Making sense of the government's Christmas GST exemptions

The GST Christmas 'holiday'

Photo: Contributed

Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola MP Dan Albas

Being in opposition comes with the crucial responsibility of holding government accountable—a duty I take very seriously. The role demands thorough due diligence and scrutiny of government policies and actions.

Over time, opposition parties typically recognize patterns in how the government they scrutinize operates, making few government policies truly surprising. However, in the past week, all of that changed when the Liberal government announced two measures that took many who follow Canadian politics by surprise.

The first measure was a GST Christmas “holiday"—a temporary expansion of GST-exempt items from Dec. 14 to Feb. 15.

Many of the items that will soon be temporarily GST-exempt are likely to appeal to Canadian families. They include children's clothing and shoes, car seats, diapers and toys. The list extends further to include books, print newspapers, puzzles and Christmas trees—both real and artificial. Moreover, all restaurant dining will be GST-exempt during this period, whether dining in, taking out or ordering for delivery.

The list of temporary GST exemptions also includes several controversial items such as beer, cider, pre-mixed alcoholic drinks, “junk” foods and expensive video gaming terminals, which will all become cheaper during this GST-free period.

The (government’s) gift-giving does not end there. It has also announced the "Working Canadians Rebate," which will send a $250 cheque in early spring 2025 to 18.7 million Canadians who worked in 2023 and earned up to $150,000 in individual net income. Those who are disabled or unemployed will not qualify for the $250 rebate.

To be clear,while those earning up to $150,000 will receive this rebate, those most in need, people with disabilities and the unemployed, will not qualify for this government program.

The Liberals' GST Christmas holiday is estimated to cost $1.6 billion, while the $250 Working Canadians Rebate will cost approximately $4.7 billion—bringing the combined cost to over $6 billion. In provinces with harmonized sales taxes (HST), this unilateral action will have an even greater impact, as their HST rates range from 13% to 15% and not just the 5% GST we have in British Columbia.

If you're wondering why the government believes these programs are necessary, the finance minister recently stated, "People have been talking about a “vibecession”… and the fact that Canadians just aren't feeling that good."

That begs the important question, what is a vibecession? According to various urban dictionary definitions, a vibecession is a neologism that refers to a disconnect between the economy of a country and the general public's negative perception of it.

In other words, the government believes the economy is performing better than many Canadians perceive it to be. These programs are designed to help Canadians "get past that 'vibecession' because how [they] feel really does have an economic impact"—again, to quote the finance minister directly.

My questions to you this week:

Do you agree with the finance minister that Canada is experiencing a "vibecession"—that is, is the economy actually performing better than many Canadians believe it is? Why or why not?

I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

Dan Albas is the Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

MP defends ongoing Parliamentary impasse

Opposition demands docs

Photo: Contributed

Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola MP Dan Albas

Approximately one month ago, I noted in my column that the House of Commons was at an impasse due to an ongoing debate on a motion of privilege.

This privilege motion stems from House Speaker Greg Fergus's ruling the Liberal government "did not fully comply" with a House of Commons order.

The order, akin to a court order, required the government to provide documents related to the now-defunct Crown corporation, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC).

As many now know, the auditor general's audit of this program uncovered serious issues. Conflict-of-interest policies were ignored 90 times, resulting in $59 million awarded to 10 ineligible projects. Even worse, the program often exaggerated the environmental benefits of its projects.

As recently as this week, the House law clerk once again tabled a letter in Parliament, indicating the government continues to redact or withhold some of the documents. Despite withholding the documents, the government continues to accuse the Opposition Conservatives of holding Parliament hostage as this privilege debate has persisted for nearly two months.

The Conservatives, along with the NDP and Bloc Québécois, maintain a united stance—demanding the government comply with the order to produce all documents unredacted.

In my view, Canadians deserve to know what really happened here. No federal government should be able to hide the truth from the people it serves.

Remember, this is a government that spends billions upon billions under the guise of fighting climate change. Similarly, it has implemented a federal carbon tax that is driving up inflation in Canada, including raising prices on groceries.

In many Canadian provinces where the federal carbon tax applies—or in British Columbia, where the provincial government has agreed to increase its carbon tax in line with the federal rate—residents face additional costs during cold winter months if they heat their homes with natural gas or propane.

Despite the Liberals' insistence their plan is working, Canadians consistently encounter independent evidence suggesting otherwise.

This week, for example, the International Climate Change Performance Index released its latest results. The CCPI employs a standardized framework to evaluate the climate performance of 63 countries, which collectively account for more than 90% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada ranked 62nd on the list and is rated as a "very low performer." This ranking is significant.

Considering the fiscal burden many Canadians face due to carbon taxes and the misappropriation and abuse of funds in programs like the now-defunct Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), it's clear Canadians aren't getting the results they're paying for.

Furthermore, when the government withholds and conceals documents from the SDTC fund, Canadians are deprived of the transparency and accountability they rightfully deserve.

My question this week:

Do you agree with the Opposition parties' current action in Parliament to maintain the privilege debate until the government complies with the order to produce all of the SDTC documents unredacted? Why or why not?

