SoVote

Mar/22/22 3:12:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know how important rail service is to be able to move essential goods across the country, whether or not it is inputs for farmers and ranchers or being able to get the bountiful harvest of those ranchers and producers to export markets. We watched with concern the ongoing situation with CP Rail and the union in terms of what a disruption could mean to Canadians. I had the opportunity to speak with the Minister of Labour directly in the last few days. I know he was on the ground in Calgary. We were working with federal mediators to find a solution, and thankfully that came this morning. Can the minister provide us an update on when services will resume and the work that was undertaken to get to this critical juncture?

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 4:10:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands. Today, we are here to discuss the opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague from Abbotsford, which addresses the price of oil and gas. The wording of the motion is non‑binding on the government, but I am glad we are having this conversation about affordability for Canadians and our constituents. The discussion is important at this time. First, the current price of gas and the problems it is causing across the country are linked to the situation and the war in Ukraine. The price of gas and oil is based on an international market. It is not unique to Canada; it is linked in different ways to producers around the world. When I have conversations with my constituents in Kings—Hants, I am reminded of that. Part of the challenge that we are all going to have to face is the fact that although we are not directly involved militarily on the ground in Ukraine, the western world is responding by sanctioning the products that are coming from the Russian Federation as part of our plan to help deter future Russia aggression and obviously to respond to the situation right now. I have said in other speeches that the sanctions alone are not going to change the situation overnight in Ukraine. We are there on other fronts with military hardware and with logistics, both lethal and non-lethal, along with our NATO allies, to try to provide support to those who are courageously fighting for democracy, not only in Ukraine but around the world. I think Canadians need to understand that on a temporary basis, in the interim, we are going to be facing higher gas prices as part of the collective cost to fight the war in Ukraine, indirectly at this point, and I think we are all concerned about what this could represent in the days ahead with the changing sands in our foreign policy context. I also want to take a moment to explain carbon pricing, because my Conservative colleagues in particular are highlighting their idea that the carbon price is unilaterally driving up gas prices and that it is the government's fault that things at the pump can sometimes be challenging. I want to debunk that, at least as it relates to my province of Nova Scotia, and then also speak about what this represents in backstop provinces that do not have an equivalent environmental plan to tackle emissions. In Nova Scotia, particularly because of the work under the McNeil Liberal government, there has been tremendous effort undertaken to make our electricity grid and our power generation renewable. That has resulted in a higher cost to individuals, but there is no direct price on pollution levied at the pumps on gasoline. I have had calls over the last couple of weeks about the price of gas and what the Government of Canada can do vis-à-vis the price on pollution. As it relates to Nova Scotia, a lot of that has already been implemented through our electricity rates. Monies that the government is collecting under its cap and trade system at the provincial level are being distributed toward important initiatives to help transition households, particularly vulnerable households, to a lower-carbon future. Of course, in backstop provinces such as Ontario, essentially the way I like to describe it is that monies collected by the government on the carbon price are centralized and then distributed back to individuals on a per capita basis, which actually creates an incentive for individuals to change their behaviour. As a rural member in this House, I take notice that sometimes there are challenges if people do not have other options, and I think that this is a legitimate policy conversation that can be had, especially as the price on pollution advances in the days ahead. I want to take a moment to discuss some of the initiatives our government has taken since 2015. First, we introduced a $10‑a‑day child care spaces program, like the model in Quebec, to reduce the cost to families. I think this is very important because it helps parents get back to work and reduces costs for middle‑class and low‑income families. It is a great step by this government to advance the interests of families who need help. I also want to talk about the Canada housing benefit. This is a program that is a portable benefit that has been delivered to individuals who are in need. We talk about affordable housing. That means different things to different people, but at the end of the day we are trying to put a program in place that allows an individual to move to different locations as their circumstances warrant, with support from the Government of Canada on the basis of their income. The traditional program has been that someone will be set up in a particular location and given their affordable rent. This program has a lot more merit and we need to continue to remind Canadians of the benefits it represents. The Canada child benefit, again, has brought countless hundreds of thousands of Canadian children out of poverty and supported families. I do not need to go into great detail because one could look at Hansard and the testimony of members of Parliament about what this has meant for their loved ones and their families. It is truly making a difference and supports affordability, which is really what the text of this motion is about. I am the member for Kings—Hants, in Nova Scotia. My riding is mostly rural and is made up of small communities of people who are, on average, older. The guaranteed income supplement is very important for seniors and vulnerable people, which is why our government introduced measures to strengthen this program in the last Parliament. Right now, we have commitments of course to extending that by $500 a month and we have strengthened old age security, which are other important measures relating to affordability. I want to talk about the importance of intercity busing. I mentioned I am an MP in a rural area. The way the Government of Canada's programs are designed is that we have a lot of support that is accessible to the provinces to work with municipalities on transit in larger cities. However, if someone is vulnerable right now, does not have access to a vehicle and does not have the ability to afford the cost of a vehicle to get them from place to place, intercity busing is key. The government has had other initiatives in the past. One point that is extremely important is looking at the investing in Canada infrastructure program and the bilaterals we have with the provinces and territories, and finding ways for flexibility to support intercity busing, particularly given the fact we have gone through COVID and there have been challenges. The last thing I will say is that the text of this motion talks about eight cents on average that a temporary tax relief would give to the consumer. What I do not think has been discussed is whether we, as members of Parliament, should be also privy to that type of benefit. This comes down to an ideological choice of saying we can either just let an eight-cent reduction in gas prices on a temporary basis be available to everyone, including millionaires and people who really do not need that help, or we can continue to collect revenue as the government normally would and create a specific program that would be targeted to individuals who actually have challenges right now related to affordability. I dare say there is not one member of Parliament in the House, on a salary of $180,000 a year, who needs eight cents back per litre at the pump. It is lower income Canadians who do. That is a fundamental flaw with the text of this motion. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

