quick help. The government is also investing in public transit, rebates for electric cars, and moving cargo by rail and ship to cut travel costs. I want the member to agree that we need to keep spending money on these projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am continuously surprised that members opposite focus on daily partisan sniping and continuously miss the big picture. In this case, we are talking about excise tax relief, which is immediate affordability relief, but in the big picture, this government is taking very large steps to reduce the cost of transportation, which is what we are talking about mainly when we talk about fuel prices. For example, there are investments in transit and EV rebates. The member is from Oshawa. I represent Hamilton, and the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority is making major investments in getting trucks off Highway 401 and onto rail and ships. Shipping traffic is five times more cost-effective than truck. Does the member opposite agree that we should continue to invest in infrastructure beyond today’s issue?”

“I agree that Canada needs to sell oil and gas to new global markets instead of selling it cheap to the United States. We expanded the Trans Mountain pipeline and are increasing our gas exports to help do that. I want the member to share his thoughts on these projects.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite’s knowledge of the Canadian oil industry. I think he made a couple of fairly poignant good points. Right now, we are seeing record high production of oil and gas in Alberta. I think his main point about diversifying the market and not selling to the United States at a discount and working to sell to the global markets is right on. There is the Trans Mountain pipeline and the expansion that is planned to increase capacity there. Hopefully he will acknowledge that it is in the right direction. There is also the major expansion of liquefied natural gas exports that are going to the west coast to then further diversify that Canadian energy market. I would like his comment on that, please.”

“World markets set oil and gas prices, not Canada. I agree we should export more fuel to the United States. Our government has already helped oil and gas production and exports reach record levels. Will the member admit our energy policy is heading in the right direction?”

“Madam Speaker, I listened to the member opposite’s comments, and he did hit on a few key points that are relevant. At the same time, they were mixed in with a bunch of misinformation and rhetoric. First of all is the fact that fuel, oil and gas, is set at a global commodity pricing, so Canadian production is priced at a global scale. Second, he talked about the disruptions in the fuel market, such as global diesel shortages; Iran, Ukraine and Venezuela; and that the U.S. is “searching for diesel in all the wrong places.” I completely agree with the member opposite that Canada should be increasing those exports to the U.S. to increase North American diesel opportunities. However, I will note that oil and gas exports and production have been at record levels and have been supported by this government. Would the member opposite acknowledge that we are going in the right direction and there are more opportunities in the North American energy sector?”

“The Conservatives are missing the big picture by only focusing on diesel and trucking costs. Shipping goods by rail or ship costs much less than by truck. Our government is investing in ports and rail to move cargo more cheaply and save Canadians money.”

“Madam Speaker, I am kind of struck that Conservatives often address the issue of the day with this kind of gotcha politics but often miss the big picture. In this case, the member talked a lot about the costs of diesel and trucking, but our government is investing in port infrastructure and in rail infrastructure, because the cost of shipping commodities by rail is half the cost of trucking, and by ship, it is four or five times less. I have some local examples of that. In Hamilton, we are investing in what is called highway H2O, the St. Lawrence Seaway, getting more cargo onto ship traffic and getting trucks off highways. Across the country, we are also investing in rail. Again, I have an example from Hamilton. There is a 50% rebate on steel that is shipped by rail or ship, promoting alternative modes of transportation for cargo other than trucking, which is a real cost savings for Canadians beyond the initial excise tax issue we are talking about right now.”

“Farming is a hard business with a lot of uncertainty. But the Canadian government is not causing the rise in diesel prices. Wars around the world are driving up fuel costs everywhere. I want the member to admit that.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite’s speech, learning some more about farming in rural Saskatchewan. I found that really interesting, very much acknowledging that agriculture is a very difficult industry with very thin margins and a lot of uncertainty. There is uncertainty in commodity pricing for what is sold, but also uncertainty in inputs and uncertainty in weather. I have a lot of respect for farmers who, day in and day out, find a way to make ends meet and do the job that they care so passionately about. Of course, our government removed the consumer carbon tax, which is a permanent reduction in the cost of fuel. However, I do take issue with the presumption that it is the Government of Canada that is causing the global increase in diesel fuel prices. The United States’ war against Iran and the ongoing war by Russia against Ukraine are primarily the global cause of the increase in diesel pricing in Canada as they are in the United States and around the world. Will the member opposite acknowledge that?”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price.”

