That could be the case as well.
Madam Speaker, I am not sure the new government is really fooling anyone, even its own members. It has the same ministers talking about the same thing. Instead of coming to Canadians with a plan to actually deal with the mess that they themselves created, they have brought half measures, or crumbs. That seems to be the Liberal way, which is that the Liberals are going to overtax and over-regulate, and then give a little back and ask people to say thanks for it. That is not sufficient.
In fact, that is why we proposed, in our platform, and again, I encourage the Liberals to take the whole thing, not just half of it, to get rid of not just the consumer carbon tax but also the industrial carbon tax. It defies any understanding of basic economics to suggest that we can keep the industrial carbon tax, but that would not translate down into pricing that consumers pay. It is basic economics. If a producer has to pay more to produce their product, whether that is getting food to the table, refining gasoline or building concrete to build homes, and as members probably know, producing concrete is a large emitter of CO2, so they are going to pay a lot, that is going to directly translate into the costs of building and homes.
The Liberals suggest that we can eliminate the carbon tax and that everything will be fine. By the way, it is astounding that, for 10 years, I was told that I was a bad person, or that I did not believe in science, if I did not believe that a carbon tax would change the weather. Now the Liberals seem to say, “What carbon tax? That was not our carbon tax. What are you talking about?” It is gone, and they are sorry they did a bad PR job, even though, in their view, it was good policy. They did a bad PR job, so they have to cut it, but they will keep the industrial carbon tax and hope that Canadians do not understand the difference and do not understand some basic economics.
Canadians will understand it because most Canadians have to budget. When they do their budget, they go through their lines and they figure out their costs, including what it is going to cost this year, how much income they are going to make, what their expenses are, and whether their income is going to be satisfactory for their expenses or if they will have to cut down.
Canadians understand those concepts. I am not sure why the government does not. There is no budget. There is no plan. The parliamentary secretary and anyone else who wants to discuss this bill needs to bring us a budget to talk about affordability, not half measures that do not go the full way.
On this new government, which really is not new, it is just the same members and the same ministers, it is almost a little bit worse. The new Prime Minister seems to be pretty close and pretty friendly with the guy south of the border. That is interesting. At least with Mr. Trudeau, we saw there was really no love lost between him and the president. I am not sure that is the case here with the current Prime Minister. The reason I say that is that we often hear that the finest form of flattery is imitation, and we have seen our Prime Minister imitating Mr. Trump's actions, whether it was his first action to eliminate the consumer carbon tax, which was signing a document. To this day, I am not sure what that document was.
As any first-year law student will know, the Prime Minister does not have the authority to pass law. Was he signing this to flatter the President? Was he signing it to imitate the President? I am not sure, but he continues to do that. The Prime Minister called him a “transformational” President. That is pretty high praise from a Canadian Prime Minister. We are often accused of being like the President, but it seems that the only one who is acting like him, following him and taking his lead is the Prime Minister.
Like many members, I knocked on many doors throughout my campaign, and of course, housing and the cost of living were top issues. I am from a northern GTA riding, the last GTA riding in York Region and Durham Region, and housing is pretty expensive in my area of the country. Having a GST cut that is only for houses that are $1 million to $1.5 million would not really do enough in my area because many homes are greater than $1 million and, in fact, greater than $1.5 million.
More than that, this proposal is only for new homebuyers; it is not for new homes. Let us not forget that there is a difference here. That is why I said that if the Liberals are going to steal our idea, they should steal the whole thing.
It is not just me saying this; the industry has said it too. Bild, the industry association, has said that this proposal would affect only a small number of homebuyers. In fact, I believe it said that it would not substantially improve affordability. If the act is about affordability, but industry is telling us that this proposal would not do anything about that, then what is the point of it? If the Liberals are going to bring forward a proposal to affect affordability, it should at least achieve the objective they have set out for themselves. By their own measure, they are failing at that.
I would suggest that they go back to our platform and read it. I know they were reading it because that is clear. Maybe they could propose an amendment, or we could, to fix it for them and bring it in line with our platform. I know members are keen to learn what we have to say because we have good ideas. It is there; let us bring it in.
I will also say that many homebuyers are not necessarily first-time homebuyers. Many people start in a condo or a smaller home when they are first married before they have children, and when they move into another stage of life that needs a bigger home with more bedrooms, perhaps for more children, they buy another home. Those people are not first-time homebuyers, but they are still new homebuyers in the sense that they are moving their way up the property ladder. This proposal would not do anything for them because they would not technically be first-time homebuyers.
The bill does not go far enough. We are open to what the government has to propose when it is taken from good ideas that are ours. I would encourage the Liberal government to go back and look at those proposals, maybe amend the bill and bring it back. Then maybe we can have a debate on whether it is acceptable.
As to the carbon tax, I want to raise an important issue that was brought to my attention during the election. I have two great first nations in my riding. One of them is the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. It is located on an island in the middle of Lake Simcoe, which is accessible only by ferry. When the carbon tax was implemented, the cost of diesel fuel to run that ferry increased. Even if someone believes that a carbon tax would change the weather, they have to believe that there is elasticity of supply, that if they cannot use one fuel, they can use something else to substitute it. Well, when someone runs a ferry, they cannot do that because it runs on diesel, and it is the only way to get to the first nation.
I would like the members opposite to comment on that. Perhaps, in reviewing this bill, and maybe we can propose some amendments to it, they will consider refunding communities like the Chippewas of Georgina Island, which have no alternatives and can only purchase diesel fuel. I think that would really help affordability for first nations.
