SoVote

Feb/1/24 3:14:03 p.m.
Watch

I ask all members to take their conversations outside the House so I can hear the point of order. All those who can hear my voice, please say “sh”. Thank you. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, from the top, please.

45 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/1/24 3:14:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since this was brought up a number of times in question period, I am hoping that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to table the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that says very clearly that—

41 words

Budget

The Speaker

Feb/1/24 3:14:38 p.m.
Watch

I am hearing many “no”s. I encourage all members seeking unanimous support to please negotiate it in advance with the different House leaders.

26 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Feb/1/24 3:15:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome the minister of state in the House of Commons, who will take on the role of Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for the next few weeks and months. I would like to ask him if the government has planned to put anything of interest to Canadians on the agenda tomorrow, and what the plan is for next week.

69 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:15:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-62 Bill C-59 Bill C-57

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec. I assure him that the House of Commons is in for a good time. There will always be interesting things to debate because we keep introducing good bills in the House. Tomorrow, Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, will be the subject of debate. When we return on Monday, we will call Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days. On Wednesday we will begin debate on Bill C‑62 on medical assistance in dying, which was introduced earlier today by my hon. colleague the Minister of Health.

125 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:17:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the points I was raising just before question period. The Conservatives never talk about the rebates that are given to families and businesses in Canada, nor do they talk about the fact that 100% of the revenue collected from the price on pollution is given back to families and businesses. There are also costs associated with climate change. Climate change is costing all three levels of government exorbitant amounts and it is also affecting the cost of insurance coverage for individuals and households in Canada. Let us also not forget that 77 jurisdictions around the world have some type of price on pollution or carbon. Canada is not the only one. Finally, the reality is that it is possible to address climate change and to make life more affordable. The Conservatives do not think that is possible, but we think that it is very important to do both of those things. I want to bring it back to Kings—Hants, my riding in Nova Scotia, and I want to talk about affordability and environmental action at the same time. We introduced a heat pump program in 2022. It was called, simply, the oil to heat pump program, and it is to help individuals who were on home heating oil to make a transition. There are one million Canadian households that still use heating oil in this country, and 286,000 of them are in Atlantic Canada, but they are spread all across this country. The evidence would suggest that the majority of people who still use heating oil are people who are lower income and who do not have the ability to transition off that fuel source. That is exactly why the government introduced a $10,000 program to help people be able to make that transition. When I went out in my riding this past summer, I talked to seniors. They would tell me that this is a great program, but the project cost is about $15,000 or $16,000. By the time they would put the heat pump into their home, get the electricity and upgrade things in their house, it would cost a bit more than the $10,000. They told me that they could really not afford that and that they did not have the money to make the transition. Because of the leadership of members of Parliament on this side, and because the government listened, we introduced a program that is going to help provide up to $20,000 to households that are below the provincial median income in Nova Scotia. This will also be in New Brunswick, if New Brunswick wants to sign on with Premier Higgs, and certainly in Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. I know conversations are happening with the Government of Manitoba and the Government of British Columbia. This is a program that would be open across the country, where three-quarters, or $15,000, of the money would be paid by the Government of Canada, and $5,000 would be coming in from the provinces. I remember having a conversation with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets a few weeks before Christmas, and I compared it to this. Our affordability plan is that we paused the carbon price on home heating oil for three years to help people utilize the program I just talked about to be able to make a transition. I said to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets that his party's affordability plan is to take 17¢ off a litre of home heating oil. Make no mistake, that is extremely important in today's context, but what we are offering is not only that 17¢ a litre right now but also a long-term savings where people can save up to thousands of dollars a year by being able to move over to a heat pump, which is more affordable than home heating oil. It is not slogans; it is solutions. That is what we are focused on. That is good for the environment and good for affordability, and what I am focused on is affordability for my constituents. Of course, the Conservatives are opposed to that. How about the fact that we have increased the rural rebate? I represent the type of riding in Atlantic Canada where my constituents do not have the same public transit options available to other Canadians, particularly those in more urban areas. I was very pleased to see the government make changes that help ensure greater equity under this system to ensure that, as we return the proceeds of the carbon price, which of course eight out of 10 families receive more money back, we are being mindful of how rural families are impacted. That is something this government has done. Liberal members of Parliament have been able to adjust policies because we have asked important and intelligent questions. We have not just stood up and said that we want to get rid of carbon pricing altogether in the country. We achieved more, in terms of the adjustments, than the Conservatives had in eight years, just as they denigrated the policy. Conservatives do not just oppose carbon pricing. They oppose all forms of what this government is doing on climate change, and I will give a few examples. This is on Bill C-49, and I will give the Conservatives their due in that, in a world of communications, we have to be slick in how we communicate to the public. Not everyone watches the House of Commons, of course, so they have the line “technology, not taxes”, which is the idea that we will look to focusing on renewable energy, I presume, or different types of technology to help drive down emissions. This is great. I believe in that too. I think the price signal is important, and they actually support one another. However, we then have an example in Atlantic Canada. Bill C-49 would amend the Atlantic accord, which is the agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal government, and between Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government. The reason it is a joint partnership is that it was tied to the oil and gas development that happened in the 1980s. This is extremely important to Atlantic Canada, and we take the Atlantic accord seriously. I remember when the legislation was introduced before Christmas, and it is just as simple as allowing those accord provisions to extend to the regulation of offshore wind, which plays into green hydrogen, and we all know that is a technology that could help bring down emissions. It is also really good for jobs. I thought this was going to get unanimous approval. I did not think there would be any issue. However, the Conservatives gave us a gift because they stepped up and basically went against their own slogan. They do not even support the type of technology that can help bring down emissions and drive really good jobs to Atlantic Canada. My job is not only to talk about why that is important to the region I represent, but also to highlight and parse out what it is that the Conservatives do not like about this bill. I sat at the natural resources committee for two hours this week, and the Minister for Natural Resources appeared, but two hours later, I still had not heard a credible idea from the Conservatives about why they are against the bill. This is part of a continuing trend because, under the Harper government, members will remember that the member for Cumberland—Colchester at the time, Bill Casey, left the Conservative caucus. Why did he leave the Conservative caucus? It was because Harper was trying to impact and denigrate the Atlantic accords. Let us not forget that the last Conservative prime minister—

