Kody Blois
Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I will give the Conservatives credit. They are now talking about actual measures that could support affordability, but I would ask them where they have been for the last number of months and years.”
“Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are challenges across the country. That is exactly why we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. It is why we have put in the groceries and essentials rebate. It is why we have doubled down on social programs that matter for everyday Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask why that member votes against the measures that support the good people of Oshawa and the people across this country? As we said in the last answer, we are here fighting for Canadian industry and business. That member has voted against tax cuts for Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, what I find quite remarkable is that in the Conservatives' questions there is never a recognition that the U.S. administration has imposed tariffs on some of our key sectors in this country. We are continuing to make the case to try to remove them.”
“Madam Speaker, we know the challenges for certain sectors in the Canadian economy on aluminum, on steel, on auto and forestry. Our Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade and our ambassador in Washington, Janice Charette, who has been appointed, are engaging with the U.S. administration. The member talked about jobs.”
“I give credit to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health , who have focused quite intensely on the ability to have an economic lens around the decisions of what was formerly called the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and also of the CFIA.”
The complete record
Every one of 674 lines we hold for Kody Blois, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 14.
“Mr. Speaker, I will give the Conservatives credit. They are now talking about actual measures that could support affordability, but I would ask them where they have been for the last number of months and years. I have been a member of Parliament for seven years in the House, and it does not matter if it is the Canada child benefit, national child care, the national school food program or the tax measures we have put in place, consistently, the Conservatives vote against these measures. We appreciate that they are finally talking about affordability, but we would ask them to actually support the measures the government consistently puts at the front to help support Canadians across the board. It is good that they are now talking, but why do they not get on board with some of the initiatives that we have had for years now?”
“Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask why that member votes against the measures that support the good people of Oshawa and the people across this country? As we said in the last answer, we are here fighting for Canadian industry and business. That member has voted against tax cuts for Canadians. That member has voted against strategic financing to support the auto sector in this country. The Minister of Industry is working with that sector to support members. That member stands up and does not recognize that we have created 88,000 jobs in the last month alone. We have a plan to help build the country strong and support Canadians who are facing vulnerability at this time.”
“Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are challenges across the country. That is exactly why we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. It is why we have put in the groceries and essentials rebate. It is why we have doubled down on social programs that matter for everyday Canadians. However, we reject the premise of the Conservatives' question, that the government's policies have resulted in the challenges that Canadians are facing. We are facing a trade war from our largest trading partner: 75% of our goods and services go to the United States. There is a war in the Middle East and a war in eastern Europe. We are dealing with the circumstances and putting forward an economic plan to build this country and support Canadians at the same time.”
“Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are challenges across the country and that there are people struggling with the cost of affordability. That is exactly why we have put in place the groceries and essentials rebate— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Madam Speaker, what I find quite remarkable is that in the Conservatives' questions there is never a recognition that the U.S. administration has imposed tariffs on some of our key sectors in this country. We are continuing to make the case to try to remove them. The member blows right by the fact that 88,000 jobs were created in May, primarily in the private sector and primarily in construction, with 150,000 net jobs this year. We have a AAA credit rating. We have a lower deficit. We have the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We have strong fundamentals and are focused on building major national projects, including in that member's province, to build Canada strong, to build this country strong. We will continue to focus on those plans.”
“Madam Speaker, we know the challenges for certain sectors in the Canadian economy on aluminum, on steel, on auto and forestry. Our Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade and our ambassador in Washington, Janice Charette, who has been appointed, are engaging with the U.S. administration. The member talked about jobs. I do think it is important to recognize that there were 88,000 jobs created in the Canadian economy. We know that there are challenges in particular sectors and that is why the Minister of Industry has been helping, with targeted programs to support workers and those industries being impacted. At the same time, we are focusing on building the Canadian economy across the country.”
“Mr. Chair, I am sorry I had to cut the minister off. He is great, but I have to get in one last question. I see the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets , who has done great work on China, on the file around lobsters and working with the government to remove tariffs. I see the hon. member for Labrador and the member for Avalon . I can say that it is fisheries that matter in Atlantic Canada. It is the base of our economy. I would be remiss as a member from Nova Scotia to not ask the minister in the time we have remaining to talk about small craft harbours and a generational investment. Why does the hon. minister not take us away on that happy note?”
