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 10 of 14.
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Canadian public at home that Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7 and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. However, the government recognizes that there is really important work to do to make tough choices. That is why our budget is going to be coming out November 4. The member mentioned that the government is not trying to be transparent. It is actually trying to be more transparent by showing Canadians where operational spending is and where long-term capital investments are happening to grow our economy. I find it a bit rich when Conservatives talk about balancing budgets and deficits. Can the hon. member explain why they promised to spend $106 billion in their platform a few months ago? How was that fiscally responsible?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to give us his perspective on our fiscal situation and the fact that Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and the lowest deficit in the G7. I would like him to explain to Canadians what that means in practical terms. Of course, we must address the reality of our fiscal situation, but it is also true that Canada is in a stable position.”
“I can tell the member that families in Kings—Hants understand and know the difference between the Canada child benefit and what the Conservatives had on offer in a previous government.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canada child benefit is perhaps one of the strongest legacies of the last government. It is a policy that will make a difference for generations to come. As the chief government whip highlighted, the difference is that the Canada child benefit is actually income tailored, so there is a cut-off. Individuals who are making millions of dollars do not need $100 a month from the government to be able to support their children. For lower- and middle-income individuals across the country, including those in Kings—Hants, the government has tailored that policy. It was a key change from the Conservative policy and platform. We have also augmented the amount that goes out to families.”
“Also, I want to put on the record that I have heard members from the Bloc talking about the fact that they will not support the budget because they do not think it is fiscally sustainable, yet at the same time, they are asking for more spending, particularly, for example, Canada Post, which is a corporation that is losing $10 million a day. They are suggesting that no change should happen there, but then they will not support the budget because they are suggesting that the government is not being fiscally responsible. What is it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the natural resource sector, in all of Canada, helps to drive the revenues that matter for public spending for provincial and territorial governments across the country. The hon. member knows that Quebec is a recipient under the equalization formula. Frankly, we have natural resources, whether it is in western Canada or Newfoundland's offshore. This matters for the whole country, and we should take great pride in it. I know the member sits as a member of a sovereignist party, but within the federation, this is important for all Canadians to understand.”
“It would allow for a construction season when those businesses could take advantage of them. The public accounts will still be reported the same, but we are going to separate the capital, long-term investments from operation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can certainly tell the hon. member that I know what a deficit is, and Canada has the lowest one in the G7. On debt, we have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. There is still more work to do. The government is serious about making sure that we can tackle this and that we are going to have a fiscal track that will be sustainable over time. Frankly, that is going to mean some tough choices, but the government was elected to put that position forward. The member talked about how we are going through our budgeting process. I compliment the Minister of Finance for going on a fall budget cycle, which will allow us to meet construction time. The member opposite runs a construction business. I think he would appreciate knowing the programs and investments that would be in place.”
“It is pretty rich to have members of the Conservative Party stand up here in the House on this. They had nothing to say in the election for farmers, not one single message. They stand up on their high horses, yet have nothing to say.”
“LNG too, when fully completed, will be the second-largest LNG project in the world, and the lowest emitting. That is something we should be proud of. As to the Foran mine in Saskatchewan, we should be proud of the copper production there. In our neck of the woods in Atlantic Canada, it could be renewable energy that we could drive forward. We have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. We have removed the GST for first-time homebuyers up to $1 million. We have removed the consumer carbon price, which again, was important for rural communities. It is a strong policy that I was advocating for. I am glad to see that the government and the Prime Minister have been able to find a pragmatic way forward. The last thing I am going to say is that the Conservative motion talks about food prices.”
“They want a government that is going to walk the line between a reasonable fiscal approach, reining in operational spending, at the same time being forward looking about where the economy has to go, because we are in a difficult period. The world is a different place than it was six months ago. The U.S. government is changing its trade policy, which is having an adverse impact on certain sectors in the Canadian economy. The government was elected, and the Prime Minister was elected, to make sure that we are the best ones to move forward in terms of how Canada positions itself in the days ahead. I think it is extremely important when we talk about what this government is doing, such as major projects. The Conservatives, I would hope, would be in support of that.”
“Speaker, I would tell her the reality is that we need to continue to put investments on the table to drive and catalyze private sector investments. That is where we have to go. We also have the lowest deficit in the G7. We would never hear that from the opposition benches in terms of our position. I think it is important that the government actually addresses operational spending. It is coming on November 4. We are going to see that from the government. It is going to be a responsible approach. What I am hearing from the Conservatives is that they would just gut everything. They would gut it all. Canadians do not want that.”
“We have signalled that we are going to be, frankly, reevaluating operational spending while also setting aside the capital investments to build a future for a brighter tomorrow. That is extremely important. The Conservatives stand up in this place to tell Canadians that, frankly, there is no economic hope, that the country is broken, and we have heard that same narrative. Canadians want politicians to talk reasonably about the challenges that exist. I will be extremely clear: The government understands that it has a mandate to rein in operational spending, while at the same time, to invest in capital projects that are important. While the member from Saskatchewan, from Yorkton, continues to yell across this House— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kody Blois: Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened when colleagues spoke, although I certainly disagreed with a lot of different measures. The net debt-to-GDP ratio is the size of the Canadian economy versus the debt that exists. My measure for Canadians at home then is to say that Canada's debt position is actually sustainable. We have to be able to look at the cost. That is exactly what the government is doing. It is interesting to hear the Conservatives yelling again in the House. The budget has not yet been presented. The government was elected on a mandate very clearly to do two things, to separate operational spending versus capital investment. The government is going to be doing that.”
“If we are running a deficit, is the economic growth outpacing the debt that is being taken on? I am happy to tell my Conservative colleagues that Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. What does that mean? The economic growth is in proportion to the size of the economy. This is important, because I do not hear a whole lot of intellectual stuff coming from you guys in terms of the economic basis, I am sorry to say. I have to be able to suggest that the size of the economy— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“I cannot speak for every member in the House, but I can talk about the time when my wife and I bought our first house, and we did not have the money to pay for it. We ran a deficit. We took a mortgage. We borrowed to try to create a better future. I know that we have work to do on housing across the country, but many Canadians would be able to relate to a similar situation when they borrowed to try to build a better future. Governments are no different. Governments have to make choices about whether they want to make investments to create a better economic outcome. As opposed to looking at this through a binary choice suggesting that any deficit is a bad thing, as opposed to looking at the investments to grow the economy, a better measure is the debt-to-GDP ratio.”
“I guess that is another failed policy, yet I have seen the results in my own riding with respect to what it has meant for individuals who have been able to transition off a heating source that was costing $7,000 or $8,000 a year to heat their home, and it brought their energy bills lower. I guess the Conservatives suggest that it is failed policy. I believe, and I would hope members of the House agree, that fiscal discipline is an important public policy measure. It matters. On that, I would extend an olive branch to MPs who want to talk reasonably and rationally about it, but to suggest that any deficit does not or cannot lead to economic success is a complete fallacy. (1100) Let me give an example Canadians at home would appreciate.”
“I would ask the Conservatives this: Is the investment under the Canada infrastructure program a failed policy? I would suggest it is not. Income with respect to heating is important. In Atlantic Canada, the government has put forward programs that would actually help everyone below the provincial median income with up to $20,000 to help move towards a heat pump and give people above the median income access to borrowing and to making investments to improve energy efficiency. This is most important for affordability, but it also reduces emissions at the same time. Conservatives voted against the heat pump programs every single time.”
“The Canada child benefit is one of the best policies the government has put forward. There is the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. There are a lot of seniors in Kings—Hants. Those seniors matter. I try to be an advocate. We have to be a lot of different things to a lot of different people as members of Parliament, but I have tried to be an advocate for our seniors. I ask my Conservative colleagues, is that a failed policy of the government, the increase of 10% to OAS for seniors and the augmentation of the guaranteed income supplement? They voted against it. I guess they can explain why they did not think it was important. There has been generational infrastructure investment in Kings—Hants, whether in waste water or infrastructure to support housing. There has been a housing boom in our communities.”
