44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 2, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/2/23 10:43:46 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, given that the government has announced a “temporary, three-year pause” to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha.
“A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” Those were the words of the Prime Minister, and that is the principle of my motion today. It reads, “That, given that the government has announced a ‘temporary, three-year pause’ to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.”
It is very simple. How does anyone argue with that? If the Prime Minister has now caved on the carbon tax for those heating with oil, then he ought to be intellectually consistent and do it for all forms of heating for all Canadians. We know that the Prime Minister has decided to create two classes of citizens. He, under pressure and under duress, decided to pause the carbon tax on home heat until after the election, at which point he intends to quadruple it. In the meantime, there will be a temporary carve-out. Asked why there was a double standard and why this carve-out applied only to about 3% of households, the Minister of Rural Economic Development said that other Canadians could have had the break too, but they did not elect enough Liberals. In addition to that being a bloody-minded, divide-and-conquer approach to politics, it is actually inaccurate, because many did elect Liberal MPs and are still forced to pay the tax on the heat. These are people in Liberal-held ridings who will be excluded and will be forced to pay the higher tax on the heat as the temperatures go down and the snow starts to fall.
Are these citizens less Canadian than those who are getting the pause? Is the malnourished senior in the Liberal riding of Sudbury who heats with gas any less Canadian than those who get the pause? Is the single mom in the Liberal ridings of Thunder Bay any less Canadian as she is forced by the Prime Minister's tax to skip meals so her kids do not have to? Is the welder in North Bay any less Canadian, as he cannot gas up his truck to go visit his dying relatives in other parts of the province, any less Canadian? Of course they are not, but the Prime Minister thinks they are.
Once again we see his divide-to-distract strategy. He thinks that if people are afraid of their fellow Canadians, they might forget that they cannot afford to gas their car or heat their home. We have seen this divide-and-conquer strategy of the Prime Minister over many years. We saw how he called small businesses “tax cheats”. We saw how he called anyone who disagreed with him a “small fringe minority”, even though he later had to apologize for those comments. Recently, we saw how he tried to besmirch Muslims, Sikh and Christian parents, calling them “hateful” simply because they wanted to protect their children. We see, again and again, how the Prime Minister tries to demonize hunters, calling them “American” and saying that people who live in Cape Breton and hunt or who live in northern Canada and hunt for sustenance are the reason we have record gang shootings in downtown Toronto. That has become his go-to approach, and here we have it again with a “two classes of citizens” approach to his carbon tax.
Let us not forget that his plan is to quadruple the carbon tax if he is re-elected. My plan is the opposite. I propose, with this motion, a compromise in the meantime. What I propose is that we take the tax off so Canadians could keep the heat on this winter, and then, when Canadians go to the polls, we could have a carbon tax election where people choose between his plan to quadruple the tax on gas, heat and groceries, and my common-sense plan to axe the tax and bring home lower prices.
The Prime Minister, in his desperation yesterday, would not even show up and defend this approach in the House. He was in Ottawa and he was in the building, and he would not—
764 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 10:54:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting hearing the leader of the Conservative Party. One can ultimately say he has done a flip-flop. It was not that long ago that the NDP brought forward a motion to remove the GST on home heating. One would think, based on everything he has been blabbing about for the last week or so, that the Conservatives would have voted in favour of getting rid of the GST on home heating. Canadians would be surprised to find out that their leader did not. He looks to his colleagues and wonders if he really did that. Yes, he really did vote against an amendment that would have removed the GST on home heating oil. Why has there been this change? I think it is a fair assessment. I agreed with him. I too voted against it, but I am curious why the leader of the Conservative Party flip-flopped on this issue.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 11:37:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, perhaps the member was not in the chamber when I made my remarks specific to the fact that this program is available across the country. There is a $10,000 federal grant to vulnerable Albertan households that are still using heating oil. He should help his constituents find that program. Maybe he has not; maybe he did not know about it. I am happy to share the information after the remarks here today. This is a national program; when he stands up and says that there is not something for Alberta, it is just simply not the case.
Specific to home heating oil, it is unique, because it is highly carbon intensive. In fact, it is the worst for the environment, but it is also the highest cost for what it actually takes. That is unique. Usually there are higher intensities of carbon in more affordable fuels, and we are trying to put a carbon price to make a change in behaviour. That is not the case here. There is no sense in putting a carbon price on someone who is already vulnerable and paying the highest costs, but under the climate action incentive payments, the rebates that go, every other source of heating actually gets more money back than people pay in, but heating oil was the exception, and that is why we have moved on an exception on the carbon price specific to that.
Yes, it is an Atlantic-acute issue that I am proud to have helped champion, but it matters in his riding too. I am proud to have made a difference for his constituents.
274 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 11:40:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia people using natural gas would be using a heating source that is probably one of the lowest cost in the province, and my remarks reflect the fact that there is a series of programs. With the Canada greener homes grant there is a $5,000 grant available to people.
I take notice that the member is talking about how we can make sure we front-load more money for people who are vulnerable and not specifically on heating oil. I think that is a valid conversation, but I would direct him to the fact that there is a plethora of federal programs that are available to help people regardless of the heating source they use. Heating oil in particular is a very specific chronic challenge for a vulnerable group of Canadians. That is why the government has tackled it.
We started with coal-fired electricity. We are moving to heating oil, in terms of that being a challenge, but on natural gas, if people want to look at energy efficiency programs, they do exist across the country, and they are available. Can improve them? I am happy to take some of his suggestions.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 11:42:13 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a really important point that, particularly on heating oil, it is the market that is driving the price. It has nothing to do with the carbon price, but it has to do with the cost of the heating oil itself, which is anywhere from two to four times the price of alternatives. That is exactly why the government has been laser-focused on that question with affordability programs to support it.
To answer the hon. member's question on the windfall profits, I recognize that other jurisdictions in the world have considered it and have moved forward. I said to him this week that, because the oil and gas industry is primarily located in western Canada, we have to be careful about the concept of introducing something like that, not only because there could be a capital flight of really important jobs and industries that may not necessarily invest in the country as a result, but also because the money collected under such a program should stay within the regional context. That is the suggestion I gave him. Whether or not the government moves forward on it, I do not know. It is a careful balance because there are a lot of considerations there.
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:14:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering where my colleague from the Bloc stands on our proposal to cut the GST on all forms of home heating so that affordability measures like the ones that have been proposed can truly benefit people right across this country, regardless of how they heat their homes. Could he speak a bit to that?
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the best solution is to come up with incentives to transition to a less carbon-intensive heating system, and that is electrification. Right now, instead of taking money and investing it in electrification, the government is funnelling it to the oil companies. They are paying the oil companies $83 billion until 2035 for the pipe dream of low-carbon oil. This is completely unheard of.
The best solution is to come up with what all other countries have, which is the polluter-pays principle, not a polluter-paid principle. Canada is doing the reverse. It is rewarding oil companies with $83 billion and investing nothing in clean energy.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:28:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that may very well be how the parliamentary secretary sees the issue. I will tell the House how Canadians see it. Canadians see the issue as being one of a government that is flailing in the polls, that is particularly struggling in the Maritimes, in Atlantic Canada; without doing any detailed planning, it has just pulled this idea out of a hat overnight. It has given a sweetheart deal to people who live in one part of the country, while ignoring the affordability needs of people who live elsewhere.
Everyone in this country deserves help to get their homes off fossil fuel heat. They deserve help with the affordability of home heating and, yet, low-income Canadians have largely been ignored in this country's programming.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:31:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it seems that my hon. colleague wants to split hairs. If there was an amendment, it was an amendment that his party rejected, which means that Conservatives do not support it.
The idea of taking the GST off all forms of home heat has been around since Jack Layton's time. New Democrats have consistently called for the GST to be taken off home heating as an affordability measure for all Canadians, and we are going to continue to do so until we get the support of the House.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:32:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us talk about the facts. One fact is that the motion the Conservatives have put forward today would help four provinces and three territories; it would not help people who live in British Columbia. Another fact is that removing the GST on all home heating would help all Canadians in all 10 provinces and three territories.
Could my colleague talk about the fact that the Conservatives have not supported removing the GST on home heating, something that was in their 2019 platform?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:32:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a fact. My hon. colleague made the point very clearly.
What is really concerning with the inherent mendacity of the motion before us is that the Conservatives are claiming to help all Canadians when, indeed, this motion would only help Canadians in provinces covered by the federal price on carbon. The plan that New Democrats have put forward would help people in all parts of the country with all forms of home heating.
We need to do that; at the same time, we need to fix the broken programs that the Liberal government has put forward, particularly to help low-income homeowners transition from fossil fuel heat to renewable alternatives. We could then finally tackle the climate crisis with the seriousness it deserves.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:45:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my friend from Timmins—James Bay and I agree on many things, but not on everything. We do not agree, for example, that this was a reactive change in Atlantic Canada.
I want to come to the point of my question. We agree on the fact, I believe, that home heating oil is four times the cost to homeowners as natural gas. It is twice as polluting as natural gas. It is disproportionately used by the lowest-income Canadian households. Therefore, one of the biggest wins we can pursue is to have those households convert to electric heat pumps. Of the many things we can do in our arsenal of climate actions, this is a very important thing. It accelerates our journey to our targets and does so in a way that makes life more affordable.
Natural gas users in the rest of Canada, who Conservatives claim are so aggrieved, heat their homes at a quarter of the cost, with half the amount of pollution and still get the climate action incentive rebate so that eight out of 10 households are better off.
I wonder if the member would care to provide an opinion on why it is Conservatives are so concerned about helping the people who least need the help right now?
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:46:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of home heating fuel is something I know a great deal about, as I represent rural northern Ontario. People are not able to afford it. I can also say that for the people who are living on a northern reserve and paying over $2,000 a month for electric heat because they are isolated and then are having to pay a tax on top of that, it is punitive. We have senior citizens across the board who simply cannot pay for heat, so we need to be fair, which is what the Liberals have failed to do,
When the Liberals had their MPs from Atlantic Canada backing them, it gave the impression they were defending people who were in a region who had more home oil. However, everywhere in the country should have the same opportunities, and we just saw Conservatives vote down an opportunity to bring fairness to British Columbia. They did not want that to happen.
Again, we are seeing region being pitted against region by both Conservatives and Liberals.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:47:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is tragically ironic, quite frankly, that the member, the members of the NDP and all other political parties are bent on punishing Canadians who are facing out-of-control increases to their home heating. They are pitting region against region. Even in the amendment the member just tried to move, it would have been so simple to simply say that the GST should be eliminated on all home heating. Is that what the member did? No. He wanted to once again pit region against region. He wants people to be divided in this country, just like his coalition partners in the Liberals.
My question for the member is simple. What does he say to those in his constituency who heat with propane or natural gas who are desperate for a break? What would he say to those in other parts of the country, who likewise are reaching out to their members of Parliament from coast to coast to coast, where both the federal backstop applies and others, who are desperate for a break?
Why would the member, instead of choosing to work toward common-sense policies, choose politics and division over practical change to bring home lower prices for Canadians?
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 1:07:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, “given that the government has announced a 'temporary, three-year pause' to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” This is a reasonable, common-sense and fair-minded motion.
Again, “given that the government has announced a 'temporary, three-year pause' to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” That is what Conservatives are asking for today and with the vote on Monday. The Prime Minister gave to some; now he needs to give to all.
Poll after poll has shown that the affordability crisis, aided by the government's poor fiscal mismanagement, is top of mind for all Canadians. Conversations I am having with the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington are consistent, that the high price of food, fuel, rent and interest on mortgages is staggering. We realize that the relief from the cost of living is what Canadians not only want but need, and the quickest and most effective way to do that is to roll back the Liberals' burdensome carbon tax plan that is closer to a revenue-raising measure than an actual carbon reduction plan.
When I say that scrapping the Liberal carbon tax will have immediate positive results for struggling Canadians, I do not say that without backing. Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem told parliamentarians that removing the carbon tax would result in an immediate drop in inflation, helping to ease the financial burden weighing down Canadian families.
The Conservative opposition has tried numerous times, through opposition day motions in this place, to stem the increasing tide of the affordability, and every time the Liberal-NDP government voted against them. On September 28, we moved a motion to introduce legislation to repeal the carbon tax, and the government voted against it. On June 1, we moved a motion to cancel the second carbon tax, and the government voted against it. On December 8, 2022, we moved a motion to eliminate the carbon tax on food, and the government voted against it.
It is extremely clear to anyone who has been paying attention that the government has historically had a deep loathing to alter its carbon scheme in any way.
Suffice to say, when the Prime Minister announced a temporary three-year pause to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, many of us wondered why now. Why has the government taken this small step in the right direction after years of dogged ideological refusal to support common-sense motions proposed by the official opposition?
The answer can be found splashed across the newspapers of the nation, but allow me to cite everyone's favourite pollster, Mr. Fournier, who said that if there was an election held today, according to 338, the Liberal Party under the Prime Minister would win a staggering 80 seats. One out of every two sitting members of the government would not be coming back.
The only reason that the government is starting to break away from its near cult-like devotion to the Prime Minister's carbon tax is because it is now politically expedient to do so. It is doing it now because it knows, and always knew, it was what Canadians wanted and what Canadians needed, but Canadians had a problem because it was not what the Prime Minister wanted, until now.
With what I am sure was much gnashing of teeth at the cabinet table, the Liberals' free fall in the polls has forced them to make a political calculus, a bend in their deeply unpopular urban-centred climate change policy in exchange for at least some public support come election time, particularly in Liberal seat-rich Atlantic Canada where the majority of heating oil is used. I would like to applaud the Atlantic Liberal caucus for what I am sure was a spirited effort to secure even this small concession from the leadership. I find it curious why those same concessions were not given to other areas heated by different methods.
For instance, why did the Prime Minister fail to include electric heating from these measures, which is the most popular source of heating in British Columbia, where Mr. Fournier predicts only four of 11 members of his caucus would return, or natural gas for Ontarians, where only 30 members are slated to see the 45th Parliament? However, I have good news for my Liberal colleagues across the way. The member for Carleton just tabled a motion that would directly help the other 97% of Canadians who are struggling to pay their heating bills, like those using propane, natural gas, electric or wood stoves, which are especially frequent in rural communities.
This is not to say that a federal government does not have a role to play in combatting climate change and that industry and Canadians should do their very best to lower their carbon emissions. The federal government absolutely has a role to play as measured environmental stewards, but having the government take the wallets of Canadians hostage to do this is a terrible way to go about it.
Once again, Tiff Macklem reiterated that the carbon tax disproportionately hurt the lower class, the poor, the infirm and those on social assistance. They cannot undertake the extreme lifestyle changes necessary to have any measurable effect. Not everyone is an investment banker or a lobbyist. The vast majority of Canadians are struggling, and the Liberal-NDP government needs to open its eyes and realize this.
I would like to take an opportunity to quickly highlight another time tested and true Liberal Party method of raising money, which the government has borrowed from its Chrétien era ancestors, and that is raiding and pillaging from the budget and pockets of the Canadian Armed Forces.
At a time when CAF members are using food banks and begging for donations to pay rent, resulting in morale, recruitment and retention dipping to an all-time low, what does the government do? It slashes their benefits and cuts a billion dollars from the defence budget, something it specifically said it would not do in the 2023 budget. This does not even touch on the billions of lapsed spending this Parliament approved, which was never used on the CAF, but rather was skimmed off into some other project. It is shameful and it is the exact opposite of what needs to be done to address the numerous severe crises facing our armed forces.
My riding is immense, stretching from Amherst Island, where Lake Ontario meets the St. Lawrence River, along the shores of the Bay of Quinte to Belleville and northward to the Hastings Highlands at the edge of Algonquin Park. Whenever I get a chance, I love to travel through the riding to meet the awesome and amazing people we have there.
During my conversations with my constituents, what I find, as I am sure many others in this place find, is that despite inflation, despite high taxes and despite rising interest rates, our people are resilient and determined to carry forward and make better lives for themselves and their families. However, its getting harder.
Whether it is at local fall fairs or celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Lennox & Addington County General Hospital volunteer auxiliary, it is our people who make us strong. We cannot lose sight of the fact that it is these people who sent us here to do our jobs. It is our role to advocate for them.
My constituents are overwhelmingly hard-working farmers, forestry workers, tradesmen, seniors, small business owners and young families juggling the chaos of life. They pay their federal taxes, their provincial taxes and their municipal and education taxes. However, after eight years, they need a break from a government and a finance minister who believe big bureaucracy can spend us into prosperity using their hard tax dollars.
After eight years, they need a break from a Prime Minister who thinks he deserves over $600,000 for three vacations on the backs of taxpayers. After eight years, they need a break from the free spending finance minister and her jet-setting boss, who travels around the world preaching virtues and values that he and his government fail to uphold.
Will the members opposite find it in their hearts to rein in the runaway spending of their leadership and give my constituents, their constituents and all Canadians a break? If not, will they please step aside and let a common-sense Conservative government show them how to balance a budget and tackle climate change and still deliver services effectively and efficiently to Canadians who so desperately need it to.
1471 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 1:18:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the New Democrats and the Liberals are deliberately spreading outright falsehoods. There was no such motion from the NDP to take the GST off home heating. In my opinion, the Liberals and their NDP dance partners need to wake up ahead of Monday's vote and, hopefully, understand that when something does not work, it is time to try a different approach.
This is not about environmental science; this is about political science. The Liberal-NDP agenda is only about holding onto power.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 1:48:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we also believe that there should be a price on carbon and that we need to take climate action seriously, to take real action and to move rapidly.
The Liberals decided to do a carve-out that is only going to take pressure off Canadians in terms of home heating.
We hear the Conservatives say they are bringing forward a motion to help all Canadians. In B.C., that motion the Conservatives are bringing forward will not help British Columbians. It will not take any taxes off their home heating.
We put forward a motion to remove the GST on home heating for all Canadians. It was in the Conservative 2019 platform. They rejected our amendment to apply the GST removal to provinces that were not going to be impacted by their motion today.
Does my colleague believe it was either a) because it was not their idea that they rejected it, or was it b) because they actually do not believe in taking action on climate change, and that is why they brought forward this motion today that does not really help all Canadians?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 1:52:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.
The motion we are debating today is, “That, given that the government has announced a 'temporary, three-year pause' to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” What could be more fair? This is a reasonable, common-sense and fair-minded motion that addresses the concerns that we are all hearing from our constituents as the cost of living continues to rise under the government.
I will repeat the motion, which says, “That, given that the government has announced a 'temporary, three-year pause' to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” The motion is simply asking for fairness for all Canadians, regardless of the region or the way they choose to heat their homes.
All of us in this House and all Canadians, especially Atlantic Canadians, are acutely aware of what happened with the Prime Minister. He brought in a carbon tax that hurts working people, single mothers and families that are trying to make ends meet. It hurts people who get up early in the morning and drive to work in their vehicles. It hurts parents who take their kids to a hockey game. It hurts families that are trying to put food on the table. It hurts senior citizens on fixed incomes who are trying to heat their homes.
All members have heard from their constituents about the damage that is being done by the carbon tax. The Conservative leader was about to hold an axe-the-tax rally in Atlantic Canada, in the province of Nova Scotia. I have been to rallies before where many people are very concerned about the carbon tax and are very enthusiastic about the Conservative Party's plan to axe the carbon tax, to make life more affordable, to give Canadians back a little more of the money that they work so hard to earn.
The Prime Minister and his Atlantic members of Parliament have been steadfast in voting in favour of the carbon tax every single time. It is funny that when it was the constituents of Atlantic Liberal members who were suffering losses, those members did not stand up to the Prime Minister. Their constituents called them, and we know these calls are coming in. Their constituents said that they do not know how they will pay their heating bills or put gas in their cars, that they have to choose whether to buy groceries for their kids or heat their homes. We know that is happening. It is happening in Atlantic Canada. It is happening throughout Canada.
The Liberal members of Parliament in Atlantic Canada and the Prime Minister, when the tables were turned, and the numbers were not looking so good, realized that their jobs were on the line. Forget their constituents, when those members saw this could cost them something, it got their attention. The very day the Conservative leader was in Nova Scotia for an axe-the-tax rally, the Liberals crassly announced this completely transparent proposal to freeze the carbon tax on home heating oil only.
In my province of New Brunswick, 90% of homes are not heated with home heating oil. This does not apply to those people. We are hearing other Liberal members throughout the country asking about their constituents and what is going to happen to them in the next election. Every Atlantic Canadian knows that the Prime Minister and Liberal members have voted to make their lives tougher. Every one of us knows mortgage payments have gone up, that the cost of groceries has gone up, that the cost of fuel has gone up, that people are being taxed every step of the way. Conservatives can see right through this panicked reaction. If it were not so sad, it would be laughable.
There is this increase the government has given to rural areas. Let us talk about rural New Brunswick. If someone is a tenured professor or a provincial bureaucrat living downtown in the city of Fredericton, the capital city of New Brunswick, they get the rural top-up. If someone lives in my riding in the village of St. Martins, with a population under 300, they could have a 100-kilometre round trip commute to work in Saint John. It is truly a rural community. Elgin, New Brunswick, has a population under 200. It is an over 100-kilometre commute to the city of Moncton for work. It is truly a rural community. They do not get the rural top-up. That is how twisted the Liberal proposal is and how little the Liberals understand the needs of New Brunswickers and the needs of rural Canadians.
As he watches his support drop to new lows, the Prime Minister is now trying to rebrand himself, very transparently, as a hero for Atlantic Canadians living in rural communities. This is a frantic attempt to slow down the support for our axing the tax movement. The Prime Minister announced a slight increase to the rural rebate but is applying it to urban centres. People living with the high cost of fuel, the high cost of groceries and the high cost of heating their homes are getting no relief whatsoever.
That is why it is heartening to see from coast to coast to coast different provinces standing up and saying that now is the time to axe the carbon tax, that now is the time to help people. Everyone recognizes this. Everyone recognizes it, except for the Prime Minister and his Liberal caucus.
I know this drives Liberals crazy, but how often have we all seen the Prime Minister get into his motorcade and jet off to some other country to preach about his virtue—
1003 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 2:11:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians know he is just not worth the cost.
I recently did a survey at all the fall fairs in the Hamilton area asking people how they were coping with the skyrocketing cost of living under the NDP-Liberal government. The results were overwhelming. Home heating was one of the top concerns.
Fast-forward to last week, when a desperate Prime Minister temporarily paused the carbon tax on heating but only for some Atlantic Canadians. What happened to “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”? Well, the minister from Long Range Mountains clued us in. The exemption was not granted to all Canadians because they do not vote Liberal. Why, then, were the Liberal MPs from Hamilton not effective in getting a carve-out for those struggling with the cost of home heating in our community, most of whom heat with natural gas?
Canadians see through these Liberal gimmicks. The common-sense Conservative plan is simple: no gimmicks, no temporary measures, take the tax off and keep the heat on.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 2:22:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when asked why the Prime Minister paused the pain of the carbon tax for only some people, the Liberal rural affairs minister said that other people should have elected Liberal MPs if they wanted to be able to afford heating their home or feeding their kids. The Prime Minister has not denounced that viewpoint. In fact, he is doubling down on punishing people elsewhere.
Liberal MPs in Sudbury, Thunder Bay, North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie have starving constituents who are worried about the heat going out as well. Will they have a free vote on my motion to keep the heat on and take the tax off for everyone this Monday?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