“Mr. Chair, the hon. member for Waterloo is a great colleague. She and I have talked a lot about Canada's fiscal position. We have a AAA credit rating. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have a strong fiscal position. I do not want the minister to take a whole lot of time, because I only have two minutes, but does he have quick comments on Canada's fiscal position and how he would message that to Canadians?”
“Of course, I know all members of this House would agree that environmental and health safety are paramount, but so too is food security and economic decision-making around the regulators. The minister has a very big portfolio, but this is part of the work that the government is doing around red tape. Whether they are in Peterborough or Kings—Hants, farmers have pointed to this government leadership as being a great example of trying to look at regulatory agility. Would the hon. minister be able to speak to the CFIA and PRD amendments specifically, or talk more broadly about regulatory reform and agility and how it is part of our economic growth agenda?”
“Mr. Chair, I agree with the hon. minister. He may have been referencing the hon. member for Peterborough and her experience in working in the agriculture sector. Let me go on the record in seconding the minister's belief that the member for Peterborough is a great champion in this House, along with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead . We have a whole host of leaders in that agricultural space. There is one thing I want to ask the minister. In the spring economic update, there is an intention from the government to change the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, and also the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, the former PMRA, to put an economic lens on the decisions.”
“This program does not sunset until the next fiscal year, but some of the wine growers in the community that I represent have highlighted it as a great initiative of the federal government being involved in agriculture under a trade-compliant program. I do not expect the minister tonight to have an answer about the future of that program, but he knows the importance of the wine sector across the country. I am wondering if the minister might talk about that industry, whether it is in Niagara, the Okanagan, Kings—Hants or areas of Brome-Missisquoi. Maybe he could share some of his experience as a member of Parliament in seeing that first-hand and what it means across the country.”
“Mr. Chair, I represent the largest agricultural riding in Atlantic Canada. Kings—Hants is home to a whole series of different commodity groups and one is the wine sector. We have an emerging grape and wine sector in Kings—Hants. The hon. minister had an opportunity to visit the riding. I know he is a great friend to the agricultural community across the country. One program that is of deep interest to the wine and grape sector is the wine sector support program. The hon. minister was part of the cabinet in the last government that helped put this program together. I compliment him on his leadership.”
“That is more money back in people's pockets. Of course, there is a corresponding connection to the employer not having to put that CPP contribution in, and that can be multiplied by the amount of T4 employees that it has. Would the minister care to comment on that CPP rate reduction being a small but meaningful policy to move the needle for small businesses and employees across the country?”
“Mr. Chair, I appreciate the attention to that matter from the minister. Yes, we do have a great working relationship, and I know that will continue. We have a lot of small businesses in Kings—Hants. When we talked today in the House about affordability, I chastised some of the Conservative positions in the opposition day motion as being too narrow and not looking at broader affordability measures. Yes, we have already reduced gasoline prices by 28¢ a litre, but I talked about some of the social programs we have put in place, and I also talked about the CPP rate reduction. In the spring economic update, the government, through the Minister of Finance, is proposing to take the rate reduction from 9.9% down to 9.5%. This is going to save a T4 employee in the economy about $170 a year, which is important.”
“I know Marmen, for example, in Quebec is a great example of that leadership in Canadian fabricated wind towers. I have had proponents in Nova Scotia come to me to talk about projects, particularly those that are already under construction or those that have a power purchase agreement. The ability to pivot at this point in the game is quite difficult. They are certainly looking at using Canadian supply chains now that we have the surtax in place. I want to give compliments to the minister. We have a remission order for fabricated wind towers that were already under construction. Some proponents have suggested an ability to use proponents that already have a power purchase agreement would be a reasonable balancing to make sure that some of these projects can go forward. I know it is a difficult balance. Is the minister aware of this?”