1364 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/22/22 4:21:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at 19 times the size, I can appreciate the challenges of getting to every corner of his riding and what that would represent. Even 5,000 square kilometres in Kings—Hants can sometimes feel daunting. I do not have specific information to answer his question vis-à-vis the intergovernmental aspect of Saskatchewan versus New Brunswick. I will talk about affordability writ large. I think it is an important conversation to be had. We are seeing challenges, as I mentioned, because of the war in Ukraine, around food supplies and around fertilizer for farmers, which I know that member would know a lot about given the concentration he represents in his riding, so I do think we need to have conversations about affordability. My issue is that the text of this motion is about eight cents per litre. I take notice that for some people that is a very big deal. However, the text of the motion is not very targeted. I think there are better ways to go about having targeted measures for Canadians who actually need the support, as opposed to having that member benefit from eight cents a litre. I think he would suggest he does not necessarily need it at this point.

209 words

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/22/22 4:23:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I had just 10 minutes to talk about the text of the motion and some of the government's priorities, so I did not have an opportunity to discuss another mistake in the motion as written, which has to do with the Quebec tax. This motion would in fact interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction. That is yet another error in the Conservatives' motion.

74 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/22/22 4:24:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a lot to try to answer in 30 seconds. Let me just say, as one of the younger members in the House at 31 years old, I have friends in that same situation of trying to be able to own a home and start a family. That resonates with me. I do not have time to properly address the question vis-à-vis the larger policy context of whether or not it is prudent to continue to spend to try to create the affordability and support that Canadian families need or what other measures that are non-spending in a world of 5.7% inflation right now are going to be crucial to be able to make affordability important for Canadian families. I think it is an important conversation to be had, and I do think we will be hearing more about it in the House in the days ahead.

154 words

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 5:04:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just a quick note, I have many constituents who have either made their start in life in Fort McMurray or are still residing there, so I think there are a lot of common connections between our two provinces. In my remarks earlier today, I thanked the member for Abbotsford for bringing forward a conversation about affordability, but I did say that I was concerned about the text of the motion. Eight cents a litre is important, particularly for residents who are very vulnerable. This is something that could provide immediate relief. My worry is that it is not very targeted. Would my colleague opposite agree that, by going with this approach, it is providing eight cents to everyone across the board? We as members of Parliament make about $180,000 a year. There are other people who are quite wealthy. I do not think that they need eight cents a litre or four dollars on a tank of gas. I would rather actually have more support by government collecting the money and redistributing it on the basis of need. Would she agree with the idea that the way it is currently worded, it is actually going to reward people that really do not need the help at this point?

211 words