14% of Canadians struggling to heat, cool their homes: Statistics Canada

‘In 2023, 14 percent of Canadian households reported that they kept their dwelling at an unsafe or uncomfortable temperature for at least 1 month in the past 12 months because of unaffordable heating or cooling costs,’ StatsCan reported.

Statistics Canada has found that as energy costs continue to rise, some Canadians are unable to afford to properly heat or cool their homes.

On October 30, Statistics Canada reported that many Canadians are keeping their homes at “unsafe or uncomfortable” temperatures as they are unable to pay energy bills amid Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ongoing energy regulations and taxes.

“In the face of rising energy prices, not all Canadian households are able to adequately heat and cool their dwellings, resulting in possible increased risk of climate-related morbidity and even death,” StatsCan wrote.

“In 2023, 14 percent of Canadian households reported that they kept their dwelling at an unsafe or uncomfortable temperature for at least 1 month in the past 12 months because of unaffordable heating or cooling costs,” the report continued.

The research found that over a quarter of households (26 percent) in 2023 did not use air conditioning. Similarly, 26 percent of Canadians do not have air conditioning or cooling equipment in their homes.

36 percent of those who went without air conditioning lived in the lowest income bracket, while only 15 percent were in the highest income bracket.

Furthermore, Canadians living in apartments are least likely to have air conditioning. Numbers revealed 38 percent of Canadians in low-rise apartments and 33 percent of Canadians in high-rise apartment do not use air conditioning.

According to StatsCan, a lack of air condition can “lead to dangerous living conditions and has been linked to an increased risk of heat-related morbidity and mortality.”

The report found that 2 percent of households were so affected by their home being too hot or too cold that a member of their household required medical care.

As energy bills continue to rise, one in seven Canadians have been forced to go without necessities, such as food and medicine, to pay their energy bills. Additionally, about 8 percent revealed that they have had to go without necessities for at least three months.

Research found that 27 percent of those who have had to sacrifice basic necessities to pay energy bills are single-parent families. Single parents are 1.5 times more likely to forfeit necessities than couples with children and 3 times more likely than couples without children.

Additionally, some Canadians are unable to make their payments at all. In the past 12 months, 3 percent of households said their energy was disconnected or shut off, while one in ten reported that they could not pay their bill on time or at all.

The StatsCan findings come amid ongoing debate over Trudeau’s carbon tax, which extends to many forms of home heating.

Trudeau recently determined to suspend the carbon tax for home heating oil, a decision which has been criticized for benefiting Atlantic provinces, a historically Liberal stronghold, while leaving western and Conservative provinces literally out in the cold.  

As a result, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said his province will stop collecting a federal carbon tax on natural gas used to heat homes come January 1, 2024, unless it gets a similar tax break as the Atlantic Canadian provinces.  

However, Trudeau, along with other Liberal officials, have announced that no more concessions are to be made. 

“There will absolutely not be any other carve-outs or suspensions of the price on pollution,” Trudeau told reporters. “This is designed to phase out home heating oil, the way we made a decision to phase out coal… This is specifically about ending the use of home heating oil.”   

Trudeau’s statement was supported by both Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault.   

Wilkinson dismissed Moe’s demand of further tax relief, saying, “There will be no more carve-outs coming.”   

“We expect him to comply with the laws of the land,” he added. “It is a requirement that they collect that or that it be collected in some way.”  

Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leader Pierre Poilievre condemned the rising energy costs citing the carbon tax as a driving factor and making reference to the StatsCan report.

“Already, 14 percent of Canadians are living with unsafe temperatures in their homes. One in 10 have missed a heating bill in the last 12 months. Will he, before people go cold and hungry, axe the tax so that people can keep the heat on?” he asked in Parliament.

Trudeau’s decision comes as Atlantic Liberals are beginning to vote alongside Conservatives to end the carbon tax. The Atlantic provinces have voted primarily Liberal since 2015, but recent polls reveal that many Canadians living there plan to vote Conservative.  

Trudeau’s carbon tax, framed as a way to reduce carbon emissions, has cost Canadians hundreds more annually despite rebates.    

The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated the total carbon tax costs for fuel in 2023 minus the government rebates. The steepest increase is for Albertans, who will pay an average of $710 extra per household. Following Alberta is Ontario with a $478 increase. 

Prince Edward Island households will pay an extra $465, Nova Scotia $431, Saskatchewan $410, Manitoba $386, and Newfoundland and Labrador $347.  

