William Stevenson

Mr. Speaker, come October, Trevor, from my hometown of Carstairs, will be out of a job. Trevor has worked for Kaytec for 26 years. He was recently given a layoff notice because this siding company is closing shop. Slow housing starts and tariffs mean that the work simply is not there, and Trevor is not alone. I am hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are worried about how they will pay their bills, put food on the table and fill up their tanks. Our economy is struggling, our construction sector is hurting and Canadians are paying the price. The Liberals are out of touch, and after more than a decade of promises to build homes, Canadians are still facing housing shortages while builders are facing mounting Liberal red tape. The Liberals must stop making excuses and start acting. When will the Liberals step aside, adopt our Conservative plan and give Canadians the relief they need?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's remarks when she said how good this measure is. Earlier today, the finance minister said that when they took it off for a while, they saw immediate results and it was benefiting the economy. Can you tell me why they would not want to have long-lasting results and eliminate this issue altogether going forward?

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the NDP member's comments about rounding the math. I do not want to criticize him for going off topic so much, because I will probably do a bit of that in three hours when I have to speak, but in some of his comments, he said that taking this tax off would somehow subsidize the oil companies. I do not see how he can say that when it is going to help take taxes off the consumer at the pump. Could he explain how he rounds that math?

Mr. Speaker, could my hon. colleague comment on whether he thinks that if we actually followed the Conservative plan and reduced all of the taxes it would actually benefit the citizens of Canada far more than the 25¢ a litre, so they could afford to get out, go to work and buy their groceries? Does the member think that would be better for the overall economy than this half-measure that the government is proposing?

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's statement, and I agreed with everything he had to say there. My question to him would be this. Does he think it would be better if the Liberals actually had a long-term plan rather than making short-term, interim adjustments and things that are not going to necessarily last for the economy and for Canadian citizens?

Mr. Speaker, I did not catch all of the member opposite's comments, but he talked about a lot of the programs the Liberals were spending money on. Would he not agree that it is better for the individual taxpayer, the consumer out there, to actually take less from the consumer and not tax them like the government does with this excise tax? Would it not be better to just not have the money taken away from them to move it around versus spending the money on all the other programs the Liberals have?

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the timing of things, I do not know about the riding in B.C. but I know that in my riding in Yellowhead, quite often gas prices are at their absolute lowest in January. They then start rising again in the spring. Every time it hits me. That is when the prices actually get to their highest. Do you think that the timing of their removal and then the putting of them back on is actually going to help Canadians going forward?

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question to our colleague earlier today and I will ask it again. I am just wondering if the member opposite feels that it is better to continue to not take tax off to give relief to Canadians, versus bringing back a tax to offset the cost, which is taking from one pocket and putting it into another pocket for Canadians. Would it not be better to just not take the tax and extend this fuel excise tax holiday forever?

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member opposite's comments. I am sure she read the bill, as it is only a few lines long. She said that it would help all these different programs across government and supply all these things, yet when we look at what it would do, it would just not take more tax from Canadians. Can the member opposite tell me how not taking more tax would actually support building more businesses, help people get back to work and support all the social programs she mentioned? I cannot quite follow the logic when we have all this extra spending, yet we are just taking less tax and are helping people not spend as much at the pumps.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's wonderful speech, and I would like her to expand a bit on something. She said that a lot of what government does is control what it can control, which has a big effect. The Liberals have a $78-billion deficit and had an extra $6-billion-plus in spending after they came out with the budget, so they have controlled a lot of what they are going to spend. Meanwhile, they are kind of ignoring the extra GST and the extra oil revenues from the high prices of gas and oil, which they are consuming. This could go a lot further if they intended. Can you expand on how the Liberals' choices are affecting our citizens?

