SoVote

Dec/8/22 1:36:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague, during his remarks, talked about government spending over the last two years, and some of that spending has included a national child care program, which has been rolled out across the country. Indeed, the Nova Scotia minister is actually an MLA within that member's riding. We just announced that child care fees are going to be going down by 50%, and that there will be another 1,500 spaces added in our province of Nova Scotia alone. That will help support families in my riding and in the member opposite's riding. Does that member support that government spending over the last two years? Why does he not support it? Will he support the legislation we introduced today that would enshrine that moving forward, so that families in his riding and mine can be supported with important affordability measures that would make a difference to our young kids?

154 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 144 - Dec/8/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/8/22 1:42:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously, the procedural rules say that no member should suggest that another member has misled the House, but before me I have a report from the Nova Scotia government that talks about the number of registered day care spaces in South Shore—St. Margarets. Could we—

57 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 144 - Dec/8/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Dec/8/22 4:48:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the opposition motion today. As I usually do, I will go over the parts of the text and address each part accordingly. First, the Conservatives keep saying that the price of pollution will be tripled, but they fail to mention two very important things. First, the money collected will be given back to individuals and businesses and, second, the price will increase progressively over the next eight years until 2030. The second part of the motion is on the estimated increase in the price of food in 2023. I think that the Conservatives failed to illustrate and quantify the role that the price on carbon plays in this increase. When one actually reads through the report, it makes clear that the key drivers to food inflation we are seeing, both in 2022 and what is being projected next year, are because of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia represent 27% of the global grain market, which has been restricted and we have has seen access challenges. We are seeing rising prices on oil and gas as a result of the war as well. Supply chains are also being affected. We have just gone through COVID and there is still a zero-COVID policy in China, one of the major manufacturers and distributors of products for around the world. I know there can be a really important foreign affairs discussion on the Canada-China relationship, but right now, the supply chain is still being affected. There is labour as well. We have a million unfilled jobs in Canada, and western countries around the world are dealing with similar challenges with demographics. As baby boomers retire, that large demographic works its way out of the system of workers. For me, that is what is driving this, and that is what the report says, at page 15, which is extremely important. However, the Conservatives are laying this all on one policy choice, and I do not think they have been able to illustrate how that represents a significant increase whatsoever in the price increases we are seeing. It is also important to recognize that nearly all farm inputs are exempt from the carbon price. Yes, transportation fuels and other indirect costs can and will have an impact, but with Bill C-234, which is before the House right now, as it has been reported back from committee, we might see an exemption altogether on direct farm costs associated with any type of carbon pricing. That is because there is a recognition that, yes, we are encouraging farmers, and farmers are taking on great innovation themselves. The government has put almost $1.5 billion in the last couple of budgets to help make that transition, but some of those commercial technologies are not readily available. That is the balance that we have walked thus far. The third and fourth part of the motion concerns the challenges in financial affordability. On this side of the House, as I have already said, we are concerned about the cost of living and we are bringing in measures to address that. This gives me the opportunity to talk about the current economic situation, the days to come and what we need to do to find a balance between supporting vulnerable people and maintaining our solid financial position. It does give me an opportunity to talk about where Canada's economic and relative debt position is. It is important because there might be some folks in the public gallery who have been watching this debate or watching it at home, and my God, they would think that things are completely broken in this country. That is the message the leader of the official opposition sends and it is very problematic. Canada actually has one of the strongest records in the G7 on economic performance. As I mentioned, I do not think any parliamentarian in this House would somehow suggest that there are not challenges and that there are not affordability difficulties, but when we look at our economic position to comparative countries, we are extremely strong. I find it ironic that members of the Conservative Party stand up and talk about government spending when they were supportive of many of the measures that this government took during the pandemic. Now that the Conservatives have been in place and now that there has been a cost to the Canadian treasury to make sure we were protecting Canadians and protecting businesses, they talk about how government is spending too much money. It is that hyprocrisy. The member for Kingston and the Islands said it far better than I can in saying that the Conservative Party actually ran on a carbon price just 13 months ago during the election in 2021. He is right. Thirteen months ago, the Conservative Party said this was a good idea. Now the Conservatives stand before us saying they never would have thought up such an idea. It is that mixed messaging that creates challenges in terms of Canadians believing whether or not the Conservative Party is authentic in its beliefs. Also, we just passed the fall economic statement. The third reading vote happened about an hour ago. It is important to recognize that not only is this government walking a key balance between making sure that vulnerable Canadians have the supports they need during this difficult time, but we are also maintaining a strong fiscal position. We are not being irresponsible with government spending. Again, I want to go back to those comparative numbers. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We also have the lowest actual deficit as a proportion of our debt in the G7 as well. When we look at other comparable countries, the Conservatives would paint a picture that somehow things are very poor in this country. Actually we are doing very well in an international context. I want to talk a bit more around some of the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party as it relates to the things we talked about. There is a Parliamentary Budget Officer report that talks about some of the money the government has spent during the pandemic as we try to collect money from some individuals who might not have been eligible. The Conservatives voted on those measures in this House and supported them at the time. We have heard comments this week that somehow this is terrible and that the government should have had more accountability. We have been very clear that, had the program been tightly designed, so much so that it would have taken weeks or months on end to get that program money out to the individuals in question, they would have been in a much more dire situation. In fact, that same PBO report said that if the government had not done what it had done, poverty would have doubled in this country. I want to remind my Conservative colleagues, when they reference that report, that if their suggestion is that we should have been even more bureaucratic and put in even more program requirements at a time of incredible instability, and the fact there was a lot of uncertainty about what would move forward, we wanted to be able to act quickly. We knew there would still have to be an accounting on the other side, and that is something this government will be taking forward in the days ahead, but we did it to protect Canadians. We did it to make sure that the economic principles of the country were strong, and that Canadians knew we had their backs, and that is exactly why I am proud to stand on this side of the House. The last thing is on carbon pricing, because that is the topic of the day. The member for Kingston and the Islands did a good job when one of my colleagues joked about just cutting that 10 minutes and playing it again. Maybe we would, but there have been a lot of questions about Atlantic Canada. I want to remind my constituents, indeed those in Atlantic Canada, that notwithstanding the Conservative Party making the pitch that it is going to apply this winter, the carbon price will not apply to home heating this winter in Atlantic Canada. I want to really highlight the programs that we have put in place. There is the $500 million that we have put out. Today in question period, the Minister of Immigration talked about this program providing $5,000 grants to help homes transition off home heating oil. First and foremost, that is about affordability. That is about saving thousands of dollars a year in energy bill costs. That matters to my constituents and people across the country, but particularly in Atlantic Canada. Of course, it also is beneficial for the environment. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues. That is one of my favourite parts of this, so I will sit down and look forward to taking them.

1508 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 144 - Dec/8/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/8/22 4:59:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we stand on our record on this side of the House that in a time of immense need, we were there to help support Canadians. I want to take this back and contrast this to the Conservative approach back in 2008-09 when the Harper government frankly did not get involved whatsoever. The economic scarring lasted years. In fact, issues lasted until 2015. I also want to remind the member that while he can say the program and the way we rolled it out was somehow not beneficial for economic growth or otherwise, he voted for those measures. He was involved in helping to support them. At that time, all of us as parliamentarians were saying it was the right thing to do. I find it a little bit ironic and a little bit facetious that he is raising this now, that somehow that was not good spending at the time.

153 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 144 - Dec/8/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/8/22 5:01:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will try to answer in French. The Bloc is calling for an increase in old age security for people across Canada. My problem with the Bloc Québécois proposal is that, if the government increases benefits by 10% for all seniors in Canada, this represents an additional expenditure of $10 billion a year. It is essentially built-in spending. I am happy to have that conversation. It is a massive expenditure, especially with baby boomers coming across at the same time. In hindsight, the $3 billion that the government is spending every year, I would perhaps have liked to see that be for 65 and up and targeted on lower income, but we are promising to increase the guaranteed income supplement for those who are 65 and up, which will help to address that gap. It is fine to talk about spending for seniors, but we need an economic plan to make sure that as our baby boomers come through, we can actually afford it long term.

182 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 144 - Dec/8/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/8/22 5:03:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her kindness in letting me see our former premier, Darrell Dexter, yesterday. It was nice to a have chance to connect with him. On an output-based pricing system, I think there is a conversation to be had about that in terms of trying to find that equilibrium. At the same time, we have to make sure our major emitters and our major corporations that are involved in economic trade or businesses that are particularly vulnerable are not necessarily priced out. That is an economic competitive question that I think needs to be analyzed before we go there.

109 words

All Topics