“I think parents, women's advocates and people who believe in youth and childhood development are not going to tell us it is a failed policy. What about the Canada child benefit? It is helping to ensure that in Kings—Hants, $17 million a month is provided to lower-income and middle-income families. I have had opportunities to talk to single mothers who have said to me that without the Canada child benefit, they would not have been able to put their child in organized sports or that they would perhaps not be able to buy more nutritious groceries. Some hon members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, Conservatives again are yelling. The member for Yorkton—Melville is suggesting that she supported it. No, she did not. I am happy to go on the record to say that they voted against that policy. Is it a failed policy? I think not.”
“I look forward to highlighting this to my Conservative colleagues who voted against a number of measures that, I want my constituents to understand, the party opposite has been against. There is the national child care policy. We talked about it for 50 years. It is helping deliver affordability for families. It has increased access to child care across this country. Is that a failed policy? The Conservative Party would suggest that national child care is a failed policy of the last government. The current government believes in it. We are working with provincial and territorial governments across this country, and I know it is making a difference. There is more work to be done, of course, but it is not a failed policy.”
“They would love to think the Prime Minister we have now is the same as the last prime minister, and they are trying to paint that picture in the House, but Canadians know that is not the case. I will highlight in my speech the differentiation between how the government is keeping policies we think are extremely important and how it is also making substantive changes that Canadians asked for and that we have a mandate to help deliver in the current Parliament. I also want to reject the premise that the Conservatives are putting forward, the idea that any form of deficit somehow does not lead to investment or is somehow problematic for the economy, and I think we are going to have the opportunity to tackle that as well, but let us take a look at the government's record in the past.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in this place and to bring the perspective of the good people of Kings—Hants to the day's debate. Of course, today's debate is on an opposition day motion. My Conservative colleagues will know that I always enjoy the opportunity to engage with the text of the motion they put before the House. The text of today's motion tries to suggest that Canada's new government is similar to the last one. There are elements where that is true, and there are elements where that is wrong. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, I hear some of the Conservative members yelling and jostling across the aisle.”
“We have not heard a lot about what the Conservative Party would do with respect to the environment. Is the position that the Conservatives would spend more money than the government is currently spending on renewable energy? What is their position?”
“Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that we can all agree as parliamentarians that there are better ways we can find efficiency within the civil service, when I talk to indigenous communities across this country, they noticed a marked difference from the Liberal government about how we approach the issues and how we have invested in these solutions versus where the Conservative Party was 10 years ago when it was in government. There is more work to be done, but what I really picked up on is that the member talked about energy and clean energy on reserve. I found it refreshing because I have not heard much from the Conservative opposition benches about climate change and about doing things to reduce emissions. I am curious about whether the member could opine a bit on her view.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is truly a champion for farmers and producers, both in the House of Commons and in her riding. The government has put a concrete measure in place by enhancing risk management programs. The compensation rate for the AgriStability program has been increased from 80% to 90%. Other reference margin limits have also been eliminated. We have a concrete plan and we have implemented concrete programs for our farmers because this issue is of the utmost importance. I should also point out that during the last election, the Liberal Party had a more concrete plan than the Conservatives with regard to agriculture.”
“Mr. Speaker, issues related to our seniors are, of course, very important in my riding. I imagine it is the same thing in my colleague's riding. When it comes to seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, we promised to increase the guaranteed income supplement. We understand the importance of this program, particularly for low-income seniors in this category. I agree it is important that we support our seniors. This government will deliver on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with my hon. colleague that Nova Scotia is a beautiful province. The hon. member for Acadie—Annapolis is an honourable gentleman, and we are great neighbours in Nova Scotia. There are challenges across the country. No one stands here in Parliament and suggests that everything is perfect. We have a government that is trying to tackle the situation that is before us. When the member opposite engaged with seniors in Nova Scotia, did she explain that she actually voted against programs that would have helped that senior to transition off a particular fossil fuel, like heating oil, to reduce her energy bill and to help make her life affordable? Did she explain to that senior why she thought it was a bad policy and why she voted against those affordability measures that matter for seniors across this country?”