“Mr. Chair, it is a privilege to be able to join today's debate on the estimates and be able to put good questions on behalf of the good people of Kings—Hants to the Minister of Finance. I want to start by saying, having served for seven years as a member of Parliament, I appreciate the work of the hon. member from Shawinigan. I appreciate his work in his capacity in a variety of files. I have had the chance to see his leadership first-hand. I want to start by talking about renewable energy. In Nova Scotia, we have seen a tremendous and successful growth of wind power generation. This government has made important decisions around protecting Canada's steel industry, notably putting a surtax on fabricated wind towers that are generated outside of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult question, and one that is difficult to answer in 20 seconds. With regard to price regulation, there are definitely certain regulators in the Atlantic provinces, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. I believe that we actually do have a model, and it is up to the provinces and territories to determine the necessary retail price.”
“The members laugh, but I am sure that if we looked at it, if we did not actually take lead out of the gasoline process, which Brian Mulroney did in the 1980s, it would make gas slightly cheaper. That is the same principle that the Conservatives are pushing today. Why not just go all the way and say that we should put lead back in gasoline instead of supporting Canadian farmers, clean energy solutions and industrial investment across the country?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that this differential existed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister as well. There are a number of factors in the way in which Canadians create the revenue that supports social programs. At the end of the day, what the hon. member is suggesting in today's motion is to take away the funding of GST that supports broad government programs in that member's riding and all across this country. I have a question for the hon. member, and maybe he can take a thoughtful dynamic in his own party. Essentially, the Conservative position on eliminating the clean fuel standard would be like suggesting that we should put lead back in gasoline because it would actually make fuel slightly cheaper.”
“The comparison would be saying we should put lead back in our gasoline because it might make our gas slightly cheaper. That is, essentially, the Conservative proposition.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for being such a strong advocate in Parliament for farmers across the country and especially in Quebec. With regard to the clean fuel regulations, there are a lot of options available to the affected parties to ensure compliance, and that includes the use of biofuels. There are farmers in western Canada and Quebec who grow corn and who have the opportunity to sell their crops to produce biofuels here in Canada. The Conservatives want something else. [ English ] They are looking to kill that program, to cut that program, and it actually would have a direct correlation with the ability of farmers in Quebec and in western Canada to get a good market price. This is about supporting farmers at the farm gate using their feedstock to support cleaner fuels in the country.”
“The idea of just killing the clean fuel standard, which actually supports Saskatchewan, Manitoban and Albertan farmers, with no thoughtful alternative as to how to tackle those issues, is a type of politics that is not offering practical solutions for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, on the record that I am proud of the work of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. Even when she sat on that side of the House, the opposition side of the House, I thought she litigated in a way that was respectful. She would engage respectfully. We are very happy to see her on the government benches helping to support the public policy of the government. The way the member framed the question, at the end of the day, is what I am hoping to see from the Conservative Party. The reason and the rationale as to why we have seen four members of Parliament from the Conservative Party now say that they are more at home under the leadership of the Prime Minister and a government with that type of party and style are that we are offering thoughtful policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, naturally I cannot explain the political views of the Conservative Party. However, as far as our government is concerned, I am very proud of the work we are doing with the Government of Quebec, particularly on major projects like the Contrecœur project and the Nouveau Monde Graphite project, as well as the investments that are being made. There is some good news for Airbus and AirAsia, as well as a major investment and a partnership with an Asian company. We are here for Quebeckers, together with the government of Premier Fréchette, always in the interests of Quebec and the entire country.”
“These are prime examples of affordability. We are going to do our bit on gasoline, but we also want to support other broader affordability. We do not think getting rid of the clean fuel standard, which supports farmers, is smart public policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is one I would put in the camp of the good ones whom I have a lot of respect for. I know he is framing this around $1,200. We are looking at a comprehensive view around affordability. We have already reduced gas taxes in Canada by 28¢ a litre. We believe that is important. The hon. member talked about, and I would reject the premise of his question, how the government has created a cost of living crisis. I would point to a lot of external events that are having impacts the government is seeking to respond to. I would go back to the Canada child benefit that his party voted against. I would go back to national child care, which his party has not made clear they would maintain if they were in government. I would go back to old age security and the GIS that his party voted against.”
