SoVote

May/17/22 4:19:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague made it very clear that she is against any type of public financing for the oil and gas sector. The way I view it is that this particular tax credit is meant to incentivize a reduction in emissions, but I respect her point and her view on this. My question is a bit broader. Does she feel the Government of Canada has a role in working with private-sector entities to reduce emissions? She has made it very clear that she does not support that in the oil and gas sector. Where would she delineate, if at all, whether or not the Government of Canada should be providing these types of incentives to other private-sector industries?

122 words

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

May/17/22 4:24:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge. As usual, it is a privilege to rise this afternoon to speak to the NDP opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague from Victoria. In principle, the motion has three elements. It recognizes that the price of gas is high, at more than $2 a litre in some regions in the country, and that that is affecting affordability across the country. The motion points out that energy companies are making profits, especially with the high price of basic energy products. The motion calls for the elimination of the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage that was presented in the budget by the Minister of Finance and for the savings from that measure to be reinvested into helping Canadians. I will talk about the motion, but I will also use my time to talk about the broader issue of affordability and the energy transition in Canada and in the world. I represent a rural riding where a good number of my constituents do not have access to public transit. This conversation on affordability and the ability to use public transit for work and pleasure is an important public policy concern. As far as affordability is concerned, I would like to share with my colleagues that my father was a truck driver and my mother is an administrative assistant. We were a low-income family. One of the reasons I decided to join the Liberal Party and run as an MP is because of the work this government has done to support low- and middle-income families. I want to give some examples of how our government has done that since taking office in 2015: We created the Canada child care benefit, enhanced old age security, reversed the Conservative plan to change the eligibility age from 67 to 65, and strengthened the guaranteed income supplement. We also introduced national child care, and we had the opportunity to see that rolled out across the country. That is something that this government has focused on because it helps support affordability for families paying for child care costs. It is also an important economic driver. It had been talked about for a long time, but it was this government that stepped up, showed leadership and made it happen across the country. I was not part of it, but from 2015-19, in the 42nd Parliament, the first thing this government did was to lower taxes for lower and middle-income Canadians and increase them for the wealthiest one percent in the country. Indeed, this government has invested significantly in the Canadian housing benefit, trying to support individuals with rental costs and their ability to put a roof over their heads. I could go on with the programs I am proud of from this side. That is not to say that all issues are solved or that affordability writ large is taken care of, but I am proud of the record on this side of the House, and of the plans and programs we have introduced because they are making a difference in the lives of Canadians across the country. Let us talk about the inflation issue because it is an important piece to raise. I would suggest that from where I sit in the House, there is no one silver bullet solution to inflation. In fact, history has shown that to be the case, but let us first examine the reasons why we are seeing inflation across the economy and recognize that this is not just a Canadian problem. This is being recognized across the world, in Europe and in the United States. Indeed, the inflation we are experiencing is challenging and impacting us in Canada, but it is actually lower than in other jurisdictions around the world. It is happening, in part, because of the war in Ukraine. We heard, in question period, the Associate Minister of Finance talk about the importance of supporting Ukraine and being able to support them in their fight against Russia. The war and the conflict is having cascading impacts that are creating inflationary pressure around the world. We have to remind Canadians that this is being perpetuated by the Russian Federation, namely, Vladimir Putin. There has also been a supply chain disruption, and it has been talked about at great length. The pandemic has created those challenges. They are not easily reversed. I would also submit that the changing geopolitical situation will also have reverberations on how our supply chains have traditionally operated prior to the pandemic and, indeed, prior to the war in Ukraine. On government spending, governments around the world, including this one, were compelled to step up to support their citizens and make sure that they were taken care of. We were asking individuals to do their part to stop the spread of COVID-19 until we had access to a vaccine and until we had the work that had to done by the scientific community. This government makes no qualms about the fact that we stepped up for Canadians. Eight dollars out of every 10 were provided by this government. That was to help provinces and territories, municipal governments, businesses, and individuals. Undoubtedly, the global community stepping up to help support citizens put additional liquidity into the market. I think that has led, in part, to some of the inflationary pressures we have seen. On the aging workforce, I think this is something we have not discussed to the extent that it should be discussed in the House. We have labour challenges. We have heard that in large detail, in the 44th Parliament, about some of the challenges. That is not just Canada. That is the western world, as we have a large baby boomer demographic that is making its way to retirement. That is creating challenges in employment, which has, as well, an inflationary pressure on wages. In some cases, that can be really important for lower wages, in terms of lower hourly wages, but it is undoubtedly putting on some of that inflationary pressure. That is part of what we have seen. As we can see, it is nuanced. There is not one single thing we can point to. It is a variety of circumstances that have presented themselves for a long time and, indeed, in the last couple of years to where we find ourselves. The question becomes how best to address it. History suggests that it is not easy. Do we spend more money to give individual households some of the affordability measures that they might need? Of course, I think most of us would agree that, in principle, this sounds great. History has shown that when the economy is hot, providing additional support to households, notwithstanding that we want to do that, in some cases, can actually reverberate some of the inflationary pressure that we have seen, particularly when there is a lot of liquidity in the market, with money supply. On interest rates, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates and, indeed, that is seen as one way, from an economic theory. If we raise interest rates, it can have a cooling effect on the economy to bring inflation down, but that has an impact on the affordability element for individuals who might hold debt, in terms of their monthly mortgage payments and some of their bills on that side. I guess, at the end of the day, what I would say is that the question of inflation and affordability is an important one. There is no easy solution, but when I look at the text of this motion, which is talking about taking away a program that the government has introduced for our energy sector to reduce emissions, for us to able to meet our emissions reduction plan, which was introduced a couple months ago by our Minister of Environment, I do not think that this is the best public policy approach. I agree that we need to have important conversations about what the government can do to support affordability and to support Canadians who are having challenging times, but taking away a program that is designed to incentivize the energy sector to reduce emissions and ensure that we are competitive heading into 2050 is the wrong approach.