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the member opposite's speech. I felt as though I was listening to a radio. He has a great radio voice. I actually was captivated by some of his comments. In one of them, he said he has just returned from overseas. I would like to ask whether any of the countries he visited were actually oil-producing countries that were taxing their citizens on the fuel they have, compared to importing it. These other countries, I am assuming, were actually importing all their oil and not benefiting from oil they have in their own country. Does any other country you visited actually have a fuel excise tax for its citizens?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-38 and to the very real issue at the heart of this legislation, which is affordability. For more than a generation, tax policy has been designed to effect social policy. Taxes have been designed to curb our citizens' behaviour, not to benefit taxpayers. Tax policy has not been developed for what is best for the long-term future of Canadians. When taxes interfere with people's way of life, making it cost more to buy food, get to work or go to medical appointments, there is something wrong with our tax system. For families in Alberta and right across Canada, affordability is not an abstract economic concept. It is the price at the gas pump. It is the grocery store bill, the cost of getting to work, the cost of moving a truckload of farm products. It is the cost of building a home. For many Albertans, it is simply a question of whether they can afford to drive the distances that life in a large, rural and resource-producing province requires. That is why the government's decision to extend the federal fuel excise tax suspension matters. However, it is also why we have to look carefully at how we got here and what happens next. Conservatives have been raising this issue for months in the House. During question period back in April, actually on my birthday, I asked the question as to whether the government would extend the suspension of the excise tax until the end of the year. The Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience refused to commit to any relief for Canadians beyond September 7. If the Liberals had dealt with the issue back in the spring, we would not be here today having the same conversation. Are we going to have to do this again next January, when the government realizes the suspension is not enough again? I think all members would appreciate not having to repeat the same debate a third time and would ask the Liberals to consider extending this suspension until Canada Day. We pushed the Liberals to cut the tax. Then we pushed them to stop taking that relief away, but it needs to go further. Mind you, our proposal in April went beyond just the excise tax. We also called for the suspension of the GST on gasoline and diesel, the removal of costs associated with the clean fuel regulations, and the elimination of the industrial carbon tax. The government, however, chose a much narrower measure, by suspending only the federal excise tax. Its own figures estimate that this measure would provide more than $2.4 billion in relief. Now, after that temporary measure was scheduled to expire, the government is looking to extend it. Bill C-38 would keep the federal excise tax suspended through to January 2027, and in February and March the tax would return at half the regular rate. On April 1, April Fool's Day next year, the regular federal excise tax rate would return. It is not a joke. That means about 10¢ per litre on gasoline and 4¢ on diesel. If lowering the fuel tax provides significant relief today, why should Canadians automatically face the full tax again on April 1? Why does the government continue to ignore Canadians who are in desperate need of help? As we debate Bill C-38, I want to take this opportunity to speak about the issue that touches every Canadian, every working family and every business in this country. As the only chartered professional accountant with tax experience in the House of Commons, I understand both the importance and the complexity of the different layers Canadians have to deal with in tax. Canada's tax system has become far too complicated. For too many Canadians, understanding their tax obligation requires navigating a maze of rules, exemptions, credits, deductions and administrative requirements. That complexity comes at a cost. It consumes valuable time and resources for families and businesses. It creates uncertainty for those trying to invest in and plan for the future, and it makes it harder for Canadians to understand how much they are actually paying in tax. A reform of our tax system is not simply about changing the tax rate. It is about building a system that is simpler, more transparent and more fair, one that Canadians can understand and businesses can navigate with confidence. Canadian workers and businesses deserve a tax system that rewards hard work rather than making it harder to get ahead. Small businesses, in particular, need a system that allows them to spend less time dealing with paperwork and more time creating jobs, investing in their communities and growing their businesses. Our tax system should work for Canadians, not the other way around. What is most frustrating with the bill is that the government originally described it as temporary relief. Now it is extending that relief, and I would not be surprised if next year we are back, having to extend it again. The original suspension was supposed to end two weeks ago. Instead, the government is now rushing to extend it through the end of next January and will then phase the tax back in the following two months. That change reflects the economic circumstances Canadians are currently facing. It also reflects the fact that the affordability problem did not disappear when the temporary measure was scheduled to expire, two weeks ago. The government has recognized that, and I think Canadians will thank them for it. The question now is whether the extension is sufficient. For many Canadians, particularly those who drive long distances or operate businesses dependent on transportation, the answer will depend on what happens after March 31, because the reality of fuel costs in Canada will not suddenly disappear on April 1. We also need to recognize the role fuel plays in Canada's competitiveness. Transportation is not an optional part of our economy. It is fundamental to it. When the costs of moving goods rise, businesses face higher operating costs. When transportation costs rise, competitiveness suffers. Regardless of the current political climate, we are still very much competing with the United States, which does not have the layers of taxes and bureaucracy that we do here at home. This is just one more chip away at our global competitiveness, and Canadian businesses are suffering as a result. Another idea we may want to consider is permanently removing the excise tax on Canadian petroleum products to benefit Canadian companies. That is why fuel tax policy is about more than what someone sees at the gas pump. It is also about the cost of moving the Canadian economy. The House should not stop asking questions simply because the government has taken one step. We should be asking what happens next. We should be asking what relief will continue. We should ask how federal tax policies affect the cost of transportation. We should ask how those costs move through the supply chains, and we should ask whether Canadians can realistically afford this tax's return in April 2027. Conservatives have been raising these issues for months. The government has now extended a measure that it originally described as temporary, and that is why Bill C-38 matters, but this debate should not end with the passage of the temporary extension. The bill is needed. No one is doubting that. Canadians need this relief at the pumps, but there is more we can do. There is more we need to do. We need to continue pushing to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day next year; we need to permanently scrap the clean fuel regulations, and we need to remove the industrial carbon tax, so Canadians can save approximately 25¢ per litre. On this side of the House, we are committed to continuing this fight, and we hope to continue making measurable progress. At the end of the day, the bill would be good for Canadians, and for that reason, I will be supporting it. Canadians deserve an economy where working, producing, transporting and building are affordable.