The increased costs are only expected to rise, as a recent report revealed that a carbon tax of more than $350 per tonne is needed to reach Trudeau’s net-zero goals by 2050.     

Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $65 per tonne, but the Trudeau government has a goal of $170 per tonne by 2030.

Related Topics:#ClareMarieMerkowsky #EnergyAffordability #EnergyInflation #LifeSiteNews #StatisticsCanada #StatsCan #UnaffordableHeating

Up Next

Never again! Preston Manning review recommends Emergency Management Agency co-ordinate response to future province-wide public emergencies.

Don't Miss

A Matter of Fact: The IEA’s updated net zero scenario is still unrealistic

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Addictions / 2 hours ago

Ontario to restrict Canadian government’s supervised drug sites, shift focus to helping addicts

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn

Business

Ottawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations

Published on November 19, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tom Flanagan

When Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015, he memorably said that the welfare of Indigenous Canadians was his highest priority. He certainly has delivered on his promise, at least in terms of shovelling out money.

During his 10 years in office, budgeted Indigenous spending has approximately tripled, from about $11 billion to almost $33 billion. Prime Minister Trudeau’s instruction to the Department of Justice to negotiate rather than litigate class actions has resulted in paying tens of billions of dollars to Indigenous claimants over alleged wrongs in education and other social services. And his government has settled specific claims—alleged violations of treaty terms or of the Indian Act—at four times the previous rate, resulting in the award of at least an additional $10 billion to First Nations government.

But has this avalanche of money really helped First Nations people living on reserves, who are the poorest segment of Canadian society?

One indicator suggests the answer is yes. The gap between reserves and other communities—as measured by the Community Well-Being Index (CWB), a composite of income, employment, housing and education—fell from 19 to 16 points from 2016 to 2021. But closer analysis shows that the reduction in the gap, although real, cannot be due to the additional spending described above.

The gain in First Nations CWB is due mainly to an increase in the income component of the CWB. But almost all of the federal spending on First Nations, class-action settlements and specific claims do not provide taxable income to First Nations people. Rather, the increase in income documented by the CWB comes from the greatly increased payments legislated by the Liberals in the form of the Canada Child Benefit (CCB). First Nations people have a higher birth rate than other Canadians, so they have more children and receive more (on average) from the Canada Child Benefit. Also, they have lower income on average than other Canadians, so the value of the CCB is higher than comparable non-Indigenous families. The result? A gain in income relative to other Canadians, and thus a narrowing of the CWB gap between First Nations and other communities.

There’s an important lesson here. Tens of billions in additional budgetary spending and legal settlements did not move the needle. What did lead to a measurable improvement was legislation creating financial benefits for all eligible Canadian families with children regardless of race. Racially inspired policies are terrible for many reasons, especially because they rarely achieve their goals in practise. If we want to improve life for First Nations people, we should increase opportunities for Canadians of all racial backgrounds and not enact racially targeted policies.

Moreover, racial policies are also fraught with unintended consequences. In this case, the flood of federal money has made First Nations more dependent rather than less dependent on government. In fact, from 2018 to 2022, “Own Source Revenue” (business earnings plus property taxes and fees) among First Nations bands increased—but not as much as transfers from government. The result? Greater dependency on government transfers.

This finding is not just a statistical oddity. Previous research has shown that First Nations who are relatively less dependent on government transfers tend to achieve higher living standards (again, as measured by the CWB index). Thus, the increase in dependency presided over by the Trudeau government does not augur well for the future.

One qualification: this finding is not as robust as I would like because the number of band governments filing reports on their finances has drastically declined. Of 630 First Nation governments, only 260 filed audited statements for fiscal 2022. All First Nations are theoretically obliged by the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, 2013, to publish such statements, but the Trudeau government announced there would be no penalties for non-compliance, leading to a precipitous decline in reporting.

This is a shame, because First Nations, as they often insist, are governments, not private organizations. And like other governments, they should make their affairs visible to the public. Also, most of their income comes from Canadian taxpayers. Both band members and other Canadians have a right to know how much money they receive, how it’s being spent and whether it’s achieving its intended goals.

Author:

Tom Flanagan

Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Distinguished Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary

Uncategorized

Musk, Ramaswamy to lead Trump efforts to cut waste, fraud in federal government

Published on November 13, 2024

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

During his campaign, Ramaswamy proposed cutting 75% of the federal workforce. Musk recently suggested that he could cut $2 trillion from the federal budget, or about one-third of total U.S. spending.