  Said 7 times by 5 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“Our government is making life more affordable by cutting the fuel tax. We are also funding ports, food shipping, and public transit so people and businesses rely less on expensive fuel.”

“Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about a number of affordability measures that our government is taking, such as removing the excise tax on fuel as a direct measure, but there are also a number of very indirect measures that are directly improving affordability across Canada, such as the national food strategy, which is making food more available across the country. We are also investing in food distribution terminals; investing in port infrastructure, such as in Hamilton, taking trucks off of the highway so they are not relying on diesel fuel to transport food and other commodities; investing in municipal infrastructure to build better, complete communities; and investing in transit and reducing costs for people living in municipalities across the country, which then removes their reliance on some of those transportation costs and fuel.”

“Our government has cut taxes and lowered costs for people. We cut middle-class taxes, removed the carbon tax on fuel, funded cheaper child care, and offered rebates for electric cars and groceries. I am glad the member opposite supports pausing the fuel tax. I want to know why he will not support our other cost-saving measures too.”

“Madam Speaker, the government has implemented several cost-saving measures, such as the groceries and essentials rebate and middle-class tax cuts. We have eliminated the consumer carbon tax on fuel. That is about 10¢ a litre right there. There is the federal child care program. We are also incentivizing more affordable transportation methods such as EV rebates, $5,000 for a battery electric and $2,500 for a plug-in hybrid. I am glad to hear that the member opposite will be voting in support of the temporary suspension of the excise tax. Why not support all these tax-saving measures?”

“Canada is not broken, and I am proud of our record. Global events made living costs go up for everyone, including the pandemic, Donald Trump's trade war against Canada, tension with Iran, and Russia's war in Ukraine. I want the opposition to admit that these world events are driving up fuel and other costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, first of all, Canada is not broken, and I am proud of our record as a government. What the opposition seems to forget is that we went through the management of the most severe public health crisis in the past century. The COVID pandemic disrupted established supply chains and drove up costs for everyone, not only in Canada but around the world. The opposition also conveniently ignores Donald Trump’s illegal, unnecessary trade war against Canada. It ignores Donald Trump’s war against Iran, which has choked off the supply of fuel around the world, and Russia’s war against Ukraine and Ukraine’s retaliatory strikes against Russian refinery infrastructure, which also drove up the cost of fuel. Will the members opposite acknowledge the reality of the global political issues going on in the world that are causing costs to rise?”

In response to a question from Caroline Desrochers

“I support this bill because it will improve our ports. Moving more goods by ship and train will take trucks off our busy highways. That means less traffic for families and a more reliable way to move products.”

“Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit the port in Trois-Rivières last winter. There is so much opportunity within Canada to expand and also gain efficiencies in the port system. As I said, one of the things I am the most excited about is getting trade traffic, which right now is putting goods onto transport trucks and clogging up the 400 series highways between Windsor and Montreal, onto rail and onto shipping so that when we are out with our family, we are not hitting that congestion in traffic. It is also much more efficient, getting goods to market with consistency and reliability.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Marc Dalton

“I believe in Canada and our businesses. We have great economic opportunities, like in industrial areas like Hamilton. Canadian workers and companies will face our challenges and build a stronger economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, maybe this is a bit of a misalignment of ideologies. On this side of the floor, we believe in Canada, we believe in Canadians and we are proud of Canadian businesses. I am amazingly proud of and optimistic about the opportunities we have, especially in Hamilton, being that it is an industrial hub, and the opportunity to realign our economy the way we have to based on the threat we are facing. I know Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian industry are going to rise to that challenge and be much more economically stable in the future.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 31 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →