44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/7/23 4:32:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to contribute to what I think has become a really convoluted debate about the carbon tax, and I hope to offer a little clarity.
To start, I want to be very clear about what today's motion is about, which is to remove the GST from all forms of home heating, to make eco-energy retrofits and heat pumps free and easy to access for low-income and middle-class Canadians regardless of their initial home heating energy source, and to finance these changes by putting in place a tax on the excess profits of big oil and gas corporations. We have heard a lot about the carbon tax so far, and it is important to say that carbon pricing is an important tool in combatting climate change. It is something the New Democrats have long supported and continue to support.
However, serious damage was done to the majority consensus on carbon pricing in Canada when the Liberals decided to introduce regional division into the program. That is not fair, and it does not pass the smell test for Canadians across the country. For people who care about the long-term future of carbon pricing in Canada, it is important to maintain majority consensus, which we cannot do with regional schism baked right into the program. That is why New Democrats were willing to vote for the Conservative motion the other day that said the pause that applied on home heating oil should apply to all forms of home heating, including natural gas. We think it is important that we maintain a majority consensus and not introduce a sense of regional grievance. The Liberals said it was inconsistent of us to do, but that is not true. In fact, as I say, I believe it is a critical part of maintaining a majority consensus for carbon pricing.
It was wrong of the Liberals to introduce that level of regional division. How do we know? If anyone had any doubt, when a Liberal cabinet minister from Newfoundland went on CTV News and said that the reason they were doing it was to cover their own political rear in the Atlantic region, and that people who wanted a break on the carbon tax should be voting Liberal, it was very clear that this was a regional policy motivated by the partisan political interests of the Liberal Party. Did New Democrats support that? Absolutely not, and that is why we did not vote to support the Conservative motion to extend the pause to other forms of heating.
Do the Conservatives have it right? No, because they want to get rid of carbon pricing altogether, and that is the wrong response. Do they have it right when it comes to the New Democratic motion on the GST? No, because if they were concerned about getting it right from an affordability point of view, they would be supporting our proposal on the GST instead of harping on the carbon tax as they have been doing. Why is that? It is because a break on the GST for home heating would be consistent with the long-standing policy of not charging GST on essentials.
It would be better because it would apply to Canadians across the country. The federal backstop on the carbon tax applies only in provinces that do not have their own provincial price on carbon. B.C. does and Quebec does, and a number of other provinces do. They will not see any relief as far as they are concerned, but what they do pay, even if they have a provincial carbon tax, is the GST. If the Conservatives were really interested in lowering taxes for all Canadians, they would support our proposal on the GST. This is not a new proposal of the NDP on the GST; it goes back to early days of the leadership of Jack Layton, who was elected leader of the NDP almost 20 years ago.
Furthermore, Conservatives should be interested in supporting our proposal because the GST is charged on the carbon tax. Any other day of the week, Conservatives would be upset about a tax on the tax, but when New Democrats say we should remove the tax that makes sense because it would get rid of that tax for all Canadians and would no longer be a tax on the carbon tax, they say, "No, no, the NDP is flip-flopping and we will not support it”, even though it is an opportunity to do something for Canadians.
The other important reason for supporting the removal of the GST instead of the carbon tax is that it applies to all forms of home heating. We know there are cash-strapped Canadians who are already doing the right thing by using methods of heating their homes that do not burn carbon and do not contribute to emissions. There are a lot of Canadians who would like to be in that boat but do not have the resources to be. That is why we are talking about the government's expanding the program in order to make heat pumps available to low- and middle-class Canadians, but the people who have already managed to make that transition should not be punished as they would be under the Conservative proposal to simply get rid of the carbon tax. If the Conservatives would agree to eliminate the GST instead, Canadians who already have low- or no-emission heating sources in their home would likewise get a break, and they too are deserving of assistance in a time of economic hardship.
Of course, we know that we can pay for increased access to heat pumps for low- and middle-income Canadians because we can levy a tax on the excess profits of oil and gas companies. Why would we do that? Profits in the oil and gas industry in Canada, between 2019 and 2022, a simple three-year period, increased by 1,000%. That is billions of dollars that could be reinvested in lowering emissions and reducing home heating bills for Canadians by transitioning to more efficient forms of heating. Is it some kind of red-eyed socialist idea to go around taxing oil and gas companies? I do not think so. Boris Johnson and the Conservatives in the U.K. implemented a windfall tax on the oil and gas industry there. This is not about whether one is on the right wing of the spectrum or the left wing of the spectrum; it is about whether one is motivated by a fundamental sense of fairness.
I must say that the Conservative leader, who goes around the country saying he has the backs of working people, should be explaining to them why he does not support the removal of GST on home heating, because that is what it would mean to have the back of every working Canadian in this country, whether they heat their homes with electricity, natural gas or home heating oil, and whether they do it in Newfoundland, Manitoba, British Columbia or the Northwest Territories. However, he is not who he says he is. He is not the champion of working-class people in Canada. He is an oil and gas lobbyist working in the House of Commons. That is who the leader of the Conservative Party is, and it is why he will not get behind a very common-sense proposal to help Canadians with their affordability challenge to reduce emissions. The oil and gas companies have really been putting the squeeze on Canadians. They did not get a 1,000% increase in profits over a few years without unfairly gouging their customers. That is exactly what oil and gas companies have been doing.
Looking at the extent to which increases in prices for oil and gas, versus the carbon tax, are responsible for inflation, I have to say that oil and gas prices are a much higher driver of inflation than the carbon tax is, despite the Conservatives saying in here that the Bank of Canada said it contributes to inflation. Yes, it is 0.6% one time. We could get a one-time, one-year reduction of inflation by 0.6% if we were to remove the carbon tax. After that, it would continue to go up. I also had the opportunity to question the Governor of the Bank of Canada about that at committee. I think it is important to note that the one-time 0.6% reduction in the carbon tax assumes that oil and gas companies are not going to raise their prices.
Any Canadian who has been observing the oil and gas market knows full well that if it thinks there is any room to increase prices, it is going to do it. I humbly submit that although we do not know how much the oil and gas companies would raise their prices, I think we know they would. That means we know that the one-time saving on inflation is a lot less than 0.6%. We should wonder why we were concerned about it at all when there is a perfectly good, and better, proposal to eliminate the GST from home heating that would actually do more for all Canadians.
I think what members can see is that the NDP has a perfectly consistent position. We are advocating a measure that we have been advocating for a long time. Why are we? We are advocating it because it is the fairest way to do it and because it is consistent with a tradition of not charging sales tax on essential items. In the context of the carbon tax, it is the fairest way to do it because it applies to people no matter where they live in the country. We have been consistently advocating that.
I remember when the Conservatives had carbon tax motions. They named some of them as examples of our voting against their motion to axe the tax. For sure, I think there should be a carbon price, absolutely. I just think it has to be applied fairly across the country and that the Liberals screwed it up by enacting a policy that meant that it is not. Yes, I support carbon pricing. I remember when we proposed amendments to their carbon price motions and said that if they really wanted to get rid of a tax on home heating, they should work with us to get rid of the GST. Do members know what they said when we proposed that amendment? They said no. Did members know that in the House, if there is an opposition day motion, a member cannot move an amendment without the permission of the mover? That meant we never did get to have a vote on that. We did not get to have a vote because the Conservatives vetoed a vote on getting rid of the GST on home heating.
The so-called champions of tax reduction for Canadians would not know a working partner if they came up and slapped them in the face. Some of us have had the idea to do that, but we have not, because we would prefer to preserve a good working relationship to get something done for Canadians. That is why we are here. It is what we are going to do every day of the week, and it is why we have made another attempt today with this motion. I urge them to finally support it.
1924 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:43:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure the NDP House leader in particular and certainly all parliamentarians would be very interested to ensure that there is quorum in this place on what is their opposition day, and so I would ask for a quorum call.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:43:28 p.m.
- Watch
We have to suspend until quorum is met.
And the bells having rung:
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:45:00 p.m.
- Watch
We now have quorum.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:45:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, does there have to be a Conservative member in the House to have quorum?
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:45:12 p.m.
- Watch
There is a Conservative member in the House.
We are resuming with questions and comments for the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:45:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think there is some confusion in regard to the positioning that the NDP had taken in regard to the vote from yesterday. When we take a look at the move towards trying to reduce the reliance on oil in order to heat homes, the national program that was announced by the federal government would, in fact, incentivize people to move away from oil to heat their homes.
I am wondering if the member could explain why the NDP does not seem to recognize the true value of encouraging people to convert to home heating pumps.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:46:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I would just like to say in respect to the quorum call that it is not the first time Conservatives have gone scurrying under their desks when I rise to speak, and I am sure it will not be the last. In respect to the question—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Some Conservatives may not fit under their desk, but it does not stop them from trying—
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:46:34 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:46:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby late last week seeking to constrain the Conservative Party from holding the NDP-Liberal government to account.
As the Speaker will recall, Conservatives asked a number of questions about the opposition motion to provide relief from the carbon tax for all Canadians' home heating regardless of the source of heat, which was debated on Thursday and voted upon yesterday afternoon.
Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. They are looking to their Parliament to address this concern and provide the relief they need to get through the winter, especially with the skyrocketing cost of heat, which is driven by the Prime Minister's unaffordable carbon tax.
Canadians who are looking to their politicians to take action and axe the tax want to know whether the government will, or whether the government will use its immense powers and tools to protect itself. This is unquestionably a concern of the administration of the government.
Indeed, the Speaker's initial reaction Thursday afternoon provides a pretty good answer here. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries rose to answer each and every one of the questions of concern of the NDP. If the government itself did not feel obliged to answer, surely it would not have.
The NDP House leader centred much of his argument around the January 2014 ruling by the Speaker's predecessor, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. When the Speaker reflects on that ruling, it is important to understand the context that precipitated it. There had been a number of questions from both sides of the House concerning senators as well as the internal operations of the other place, political parties and MPs' offices.
Furthermore, there was one key passage the NDP House leader omitted from the January 2014 ruling, which he otherwise quoted extensively: “The principle of responsible government is that the government has to provide an accounting for where the money goes and to provide reasons for why decisions are made.”
As I pointed out in my initial comments, we have a right to understand how the confidence and supply agreement between the Liberal and New Democratic parties will apply to key budget decisions and to important parliamentary decisions.
The agreement itself reads, “The agreement will mean that the NDP agrees to support the government on confidence and budgetary matters – notably on budgetary policy”.
The carbon tax represents a huge chunk of money taken out of taxpayers' pockets. It is indisputably a question of budgetary policy, and one where the government is starkly offside the views and needs of Canadians whom it governs. That is why the official opposition, through its questioning, was looking for the government to explain the reasons the decision has been made.
As for the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, I would submit they were sidetracked by the description of the NDP-Liberal coalition.
Just yesterday, in fact, we saw the New Democrats vote in support of Liberal time allocation or closure for a 37th time under the leadership of the member for Burnaby South. Throughout the CCF and NDP's history prior to its current leader, I believe they had only supported time allocation or closure a total of 14 other times. It has been 37 times now, and only 14 times before.
At the start of this week, I understand the New Democrats voted with the Liberals 296 times during the past 306 votes. That is 97% support. In fact, I would not be surprised if the chief government whip actually considers the NDP caucus to be more reliable in their votes than the member for Beaches—East York.
On the narrowest point about cabinet seats, which the deputy government House leader and the member for Elmwood—Transcona made, it is true that the NDP clearly failed in its negotiation to secure caucus representation at the cabinet table. However, all of the signs point to a cohesive team acting in concert for chamber and committee business.
The facts are quite clear that the confidence and supply agreement amounts to a parliamentary coalition, complete with obligations to consult, to discuss voting intention, to provide parliamentary support to the government and is complete with various mechanics like leaders meetings, House leaders meetings, whips meetings and a special stock-taking committee, which also meets regularly. I believe the member for Elmwood—Transcona might actually be a member of the last group.
Seeing how spectactularly the Liberals and the Prime Minister have been tumbling in public opinion lately, it is little surprise that the New Democrats bristle at the coalition label.
The concerns about what label to apply to this relationship between the Liberal and New Democratic parties amount to a question of debate.
We have a lot of those during question period. I am sure you would agree with that. No matter how you cut it or which term from the dictionary you prefer, we are talking about two entities coming together to collaborate in pursuit of common goals.
Whether you prefer to call that a joint endeavour, a common venture, a partnership or a coalition, that choice is ultimately a question of debate.
It should not be for the Speaker to police debate in the House with a dictionary to enforce the preferred message discipline of any given side.
Debate itself has always been useful in shedding light on the truth, and it should continue to be so.
In closing, the questions which Conservatives have been raising are important and fall squarely within the administration and conduct of the government. These are the questions that many Canadians, including the constituents of Liberal and NDP members, have long been asking.
When will the government take the tax off so Canadians can keep the heat on?
995 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:55:06 p.m.
- Watch
That is duly noted.
The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona still has four minutes for questions and comments and was answering a question from the hon. parliamentary secretary.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:55:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before we start the clock again, I would like to make a brief comment to the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I will do so in French to make sure he understands.
Usually, when a member rises on a point of order regarding an issue that was raised a few days or weeks earlier, he or she waits until the member who has the floor has finished speaking. It is a matter of etiquette and a courtesy that we usually extend to our colleagues in the House. I find it disappointing that he did not wait for me to finish my speech—that is, about 30 seconds—before rising on this point of order.
On the question itself, the issue that the member for Winnipeg North raised is fair in the sense that we do absolutely support and, in fact, the motion here today supports helping people transition off of home heating oil.
His colleague in the Liberal cabinet made it very clear on CTV News that what they were doing had everything to do with partisan Liberal politics in a particular region of the country and very little to do with good policy.
Better policy on the affordability front would be to remove the GST, to make sure that we do not introduce regional schism to the carbon pricing program and that it applies equally to all the people, including people who do not create any emissions to heat their home but nevertheless are struggling in a time of affordability.
That is the answer to the question.
267 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:57:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting and somewhat tragic, actually. The Liberals have admitted their carbon tax simply does not work. The New Democrats are now scrambling to try to differentiate themselves from their coalition partners. The implications that this has for Canadians are truly the most tragic part of all.
In the last couple of years in this Parliament, dating back to February 2022, we saw the member and all the members of the coalition vote against a Conservative motion that would have, in part, removed GST from home heating fuels. They voted against it at that point in time. They did not care about affordability there. That was a great tragedy for Canadians.
The same thing took place on April 4, 2022, when the NDP voted with its coalition partners in the Liberal Party against an affordability measure put forward by common-sense Conservatives. Again, on June 7, 2022, the NDP voted against a Conservative measure that would have addressed some of these affordability challenges. On October 24, 2022, the New Democrats and the Liberals voted against a Conservative measure. On December—
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:58:29 p.m.
- Watch
Can I ask if there is a question? We have to give time to other members to ask questions.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:58:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are numerous other examples, and it is unfortunate that I cannot get through them all. That is how great the hypocrisy of that member is, so—
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:58:42 p.m.
- Watch
I will let the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona comment on the comment.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:58:49 p.m.
- Watch
What is tragic, Madam Speaker, is that any time we have reached out to work with Conservatives to reduce the tax on home heating in a way that is actually fair, they have said no. Why is that? It is because they have built a political campaign around the carbon tax. The importance of that campaign to them and their own electoral fortunes trumps doing anything for Canadians in a tangible sense; otherwise, the Conservatives could have worked with us on any of those votes to eliminate the GST from home heating. As I said, that is a position they know the New Democrats have held for close to 20 years now and one that we actually tried to introduce into their motions, with amendments that they refused.
Therefore, if we want to talk about tragedy and who is really committed to trying to make life more affordable for Canadians, the tragic thing is that Conservatives refuse to have a working partner. They want to go to Canadians and tell them that everything is broken. To the extent that things are broken around here, the Conservatives are breaking them. It is dishonest to break things here and then go to Canadians and tell them that somehow the people with the answers are the ones who are breaking them.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 5:00:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, every time the member stands up in the House, I learn so much from him and so much about the ways that the New Democrats are working very hard to make sure the affordability crisis and the climate crisis are both dealt with.
We talk a lot about how the Conservatives are in the pockets of big oil and gas. One thing that I find very shocking in Alberta is that we lost 1,500 jobs at the same time as these oil and gas companies were raking in massive profits. Could the member talk about why the Conservatives never want to talk about the jobs that we lost in Alberta because of oil and gas?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 5:00:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is true: As oil and gas profits have skyrocketed over the last number of years, employment in the oil and gas sector has gone down. We see Conservatives say they want more business investment in Canada, but Conservative premiers such as Danielle Smith have been turning down billions of dollars of investment in renewable energy that could also create a lot of employment for Canadians. That is why the Conservatives are not who they say they are and their leader is not who he says he is.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 5:01:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to address today's NDP motion in a couple of ways.
One thing that is overlooked and underestimated, in terms of the damage, is a concern related to the environment. This is the case whether it is this particular opposition day motion or the previous one that the Conservatives brought forward last week, which we actually voted on yesterday.
When I think of the environment, it really highlights an area where the Conservative Party leadership is missing the point. When people say there are climate deniers in society, I look across the way and see that in the lack of action and policy enunciations coming from the Conservative Party. Those things could provide assurances to Canadians that Conservatives, as a political entity in the House, take the environment seriously. I believe there are indeed climate deniers within the Conservative caucus. They seem to be winning the day. It is unfortunate.
I believe that the Conservative Party is being very irresponsible. When we think about their policies regarding the environment, if people hunt and find something, they will find that it is exceptionally reckless, and nothing more so than the price on pollution. To demonstrate just how reckless the Conservative Party is on this issue, all one needs to do is look at the history inside the chamber and the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Stephen Harper was saying one thing on one day, but then the Conservatives changed their position, and a new Conservative leader came in and took a totally different position. In fact, that position was incorporated into the election platform of the Conservative Party in the last election, just two years ago.
As all members would know, because I have talked about it and other members have talked about it in the past, at that time, the Conservatives talked about the importance of a price on pollution. That is when every political party inside the House of Commons seemed to recognize that what had taken place in Paris in 2015 made a whole lot of sense. A big part of that, coming out of the Paris conference, was that the countries around the world, and many of their provincial or state entities, started to adopt a price on pollution.
At one time, it was actually very encouraging. We had all political entities in the House recognizing that. How far we have fallen from a time in which we had 338 Conservative candidates going out with an election platform and saying that they supported a price on pollution. Today, they have a shiny new leader who says that Conservatives do not believe in a price on pollution anymore; instead, they are taking the bumper sticker policy of axing the carbon tax. That is what the Conservative Party of today is saying.
That is what I mean by reckless. To get a sense of the degree to which the Conservatives are reckless, and taking a heck of a risk, people should just look at the environment and what the Conservatives are saying or not saying in regard to it. I would like to think that the Conservative Party would be a little more reflective, in terms of what everyone else is talking about in regard to the environment. There is an expectation.
I am disappointed, and I think many Canadians are disappointed, in the huge vacuum in the Conservative Party today in regard to the environment.
Yesterday, we had a vote, about which the Conservative Party is trying to portray a false narrative. Its members are actually spreading misinformation in order to justify that false information and manipulation of a particular vote. I will expand on that.
Members can think about a time when people would heat their homes with coal. In fact, in many of those wartime houses, we can see steel plates where the coal would go into the home. Many years ago, people realized that there were alternatives to coal and started to gravitate toward them.
We can fast-forward to today, and we have heating oil, propane, natural gas and electricity. These are the options we have to heat 99% of homes. Where does heating oil fit in? Heating oil is exceptionally more costly as a way to heat one's home. Natural gas and propane would probably be next in line in terms of cost. What has been clearly established is that using electricity and heat pumps is far more energy-efficient and better for the environment. Thousands of Canadians have recognized that.
Members will remember the false information I spoke about. I have heard members opposite say that, as a government, we saw maybe a couple of hundred people changing over to heat pumps. As with many other things, this is misinformation; it is just not accurate. Through the greener homes program, we have seen tens of thousands of people take advantage of the program and convert to alternatives in terms of replacing heating oil, for example, with heat pumps. However, Conservative members, in one swoop, just kind of wave that aside, because it does not fit their narrative.
If we look at the policy announcement, it is a national announcement. The Conservatives, even today during question period, try to regionalize it, as if it were there for one region of the country. That is just not true. They can read into it all they want and try to spread misinformation. However, the bottom line is that, much like the greener homes program, it is a national program. Every region of the country is going to be affected by that program.
It is important to recognize that the province that has the biggest potential to benefit from this is the province of Ontario, which has a quarter of a million households that are actually heating their homes via oil. Therefore, when the Conservatives try to give misleading and false information to Canadians in order to cause division, I find that somewhat regrettable.
I believe that the program is sound from an environmental perspective. That is why I have expressed disappointment with my New Democratic friends because I think they are sending a mixed message. We can look at the heating pump policy that has been established. Putting a pause on the tax and making heating pumps virtually free anywhere in Canada where provinces are participating in the program will cause more people to look at this program as a national program. We will continue to see Canadians buying in and recognizing that changing over is a smart thing to do. The math says that, if someone invests in heating pumps, the cost is substantially less, and over time they will actually save considerably more money than the cost of putting in a heat pump. That is very clear. We have demonstrated that in the past.
We know that there is a high level of interest from Canadians because they have looked to programs, such as the greener homes program, as a mechanism. We know that today other provinces are now looking at ways they can get on board. I hope the Province of Ontario, through Premier Doug Ford, will realize the benefits of encouraging that conversion by participating in it.
Getting back to the reckless attitudes of the Conservative Party, the other day, when the leader of the Conservative Party was addressing the House, I posed a question on the issue of taxes. He had indicated to the House that we should get rid of all taxes on home heating, implying that it is not just the carbon tax he was referring to, but all taxes, including the GST. It was members of the Conservative Party who put the GST on home heating.
Now the refreshed far right elements of today's Conservative Party are changing, again in that reckless fashion. Conservatives are not necessarily concerned about sound policy that is in the best interests of Canadians, whether it concerns the environment or the issue of taxation. That is an important issue. After all, that is the way we finance and fund the many different programs that are out there. They are more concerned about that bumper sticker. That is where their concern is. They want to make sure that they can fit something on a bumper sticker. They go around saying they are going to do this or that, throwing in common sense and then talking about bringing it home. That is what the Conservative Party today is all about. It is all a game; it is all manipulation.
I think they underestimate the importance of when it is time to present something. I do not know how long we have been waiting for the Conservative Party to come to the table and share with Canadians through the House, or in a meeting, what they are going to do on the environment. We are all waiting to see something come from the Conservative Party of Canada on the issue.
When we look at the policy, and combine the issue of affordability with the issue of supporting the purchasing, acquiring and installing of heat pumps, we see that it is a sound policy. As I indicated in the question that I put to my New Democratic friends, how do the Conservatives justify not supporting that particular policy? It sends a mixed message.
Earlier today, I posed a question on the GST. Today, the New Democrats are kind of buying in to some of the things the Conservatives have been saying. They just want to get rid of the GST on home heating. Let us think about what that actually means. They say the purpose of getting rid of the GST on electricity and on natural gas is so there can be more money for individuals who want to be able to heat their homes. The problem is that, when people purchase their electricity, it is fro more than just heating homes.
In the summer in Winnipeg, we do not need to heat our homes. When it is 35°C outside, I do not think there are any furnaces, electric or natural gas, that are being used to heat homes. We have all kinds of items that use utilities in a house, such as a PlayStation, a toaster and lights, and those are not used to heat homes. Are we saying that, for example, if people consume natural gas and electricity, and they have a propane tank, all of those would be exempt for that one household? That is in essence what the New Democrats are saying.
Who would be the biggest benefactors of that policy? I would suggest it would not be the middle class. Do members remember that, in the last budget, we brought in the grocery rebate? Where did the money come from to support that? It was through the GST. That is what allowed us to provide that particular support. By doing that, whom did we help the most? We helped 11 million-plus Canadians, including the middle class and those with lower-end incomes, to get money directly into their pockets so that they would be in a better position to have a higher disposable income to purchase groceries.
What is the NDP proposing today? Someone pointed out that Mr. Weston would be one of the biggest benefactors. He has a fairly big house, not to mention other luxury items. The 1% of the wealthiest in Canada would probably get the biggest reward on the motion the NDP has brought forward. Let us think about a senior on a fixed income living in an apartment versus the 1% wealthiest and where they might be living and the type of resources that they would be spending in consuming electricity, propane and natural gas.
What about pointing out how this policy would help? I would suggest that there is a better way to support Canada's working class and those aspiring to be a part of it. They are those whom we want to help in a more direct way. We have seen a national government over the years lift children and seniors and people with disabilities out of poverty because of targets.
I would suggest that this is irresponsible of the New Democrats, and I think it is, unfortunately, because they are being heavily influenced by the Conservative Party. They need to get a bit more distance from the Conservative Party to have a healthier party in the future.
2075 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