I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

Dan Albas is the Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Opposition MP accuses government of a 'double standard'

Planes, heat and CERB

Photo: Contributed

Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola MP Dan Albas

The media reported recently that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau boarded the Government of Canada's private Challenger jet to fly to Bermuda to attend the funeral of a family friend.

Reports indicate jet costs approximately $12,000 per hour to operate. The round trip from Ottawa to Bermuda will emit an estimated 62,000 pounds of CO2.

I'm not mentioning these details to criticize the prime minister for attending a personal family friend's funeral. Similarly, I acknowledge this costly method of air travel is as necessary for our current prime minister, as it was for previous prime ministers, due to important security requirements.

That said, many Canadians are similarly compelled to use their furnaces during extremely cold winter months when heating with natural gas or propane to stay warm.

Despite that, unless you heat with home heating oil (which the prime minister exempted from the federal carbon tax), you'll face additional carbon tax costs for heating your home with natural gas or propane. What's more, on April 1, 2025, that carbon tax rate will increase yet again.

So, while Canadians are asked to understand the prime minister's need for a private jet, (Conservatives’) requests as members of the official Opposition that Canadians shouldn't be penalized for heating with natural gas or propane, fall on deaf ears.

The prime minister and his environment minister continue to demand Canadians "do a little more," while seemingly placing no expectations on themselves to change their own behaviour.

This situation mirrors the issues with the former Canada Emergency Response Benefit program. In my riding, some Canadians were later deemed ineligible for CERB payments through no fault of their own. Initially told they qualified, those individuals applied, only to be later informed a mistake occurred and they were found ineligible due to a technicality. In those cases, the Canada Revenue Agency demanded repayment of every dollar disbursed.

Some may remember a recent audit of Sustainable Development Technology Canada by the auditor general, found 10 out of 58 examined projects were ineligible. Those 10 projects received $59 million despite failing to meet key requirements outlined in the contribution agreements between the government and the foundation.

That raises an obvious question: Will those companies be required to repay the funds they were not eligible for? The Liberal government refuses to provide an answer, and so far, there have been no reports of any clawbacks.

This is part of an ongoing trend I've observed. The government asks Canadians to do, or pay, a little more, while the prime minister and cabinet show no leadership by example.

My question this week:

Is it acceptable for the Liberal government to maintain a double standard—demanding actions from Canadians that its own leadership fails to demonstrate? Why or why not?

I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.

Dan Albas is the Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

New federal emissions cap raises ire of Alberta's premier

Capping carbon emissions

Photo: Contributed

Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola MP Dan Albas

When you're in the opposition party, part of your job is to keep an eye on the government.

You start to notice different ways the government tries to handle tricky or unpopular news and policies. A common tactic used by governments is to release unpopular news at times when people are less likely to notice. For example, they might announce something controversial late on a Friday or just before a holiday. That way, the news might get less attention over the weekend or during the holiday period.

Governments often use another common strategy—making two announcements at the same time. They might share good news or something exciting along with unpopular or embarrassing information. That technique is sometimes called "changing the channel." It's used more often than most people realize.

This week, I want to talk about a tactic governments use to announce controversial news. They often do this during big events that grab everyone's attention. For example, the United States presidential election is all over the news worldwide. If a government makes a controversial announcement just before, during, or right after that election, it is less likely to get much attention. That is because most people and news outlets are focused on the U.S. election instead. By doing that, the government can avoid too much scrutiny or criticism of its announcement.

Just before the U.S. election, the federal government made an important announcement. It introduced what many people are calling an "emissions cap" for the Canadian oil and gas industry. The draft regulation, which does not require a vote (in Parliament), would mainly affect Alberta, where most of Canada's oil and gas production happens.

The Liberal government chose to announce this regulation on the Monday before (Tuesday’s) U.S. election. The timing allows it to present its views on the regulation first. It know responses from the oil and gas industry and other interested parties will likely come the next day. However, those responses will probably get less attention because most people will be focused on the U.S. election news instead.

Here's what the new regulation means. The government plans to limit how much carbon the Canadian oil and gas industry can release. It wants these emissions to be 35% lower in 2030 than they were in 2019. The rule will be put in place and enforced through new regulations.

According to the environment minister, “We should all be driving toward the same goal" and "every sector must do its part."

The issue with this Liberal regulation is it doesn't consider the global context. Many other oil-producing countries, like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela, don't have similar rules. Those countries don't have emission caps or carbon taxes like the ones proposed for Canada. This new policy will make Canadian energy more expensive to produce. As a result, people who use Canadian oil will have to pay more for it. Energy from countries without these rules will become cheaper compared to Canadian energy. That will hurt Canada's energy industry.

In response, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has already issued a statement claiming this Liberal regulation will result in $28 billion a year in lost GDP (according to Deloitte), and up to 150,000 lost jobs (according to the Conference Board of Canada)."

The Alberta premier has also threatened legal action to fight the regulation.

My question this week:

Do you support Canada implementing and enforcing emission policies that other oil-producing countries do not follow? Why or why not?

I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.

Dan Albas is the Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.