Mr. Speaker, I have made that mistake many a time tonight, I know, and eventually I will break that habit, I am sure. The Conservatives will continue to scrutinize measures and continue to raise the concerns we have heard from Albertans and Canadians, who continue to ask the government where their temporary reliefs are. Comparing ourselves to many of the other countries is quite difficult when we compare our tax system, especially when we look at, as the member opposite brought up, Norway. Norway may have an excise tax that it has changed, but Norway has a completely different system, in which their personal individual tax and their corporate taxes are much higher than what we have in Canada. Their system is going to be looking at quite a difference in terms of what they actually spend on. However, this goes back to our choices, which is what we are debating here in the House. It is about the choices that we are going to make, going forward, on what we are spending and how we are taxing our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are proud of the role we played in securing this win. I feel like this is a win on the Conservative side. We have never stopped fighting, and we will not stop fighting, for more affordability measures. We pushed for this at the beginning, and we actually achieved what we wanted back in April. That part of it has been very beneficial. Yes, the Liberals are plagiarizing our playbook, as the member said.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are definitely in favour of any tax relief. However, because it is going to come back in April, given the way it is proposed, it does not really help with long-term certainty. Knowing what is going on for the next six months will help with some planning, but people need to plan far beyond six months for their future, whether it is for work or for what they are going to be doing for the next year. It is very important that the measures are extended past April.

Mr. Speaker, certainty, predictability and clarity are very important for both businesses and individuals in planning their future affairs. We need to have that. That is one thing the government could provide to citizens if it actually had a good policy going forward.

Mr. Speaker, after spending the summer in Yellowhead, the most beautiful part of Canada, I am pleased to return to Ottawa to continue representing Alberta in the House. Over the past several months, I have had the opportunity to speak with small businesses, farmers and community leaders. One message I consistently heard was that Canadians are working hard, but the tax system they are being asked to navigate is far too complicated. That is why tax reform is a major focus for me. As the only CPA with tax experience in the House of Commons, I take this responsibility seriously. I have met with shadow ministers, members from a range of backgrounds, fellow CPAs and tax experts. I look forward to engaging with more stakeholders. Canada's tax code has become inefficient, and the CRA is not working as intended. Canadians deserve a simpler, fairer tax system that is understandable and predictable, and helps grow the economy.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country with a prime minister to take the nation into recession. Full-time workers are living in RVs and trailers because they cannot afford homes. Families are spending more on food and rent than they are earning. People are making impossible choices just to survive. At the same time, every single day we learn about another instance of wasteful spending by the Prime Minister that exceeds even Justin Trudeau's record. Will the Prime Minister finally reverse the costly Liberal policies that caused the recession?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is the only G20 leader to take his nation into recession, and Canadians are paying the price. The average family now works 160 days a year just to pay taxes. It means people will work until this week just to pay the government before they can actually start earning for themselves. At a time when families are struggling, the Liberals keep spending, borrowing and wasting more taxpayer dollars. Why do the Liberals refuse to admit that their costly policies have driven Canada into recession and are failing Canadians?