“I give him credit for that. I am proud of the work we did on our platform back in April, when, respectfully, the Conservatives did not have a whole lot to say. We are going to continue to implement that platform on things like this. I am glad the Conservative Party is joining the conversation, but we are on it and we are going to keep doing it for Canadian farmers.”
“I give credit to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health , who have focused quite intensely on the ability to have an economic lens around the decisions of what was formerly called the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and also of the CFIA. I know this matters for affordability and competitiveness, and it will have a translation in terms of the price of food. These are examples where the government is reducing red tape and moving forward its goal to not only drive projects but make our landscape in the business community more competitive. As it relates to agriculture, this is great public policy. (1550) I was told this morning that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I know the hon. member for Bow River has put forward his own private member's bill that looks oddly similar to one I put together three years ago.”
“I have talked at great length about the need to be more agile in our regulatory structure. I think of the work and conversations I have had with the Nova Scotia fruit growers and the many different commodities across Kings—Hants. They talked about the government being more agile in using the science and evidence of other jurisdictions to inform our regulatory model in Canada to ensure farmers have the tools they need to do their job. I would point to the Prime Minister 's work, when he was in Australia, with Prime Minister Albanese in terms of the joint communiqué that those two leaders released around regulatory co-operation between agencies in Canada and Australia. I would also point to the spring economic update.”
“In the spring economic update, we announced the CPP rate reduction from 9.9% down to 9.5%. On average, this will save a worker with a T4 income around $70,000 just shy of $200 a year in savings. Again, I understand that may or may not move the needle for some who are dealing with a difficult situation, but I would humbly suggest what the Conservatives have put on offer today as a policy prescription would be less of an affordability measure than what we have just done with the CPP rate reduction. It is important not only for employees who pay into CPP but also for small businesses, which will benefit depending on the number of T4 employees they have. There is one last thing I am going to talk about. Members know I have been a strong champion in the House of the issues of farmers and agriculture.”
“This was the type of programming that benefited me when I went through university and benefits lower-income students who may not have the means from their family to help pay for post-secondary education. We have also reduced the amount of money on a weekly basis that students who benefited from the federal loan program have to pay back after they are done their education. That is affordability in action. That is smart public policy helping support Canadians across the country. Again, I want to see more of this from the opposition benches because we can be more nuanced than to just tear down environmental policy. Yes, gasoline prices are important, along with fuel and housing. All of that matters, but these are some of the other elements we can do on affordability. Then there is the CPP rate reduction. It is small but meaningful.”
“I would point to the work we have done to maintain the augment in the Canada student grants. Acadia University is in my riding of Kings—Hants. I just had the opportunity to be at a convocation and saw a lot of bright, young individuals who are doing great things today and I know will continue to do great things in the community and across this country. Education has become difficult and expensive. Part of that is tied to the ways in which some provincial governments have chosen to invest in post-secondary education. We want to make sure we are doing our part on the federal side, and we have increased the Canada student grant from $3,000 to $4,200.”
“We have a goal of building major projects in a variety of different fields, whether in renewable energy, clean energy, nuclear, conventional energy or the mining activities that we are going to need to help drive our clean energy future. We really want to see big projects and mid-tier projects get under way, but we also have to have the workforce and industrial capacity to deliver on that. We see that $6-billion investment as critical. That is supporting affordability for individuals who want to go through apprenticeship programs and have access to the means to do that, including an additional $400 to draw EI when individuals go back to that eight- to 10-week block as they continue to upgrade their education and build their skill set in the workplace.”
“I obtained a law degree and a master's degree in public administration management. I am proud of that background. I also come from a background and a long history of individuals who did blue-collar work and worked in the skilled trades, and I am proud of that as well. There is $6 billion in the spring economic update to support, which is our hope as a government, and help train 80,000 to 100,000 Red Seal skilled trade workers. We are going to need the pipefitters, the plumbers, the electricians and the carpenters. The government is looking to catalyze $1 trillion of investment in this country over the next five years.”