President-elect Donald Trump picked Tesla CEO Elon Musk and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a newly created Department of Government Efficiency.

The department’s acronym, DOGE, is a nod to Musk’s favorite cryptocurrency, dogecoin. Trump said the new group will pave the way for his administration to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulation, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.”

Trump laid out lofty goals for the group in his announcement this week.

“It will become, potentially, ‘The Manhatten Project,’ of our time,” Trump’s announcement said. “Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time.”

It won’t be an official government agency, which will likely allow Musk and Ramaswamy to avoid public financial disclosures.

Trump said the change he’s looking for won’t come from within the existing federal government.

“To drive this kind of change, the Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside the government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform and create and entrepreneurial approach to government never seen before,” the announcement noted.

Trump said he looks forward to what Musk and Ramaswamy can accomplish.

“Importantly, we will drive out the massive waste and fraud which exists throughout our annual $6.5 trillion of government spending,” he said.

Trump also gave them a deadline: July 4, 2026.

“A smaller government, with more efficiency and less bureaucracy will be the perfect gift to America” on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, according to the announcement.

Ramaswamy, who dropped out the race for the GOP nomination to endorse Trump in January, has previously proposed significant cuts. During his campaign, Ramaswamy proposed cutting 75% of the federal workforce.

Musk recently suggested that he could cut $2 trillion from the federal budget, or about one-third of total U.S. spending. He’s been tossing out ideas on X, previously Twitter before Musk bought the company and changed the name.

“The world is suffering slow strangulation by overregulation. Every year, the noose tightens a little more,” Musk wrote in a post on X on Wednesday. “We finally have a mandate to delete the mountain of choking regulations that do not serve the greater good.”

Musk also said he isn’t a threat to democracy, but a threat to bureaucracy.

DOGE already has an X account. It’s first post: “Working overtime to ensure your tax dollars will be spent wisely!”

Some budget experts have called Musk’s pledge to cut $2 trillion a pipe dream, noting that many of the problems DOGE wants to address have proven intractable.

Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute think tank, called Musk’s proposal “a random number unattached to reality.”

Marc Goldwein, the senior vice president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said it could be done with 10 aggressive policies, mostly focused on Medicare and Medicaid.

“The government can legitimately save trillions over a decade by reducing waste and improving efficiency – and I hope we do,” Goldwein wrote on X. “Achieving these savings requires major changes to how and how much we pay for health care.”

Medicare (annual cost of about $1 trillion) is a federal health insurance program for people 65 or older, and some people younger than 65 with certain disabilities or conditions. Medicaid (annual cost of about $558 billion) is a joint federal and state program that helps cover medical costs for some people with limited income and resources.

The Government Accountability Office, which serves as the research arm of Congress, estimated annual fraud losses cost taxpayers between $233 billion and $521 billion annually, in a report in April. The fraud estimate’s range represents 3% to 7% of average federal obligations. The Office of Management and Budget publicly questioned that estimate, calling it “not plausible.”

“OMB has significant concerns that this report will not further efforts to prevent and reduce fraud, but rather will create confusion and promote misleading generalizations that have no factual connection to specific federal programs,” Jason Miller, the deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, wrote of OMB concerns in a three-page letter to officials with the Government Accountability Office.

On the campaign trail, Ramaswamy detailed his plan to reduce the federal workforce by 75% during an event at the America First Policy Institute in Washington in 2023.

Ramaswamy said he would shutter the FBI (about 35,000 employees); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms a nd Explosives (5,099 employees); the U.S. Department of Education (about 4,200 employees); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (about 3,000 employees); and the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Services (about 1,500 employees).

Under Ramaswamy’s campaign plan, some 15,000 FBI employees would be moved to other agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Secret Service, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Drug Enforcement Administration, Defense Intelligence Agency, and Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security.

Some groups called the Department of Government Efficiency goals a stretch. Others had more pointed things to say.

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, a progressive consumer advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader, said the government agencies and regulations Ramaswamy proposed cutting are in place to protect people.

“The purpose of government regulations is to protect the American people,” she said in a statement. “We all depend on these regulations to protect our air, water, workers, children’s safety, and so much more. ‘Cutting red tape’ is shorthand for getting rid of the safeguards that protect us in order to benefit corporate interests.”