1391 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

Mr. Kody Blois

May/17/22 4:34:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, we are very blessed to have deep connections to Windsor. It is a beautiful township, which I have the privilege of representing. I will try to address the question twofold. The member opposite talked about some of the tax credits and incentives this government is putting in. I have said in this House before that I believe there will be an oil and gas industry in 2050. The oil and gas market will be much reduced globally, but Canada has a role to work with energy companies to help reduce emissions to be able to also position them on competitive footing heading into 2050. Canada still has a role to play in that market. The question I would then ask back, and I have posed it to the NDP before, is this: Where do we stop? If not oil and gas, do we have other roles in working with the private sector? It has made it very clear it is against oil and gas on public financing and support for reducing emissions. Should that extend to other sectors? It is not clear to me based on the responses so far.

193 words

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

Mr. Kody Blois

May/17/22 4:36:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in a world where we are going to see a smaller role for oil and gas, and I think the International Energy Agency has said that, my thoughts are we actually need to work with the Canadian energy sector to make sure its emission intensity per barrel is some of the lowest in the world. That comes back to the CCUS and how important that is. We also, undoubtedly, need to make a transition. I am just trying to be realistic in that I believe this product will still be important. Canada is the fourth-largest oil producer in the world and the fifth-largest for gas. How can we work to reduce emissions so Canada still has a role in the energy that will still be needed? To the geopolitical piece, our role right now in the world has to be engaging with our allies to find opportunities to provide energy security, which would include natural gas in the short term. Longer term, it will be hydrogen and working on critical minerals to support energy transition. It is a really important question, and I hope we can continue with it here in the House.

197 words

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

Mr. Kody Blois

May/17/22 4:38:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would normally respond in French, but I will speak in English so as to be very clear. It is very easy for that member to suggest that Canada being the fourth-largest oil producer is a bad thing. That is the way he framed it. This is a resource that has been extremely beneficial from Victoria to Newfoundland and Labrador, and everywhere in between, including in his home province. We have an obligation to work with the Canadian energy sector to make sure it is on competitive footing and reducing emissions, while also transitioning to technologies to transition to lower-emission fuels as part of our commitment to net neutrality in 2050.

115 words