“I encourage those members, whom I feel have the right view about how to conduct and drive that party forward, to have these honest and hard conversations about how we find a pathway and how we make sure the Conservative Party actually has some policy prescriptions in this space. Right now, at least on this one, on the clean fuel standard, it is actually benefiting individuals in Conservative ridings across the country. It is driving industrial benefit. It is creating those opportunities. (1545) I want to take an opportunity to also talk about affordability through the lens of what we have done in the spring economic update, because, at its core, this motion is about affordability. I would point Canadians and hon. members to something I am proud of. I was the first in my family to get a post-secondary education.”
“They proposed to actually spend more taxpayers' dollars to get to a worse outcome on the environment. Conservatives need to come clean also with the policy prescriptions of the Conservative Party under the leadership of the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot . Their policy prescription, back in April 2025, was to actually spend more taxpayers' dollars, which ultimately has to come from Canadian pockets because we all pay taxes, to get to a worse environmental outcome. That is the thing we have to litigate in the House and ask questions about. I have great respect for many of the humble members on the other side, including the hon. member for Perth—Wellington , a great guy.”
“In fact, I would love to get in this country, beyond partisan consideration, an ability for the two major parties to agree that this is a policy that has merit. We may have slightly different interpretations of the best way to go about it, but instead they just want to tear this thing down. They want to tear down a policy that has driven billions of dollars of industrial investment, notably in western Canada, and they want to create policy uncertainty in this space. I find that shocking. I find it unfortunate. This will not solve affordability for Canadians. I ask humbly, because the last platform of the Conservative Party, over a year ago, talked about tearing down the clean fuel standard and removing any form of industrial carbon pricing.”
“It has a minimal impact on the price of fuel, and it is helping to drive almost $30 a tonne's worth of canola benefit in the prairie provinces. In eastern Canada, it would be more the corn playing into ethanol blends. However, this is a policy that directly ties back to benefits on farms in rural communities and is driving innovation across this country. It has helped create Strathcona, a multi-billion-dollar investment in Alberta. The opposition party continues to signal that their way to affordability is tearing down a program that actually drives industrial benefit in this country, that actually supports Canadian farmers and that notably supports investment in the rural prairie provinces. That shocks me.”
“I do want to get to a point I have raised before. I had a coalition of agricultural groups from Saskatchewan in my office today: Sask Oilseeds, Sask Wheat and some canola representatives. We talked about the clean fuel standard. There are a number of different ways in which we can reduce emissions and make sure that for our next generation in this country, we are being thoughtful about balancing economic growth with also putting some emphasis on driving innovation and reducing emissions. I honestly believe the clean fuel regulation is one of the best policies. Members of the Conservative bench should be able to turn to it and say this is a policy that is using feedstock from farmers across this country, notably in prairie provinces, to reduce emissions.”
“I have seniors in my riding who had not had the ability to get to a dentist in a considerable amount of time because, frankly, it would have cost more money than they could afford. That is an affordability measure that supports health care outcomes. It supports better access to care, not only in Kings—Hants but across this country. Never do we see many of the opposition politicians talking about what this means for their own constituents, even though these are, of course, national programs. The groceries and essentials rebate is an enhanced GST. The government has reframed it as a groceries and essentials rebate, but it will be up to $1,800, depending on income, and support 12 million Canadians. Again, it is a targeted benefit, trying to support those who may need the help the most. We think that is important.”
“Fortunately, humbly and respectfully, I feel as though the way in which the member for Battle River—Crowfoot and the Conservatives have conducted themselves and purported themselves over the last year is actually helping and supporting our ability to say that we are the best choice for Canadians in that electoral context. This is important because better policy prescriptions from the Conservative benches, or all benches for that matter, although I obviously am talking today about His Majesty's loyal opposition, allow us and force us, as the government, to be even better in how we are putting together the programs and policy initiatives that matter. Last, I would say, is dental care and the groceries and essentials rebate.”
“I am proud to stand with a government that increased the old age security by 10% for seniors 75 years old and up, and also increased the guaranteed income supplement for some of our most vulnerable seniors to ensure that they have more ability to pay the bills and keep a roof over their head. That is something that is key affordability, and we do not see this level of policy prescription from the Conservative Party. We are not seeing this type of thoughtful policy. (1540) I know it is the Conservatives' job to critique the government and hold the government to account. I completely understand and appreciate that function in our system, but it is also their job, I believe, to demonstrate that they have the ability to be a government-in-waiting.”