1321 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 3:24:38 p.m.
Watch

Order. I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to quell the noise that is in the hallway. The hon. member for Kings—Hants may continue.

26 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:24:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, thank you for trying to keep the decorum. I think members are probably cheering so loudly in the back benches, but that is good. We will get them calmed down in here for interpretation. Let us remember, the last Conservative prime minister in this country said that Atlantic Canadians had a “culture of defeat”. That was Stephen Harper. I have not heard that from the member for Carleton, but he was part of that government. However, as we try to drive economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada, the Conservative Party suggests that it knows better than the duly elected Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. These provinces want to agree to these provisions. They want to move quickly. We are in a global race. To listen to the way in which the Conservative Party suggests it knows better than the governments of my region is unbelievable. I do not have words for it. However, I am going to make sure that Atlantic Canadians know, and we are going to make sure that Nova Scotians know. The last bit I will say is that the Conservatives do not believe in the price signal for carbon pricing, which could actually help drive economic models. They talk about technology, not taxes, but how do we get it? How do we incentivize companies to want to invest in the technologies that are going to drive emissions down? We hear the member for Carleton talking about that all the time. The member for South Shore—St. Margarets made it very clear at the natural resources committee that he does not believe there is a role for public funding in these types of technologies. He was talking about projects such as EverWind, which could mean billions of dollars to Nova Scotia. He was running that project down, and it was disappointing to hear. I think it symbolizes where the Conservative Party is at right now in this conversation. Conservatives are against clean fuel regulations. I can appreciate that the oil and gas emissions cap has particular sensitivities in western Canada, and perhaps in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have stood in the House and said that I believe in the Canadian oil and gas sector, but I have also said that we need to make sure that we can find ways to use things such as nuclear technology and green hydrogen to help bring down the emission intensity of the barrel of Canadian oil. In a world where we become more constrained on demand, Canadian oil is not only competitive on price but is also competitive on carbon intensity. Again, that is what this cap could help do, by working with industry, and Conservatives oppose it. I also want to talk about how the environmental policies of the government could actually lead to positive outcomes for farmers and foresters, particularly through offset protocols. This is something that I will say in the House, which is that I would like to give a nudge to the ministry at Environment and Climate Change Canada. I think they have done some good work, but I would like to see more on offset protocols around farming practices and forestry. How can we change the conversation that the carbon price? Notwithstanding that the Conservatives are not helping on that, but about the economic ability, how do we turn that into the environmental policies of the government and create huge economic opportunities for our farmers to support the good, sustainable practices they are doing and also make sure our forestry sector is supported? I would like to see a little more on that. We also have to give some context to what is happening around the world. The European Union, the United Kingdom, and the Biden administration in the U.S. are all talking about carbon pricing adjustments at their borders. They are talking about putting carbon pricing as part of our economic trading model. I have to ask my Conservative colleagues a question: If we are going to cut carbon pricing altogether in this country, what could that mean for our industries that are then otherwise going to face tariff barriers at those potential borders as we start to line this up? Canada has a tremendous opportunity. Our industries are sustainable. They are world class, and they are innovative. With the existing carbon price right now, we could have a global advantage, as that is the way in which the world is potentially heading. We should be focused on that. Why would the Conservatives want to mess with that? Why would they talk about eliminating it altogether? If Conservatives have good, thoughtful ideas on adjustments, they should be bringing those forward, but I am not hearing a whole lot.

