SoVote

Dec/7/23 4:14:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way raised a number of very interesting points of debate. I wish I had more time. He talked about carbon pricing and the fact that some other jurisdictions in the world do not have it. However, there are 77 jurisdictions that do have a form of carbon pricing. I was tempted to ask whether this is about carbon pricing itself or the fact that we have to get more countries on board and have it built into a carbon border adjustment mechanism like we are seeing in Europe. However, he mentioned that carbon pricing is forming higher input costs, and he did not talk about anything else, no other factors. There was nothing about climate change and nothing about supply chains. He never talked about the war in Ukraine. There are a lot of Ukrainians in Red Deer, a large proportion of them. We had a bill before this House that talked about supporting Ukraine through a free trade agreement. There is already a carbon price in Ukraine, as we have a carbon price here in Canada, yet the member voted against a simple, straightforward bill that would have supported economic efficiency in that country and could perhaps help Ukraine win the war and get food prices down. Can the member explain his vote?

221 words

Context: House Hansard - 264 - Dec/7/23

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Dec/7/23 4:20:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope that you are doing well. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, British Columbia. I rise today to speak to a motion moved by the opposition. I like having the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with the members of the opposition about their thoughts, their policies and their feelings. First, I feel the need to explain the motion we are discussing. It is the reality. The House is calling on the government to repeal the carbon tax on farmers, first nations and families. I will speak to those three points. I will bring a level of moderation to this conversation. I have heard a whole bunch of stuff here today, and I will give my perspective on the motion and on the question, writ large, about where Canada goes in the days ahead in relation to environmental progress and how we get there. I come into this conversation as someone who believes in the principle of carbon pricing. There is merit to it. Inherently, it is a mechanism that actually allows the private sector to make those decisions. My hon. colleagues across the way in opposition often talk about big government or the idea that they do not like big government, but it seems that, if they do have a climate plan, it would be predicated on big government programs as opposed to letting the private sector decide how to innovate and how to drive emissions down. Of course, that is what we are focused on: driving GHG emissions down. We know the science is clear and that work has to be done. Canada is in a global effort on that front. However, I want to address each of the elements of the motion because the motion, to the Conservatives' credit, is somewhat reasonably put forward in that it is straightforward in what it is asking for. It does not have too much inflammatory language, but it also does not talk about the other types of arguments or the other elements that are at play. For example, let me start with families. We have heard in the House, and we have heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that under the federal backstop, eight out of 10 Canadian families are receiving more money back than what they pay in. The House has heard a number of times this week of a column that was talking about Trevor Tombe, a Calgary economist, who talked about this relating not only to direct but also to indirect costs. That is largely void from the conversation I am hearing from the official opposition about the fact that there even are rebates. I heard a couple of people in the House say that they are taking the money and they do not know what they are doing with it. With all due respect, that is a bit disingenuous. We know exactly what the money is doing. It is revenue neutral to the government and it is being put back. I take no issue if the Conservative Party does not believe in the way that is happening and would like to see adjustments and changes. Very often, we hear the Conservatives just lambasting the idea of any form of carbon pricing, and that is important for us to weigh in on. There are business operators making decisions all across the world right now, including here in Canada, who are relying on the idea that there will be a form of carbon pricing, and they are building their industrial strategies in that way. We have not heard from the Conservatives as to whether they support any form of carbon pricing, nor have we heard what their plan is. Do I think that every member on the opposition bench is a climate denier? No, I do not, but I do worry that the party is not genuine in its interest of tackling the questions of affordability and environment at the same time and the progress we need to make in this country. With respect to families, when the Conservatives are saying they want to cut the federal backstop, they are saying they want to cut money that goes back to lower- and middle-income families at a higher rate than what people pay out, both directly and indirectly. The Conservatives should start becoming clear about what exactly they are saying. They want to take money away from lower- and middle-income Canadians, full stop. The Conservatives often talked about the indirect costs of the carbon price. Yes, there are some indirect costs, and we have to weigh those versus the price signal, which will drive innovation and the economy in this country, the clean tech economy that is there. I have talked about families, so in my time remaining, let me talk about first nations and farmers. There is a mechanism right now under the federal backstop that returns money back to first nations. The Conservatives will quote a judicial decision that some first nations in Ontario have brought forward. They are trying to push for changes and adjustments. We can have that conversation. I have talked to members on our side in the indigenous caucus, and they support a carbon price. They know environmental progress is important. Again, we do not hear the Conservatives stepping up to offer tangible solutions about how they would adjust or change the policies. They are just saying they would scrap everything to do with it without providing any guidance to Canadians about what their actual climate plan is. We have seen the government make adjustments. There are existing reasonable exemptions within the carbon pricing plan across the country. I was pleased to see, just over a month ago, the government make changes that will really matter to rural Canadians across the country. We increased the rural rebate to 20%. This is something that was driven by members in this caucus, who did not come in with the opening premise of saying that we should kill carbon pricing all together, but of letting us adjust it to make sure Canadians in every corner of this country can feel like they are part of the solution on climate. We never heard a single word from the Conservative benches about what that means for their constituents. I again take notice that maybe they do not support this, but what do they support? If they want to be the government in waiting, they better start actually talking about what it is they do support and what they stand for, which I have not heard much of lately other than, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has mentioned, 19 straight opposition day motions that are largely on this topic alone. I do not know what else they have in the tool kit. I guess we will see, but this seems to be a favourite one. On farmers, what the opposition day motion does not mention is that there are existing exemptions for on farm fuels for gasoline and diesel already. They referenced often Bill C-234. This is a bill I supported at second reading and at third reading, and we saw it off to the Senate. I do believe the work the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food did at the House level to examine the question and to have a sunset clause that would reasonably allow some period of time, particularly on the question of grain and vegetable drying, is a reasonable one. It is an extension of the existing exemption that actually makes sense. Some in the House would not agree with me on that principle, and that is fine. We have heard consistently question after question in the House somehow lambasting the government for blocking this in the Senate. Senators would know the government position on it. The government position was to support farmers in different ways, to be able to put different mechanisms back and still keep the price signal. What is not being talked about, or not very often, is that the Senate record shows at least five of the 15 Conservative senators were not in the chamber on the day that amendment was put forward. It was ultimately voted on by 40 to 39. The leader of the official opposition stood in the House for weeks talking about this bill. I am sure the Conservative fundraising emails will not mention that a third of his Senate caucus did not even bother to show up on the day, on their own legislation. That matters. An hon. member: That's not true. Mr. Kody Blois: Is it not true? Senator Michael MacDonald was not there. Senator Boisvenu was not there. Senator Manning was not in the Senate. I could go on. I have them all listed on my phone. Madam Speaker, I hear my Conservative colleague saying that is not true. Well, it is true. The leader of the official opposition is the only party leader in the House of Commons who is still a leader for certain senators in the Senate, and if he cannot get his members to show up to get their legislation through, maybe they have to be looking in the mirror a little. I will remind members that I do support this legislation. When it comes back in the House, I will be supporting it unamended. However, some blame needs to be put on the Conservative Party members themselves about their procedural tactics, including in the Senate, where Senator Don Plett had to apologize for his tactics. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was quite distasteful about how he went about putting a wanted poster with a senator's picture up on social media. That is a style of politics that does not belong in Canada. We have a tradition of having a better decorum and respect. At the end of the day, that has to be called out in the same way as the issue that is before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs right now. We should maybe move a motion to bring the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, for his actions, before PROC, because they are equally as concerning to the House. I see my time is coming to an end, and I wish I had more of it, but I know my Conservative colleagues and all members of the House will give me an opportunity to continue to build on my thoughts.