“It is saving hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year for Canadian parents, and it is a key affordability measure. The Conservatives have wavered about where exactly they stand on this policy, but again, it is affordability. Yes, we want to save on the gas tank in terms of being able to get people to and from places in rural or urban communities across this country, but so too do we want to have the programs that matter for our youth and for affordability in terms of being able to get parents back into the workplace. That is good affordability policy. How about old age security increases and the guaranteed income supplement? A large proportion of the demographic in Kings—Hants is seniors. We have young, vibrant families and people of all ages, but we have a lot of seniors, especially in our rural communities.”
“For 50 years, Canadians talked about the importance of a national child care policy, not only as a policy to help support young people in their earliest years in terms of early education but also, of course, as a mechanism to support working parents who may wish to go back to the workplace to contribute to the economic side of the equation and in terms of the economy, to be able to get back into their pursuits that matter from a career side. The cost of child care had risen quite significantly. We came along, and under the last government and through a program that is continuing to be maintained under the current government, we supported a national child care policy with the objective of getting down to, on average, $10 a day. Never do we hear that mentioned in the Conservative opposition day motion.”
“However, I still remember going to the grocery store and there being times when my mom would run the credit card, or the debit card, I guess, in that day, and not be able to pay for the groceries. I am proud to stand with a party that put social programs at the heart of our agenda, and with a new Prime Minister who has said and vowed that he will protect them. The Canada child benefit is one example. I was not here during the time it was implemented in the 42nd Parliament, but the Conservative Party voted against it, and the Conservatives do not talk about it as an important affordability measure that we can do to support everyday Canadians.”
“When some of my constituents ask about my trajectory, my involvement as a parliamentarian and why I chose the Liberal Party of Canada to stand for, I say that I was deeply proud of the work that the last prime minister was doing, particularly around the Canada child benefit. Previously, former governments had put in a flat-based type of incentive. Whether someone had a lot of different incomes to their name or they were relatively low-income, they received largely the same type of benefit to help support raising their children. My parents did not have a type of program like the Canada child benefit. I was fortunate that I had grandparents at home who were helpful and supportive and who were allowed to get me involved in organized sport.”
“We have put a series of programs in place that I want to highlight to Canadians, and I would urge my Conservative colleagues to consider the ways in which we can expand the definition of how we put money back into people's pockets to support their ability to raise a family, take care of themselves or stay in their home longer, perhaps. This gives me an opportunity to talk about those. I am a proud son of a truck driver, and my mom is an administrative assistant back home in Kings—Hants. We come from pretty humble stock, as I say. We were a paycheque-to-paycheque kind of family.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for ensuring that we have proper decorum. I believe that my remarks here today have value, and I really look forward to engaging with my colleagues, particularly when we get to questions after the speech. Perhaps people were just excited to be able to see the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Kings—Hants, but we will never know. What I was talking about was that we see affordability through more than just one lens. We have done the work to reduce the price of gasoline by, on average, 28¢ a litre across the country. It may vary slightly across different regional realities. At the same time, that is not the only lens through which Canadians would view affordability.”
“Speaker, you will know that as a member of Parliament I was a strong advocate of making adjustments and was deeply supportive of the Prime Minister 's work to eliminate the consumer carbon price, on the premise that there would be more ability to tackle climate and the environment and to reduce emissions. However, that policy was challenging for Canadians in rural areas who do not have the same ability, particularly with transportation, to change their policy. The government has already reduced the cost of gasoline by 28¢ a litre in the past calendar year. Never do we hear the opposition recognize that point. Never do we hear the Conservatives talk about this as something that the government is moving, in their view, in the right direction. The government believes there is a slippery slope around the GST.”
“I guess that is the nature of opposition day and opposition parties, but at the end of the day, we think this is a reasonable measure that we have put in place for the next four months. There is no mention of it whatsoever. I think about how we go about tackling the question, and we see affordability not only through the lens of the price at the pump. I would remind hon. members and Canadians at home that the first act of the Prime Minister and the government was to eliminate the consumer carbon price. That was 18¢ a litre. Yes, there were rebates tied to that. Mr.”