797 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/1/24 3:29:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy that the member opposite likes our idea about technology, not taxes. I would inform him that the U.S. is the only country in the world that met its Paris targets, and it did that by providing capital incentives to industry to reduce emissions and by implementing more nuclear technology and more green technology. That is the right direction. Would the member admit that, since the carbon tax is not helping the Liberals meet any of their emissions target, it is time to abandon that, cap the increase planned for April 1 and focus, instead, on the same kind of incentives that were successful for the U.S.?

113 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:30:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will reject part of the question. I would agree with the hon. member that nuclear technology is extremely important and it will be part of where we have to get in terms of net neutrality. I am proud to continue being a member of Parliament calling for the government to do more on this, and we have done more. I am very proud of the fact that nuclear is now part of green bonds. I agree with the approach that the government is taking on the investment tax credits in this domain with respect to trying to match and line up with what the United States is doing. Make no mistake, though, if we talk to CEOs and leaders of companies, whether in the clean energy sector or not, the carbon price is an important signal to help justify investments. I would encourage the member to speak to companies and businesses that actually believe the carbon price is an important signal and they want some certainty about whether it will stay, because it is driving billions of dollars of investment in clean energy right now the country, in her province, in my province and provinces across the country.

201 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/1/24 3:30:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I agree on several points. I wonder if he could talk about what we can do to recognize what is being done on the ground in the agricultural sector. Should farmers who adopt good practices not be rewarded for that? My colleague is very familiar with this idea because I often explain it to him. The idea is to recognize good practices and create a decentralized fund that does not depend on the goodwill of the big, fat government in Ottawa, but rather on the will of entrepreneurs whenever they are ready to invest, so that they can go on to the next environmentally positive investment.

111 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:31:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, I support Bill C‑234. I also agree on the importance of acknowledging our farmers' relentless work in support of sustainable agriculture and having a certain tool to achieve it. That is exactly why I spoke about offset credits and their recognition by the Government of Canada in relation to the clean fuel regulations and the clean electricity regulations. Some companies could pay our farmers for their hard work. Of course, in addition to the government, big companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi should be making the same kinds of contributions.

94 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/1/24 3:32:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could the member bring some reality to this chamber? I know we have had conversations back and forth between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives keep going with their slogans, but they seem to be out of touch with reality. Could the Liberals talk about how rebates and income back to families matters?