1761 words

Context: House Hansard - 264 - Dec/7/23

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/7/23 4:30:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I will answer him in English because his question is very specific. I want to make sure I give my hon. colleague the best response I can. At the end of the day, I would have encouraged the Senate, as I did in letters I wrote publicly, including to the vice-chair of the agriculture committee, the member for Foothills, to maintain the bill as it was. A majority of members of the House, representing all parties, voted in favour of bringing that forward. As to the question around barn heating and cooling, are there other methods to turn to? I think, yes, more so than grain and vegetable drying, which is either natural gas or propane. There are other alternatives for barn heating and cooling, but the committee weighed that and felt that, at this time, the affordability costs and the ability to make the transition were difficult, so it should also be included. The bill has come back to the House, and we will have that debate. At least the grain and vegetable drying portion should absolutely become law, and I would support a more expansive piece on barn heating and cooling.

203 words

Context: House Hansard - 264 - Dec/7/23

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/7/23 4:32:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the Conservatives want to kill carbon pricing. They have wanted to kill it since the moment this government introduced it back in 2019. I want to explain something to my hon. colleague. Keeping a price signal on heating oil would have been strictly for politics and not for public policy. Let me explain that the 1.1 million households that use heating oil in this country, including almost 400,000 in Quebec, are paying the highest cost to heat their homes in the country, and it is the worst from an environmental perspective. If people are asking themselves why they are paying the highest cost to heat their homes, it is probably because they cannot pay the cost for the transition toward a better source, whether it is natural gas, propane or even an electric source. The government recognized this in 2022. It put $250 million on the table to help people in Quebec and all across Canada make a transition. However, it would not matter if the price was $3,000 a tonne. People in some parts of my riding cannot afford to make the transition, and that is why the government put a pause on the carbon tax for three years with a direct tie to an enhanced heat pump program to help people make a transition. It was the responsible thing to do. It applies across the country, and it does not undermine the climate program. In fact, the heat pump program is going to make a difference on affordability and for the environment.

264 words

Context: House Hansard - 264 - Dec/7/23

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/7/23 4:35:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is working on this question very closely. There will be more to be said, I am sure, from the government in the days ahead as it relates to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. It is not surprising that Conservatives continue to raise this. I do not know what else they have in their tool kit they want to talk about, but they have vandalized the question on carbon pricing and tied it to affordability, which is a bit disingenuous, in my personal opinion.

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 264 - Dec/7/23

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/7/23 11:18:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice that this is a vote that is really important to Canadian farmers. Surely, there would not be a member of Parliament who would not vote for our Canadian farmers. I would ask that we have a recorded division.

46 words