56 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:33:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I mentioned this in my remarks that it is unfortunate that the Conservative Party has sought to denigrate the idea of carbon pricing so much that it is all that ills Canadians, that what we see in challenges around affordability is tied to one policy. That is not the case. There are many other external factors. One of the things that is perhaps the most unfortunate is that there has not been a recognition from the opposition benches on the way in which the government went about establishing the policy, that more money goes back to families than they pay into it. That has been established by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If the Conservatives are talking about eliminating the carbon price, I have concerns about what that means economically with respect to where the world is headed and what it means for those businesses, as I said when I took the question from the member for Sarnia—Lambton. It also means that we are taking money away from vulnerable households that genuinely receive more money back than they pay. That is where we have to take this conversation so that Canadians understand the way the policy works, the fact that there are rebates, because if we listened to the opposition benches they would never know that, and the fact that if they were to cut that policy, it would hurt many vulnerable Canadian families.

237 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/1/24 3:34:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one debate we have never had in this place is on whether any of the claims about nuclear energy are remotely true; they are not. Nuclear energy is expensive. It is not a solution to the climate crisis. Solar and wind costs have plummeted from 2009 to 2021. Solar has dropped by 90% and onshore wind has dropped by 72%, but nuclear energy has increased by 36%. It is in the way of replacing carbon electricity. It is not helping us. I would like to have that debate in this place. Would he be prepared to ensure that the government put forward a reasonable debate on the evidence to assess whether nuclear is an asset or in the way of climate action?

124 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:35:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that I do not necessarily have the power to persuade the government to do anything in this House, but I can certainly be a voice. There are a couple of things I would say. The hon. member and I have some shared things I would want to focus on; yes, these are solar, wind and renewable electricity. I presume, or at least hope, that she will support Bill C-49, which is the Atlantic accords act, which would drive the opportunity for green hydrogen. However, the member and I would differ on the importance of nuclear. The lights in this building right now are generated by 60% of nuclear energy in Ontario. Yes, there are important considerations in each jurisdiction about the cost mechanism and how best to move forward. However, I think it is a technology, among the many she mentioned, that is going to help drive our zero-emissions future. We can have that debate if the House allows us to have it; if not, we can have a nice drink outside and talk about it.

184 words

Mr. Wayne Long (Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:36:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague from Kings—Hants for his leadership as chair of the Atlantic caucus and for advocating for the pause on the carbon price for home heating fuel and the doubling of the rural rebate to our government. We often hear across the aisle about axing the tax and the carbon price being tripled, but never do we hear about the climate cheque that comes back to Canadians four times a year. Many constituents in my riding appreciate that very much. Eight out of 10 houses get more back than they actually spend with the increase. Would my colleague comment on that?

111 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:37:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the good people of Saint John—Rothesay have a real champion here in Ottawa. He gave me a compliment, but let me say this: I believe the hon. member has indicated that he will not be re-offering in this place in the next election. That will be a great loss to Parliament, because he is one of the best constituency advocates in Ottawa for his people. When I watch him on social media, he never forgets where he comes from. He is always out on the go. I would say what I have said to other colleagues here today: For Conservatives, the entire conversation is about the price signal, but they never talk about the rebates that come back to Canadian families. In the member's riding, eight out of 10 families receive more money back. Conservatives are not talking about what it would mean for families in Saint John—Rothesay and, indeed, across the country if they were to cut that. I think it is important for him and all of us here to make sure we remind our colleagues about that.

188 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/1/24 3:37:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been around this place long enough to recall the carve-out that was implemented in Atlantic Canada, which was as a result of bad polling numbers and the fact that the carbon tax is not well received in Atlantic Canada. That is why the Atlantic caucus forced the Prime Minister to do this carve-out. With a quadrupling of the carbon tax, everything is going to cost his constituents more by the time it is fully implemented. Can the hon. member honestly stand here and tell this House that his constituents approve of and support that?

100 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:38:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what drove that policy was a focus on vulnerable households. The member knows this policy applies across the country. I will not apologize for fighting for my region, which is energy insecure. We had to make some adjustments to a national policy that has made a difference across the country, including in his own riding. This was driven by equity in a national policy. I also want to say that, when he talks about quadrupling, the whole goal here is to be able to reduce the actual reliance on carbon. Eventually, people will not be paying the price, because we have been able to help them move over. I will provide the one quick example of heat pumps, where the goal is to help people reduce their use of home heating oil. It is a good affordability measure.

140 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 273