“How can they talk about the price of food and affordability but be against the programs that are being delivered, such as the national school food program, which is helping support Canadian produce and farmers and driving local outcomes at schools? I really think we need to have a deeper conversation about the fact that the Conservatives had nothing to say about farmers in their last platform, and this is their official position. If it has changed, please, someone let me know. On the programs that matter for affordability in this country, we need to have a further conversation.”
“The Conservatives oppose social programs like the pharmacare program, the national child care program and, of course, the national school food program. The Conservatives oppose all of these measures. In fact, my hon. colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot said in the last Parliament that the national school food program had not yet delivered a single meal. I have good news for the Leader of the Opposition: This program plays now a crucial role across the country in improving access to healthy food, and it is delivering healthy meals to students in Nova Scotia and across the country. [ English ] Conservatives are against those things.”
“At a time when we want to talk about price point and support for farmers that would ultimately lead all the way through to the grocery level, we need to be supporting our farmers. These are the policies that do both, and we need to be thoughtful about them. Our government has also introduced a grocery code of conduct. These are things I think there is support for across the House. There is no mention today about what those look like. (1605) [ Translation ] No discussion of affordability in Canada would be complete without also discussing the national child care program. I think it is worth taking a moment to examine the different approaches that the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the other parties take to national social programs.”
“The government is walking the careful line between driving economic prosperity and being mindful of the emission reduction goals we have as a government. Even on the things that actually support their backyards and their communities, the Conservatives have nothing to say. On the policy we put in place that would help improve home energy efficiency, the Conservatives were against it. These are things that improve the affordability of energy costs across this country and reduce emissions at the same time. It is a great double win, but no, Conservatives are against it. I ask my hon. colleagues who sit on the opposition benches, and there are good ideas all across the House, for an example of where they are pairing those two important priorities to be able to make a difference.”
“When I have been in Saskatchewan and Alberta, in prairie provinces, farmers understand that the policies we put in place drive an important price signal for the cost of their product. I hope the Conservatives are going to give some thoughtful reflections about why they are against a policy that reduces emissions, drives clean fuel and supports rural prosperity across this country, including in rural areas of western Canada, at a time when those farmers could really use additional price signals and policies that matter in this country. Conservatives are against those. I asked the member for Winnipeg North this week where Conservatives had any policy that matched economic prosperity, regional prosperity, with the reduction of emissions. I have not heard of any in six years.”
“These regulations give big companies various options for reducing their greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions. There are many opportunities and ways to fulfill this obligation, which is important in the context of climate change. It is also important for rural prosperity. Here is an example. For western Canadian farmers who produce canola and other products, access to the Chinese market and other international markets is certainly very important. Again, the government is focused on these issues, but domestic policies for the biofuel sector are also crucial. [ English ] I asked that question, and the Conservatives have not been able to square this circle. They suggest that farmers do not care about these policies; I would argue the opposite.”
“We want to talk about bringing down food prices in this country. It is a dynamic question that requires a thoughtful response about what we are doing at the farm-gate level, and we are not seeing that from the Conservative opposition. We do not see it in the text of today's motion. There are a few passing glances, but nothing concrete about what Conservatives would do for farmers in this country. That is extremely important. I know with the Speaker's leadership, and maybe some leadership from others on the opposition benches, that can be raised with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot now that he represents a riding that is inherently more agriculturally based than Carleton. (1600) [ Translation ] We also need to talk about the clean fuel regulations.”
“When Conservatives have the opportunity to engage in questions after debate, I would like for them to point out to me more than one vague reference to a capital gains piece. This government removed the capital gains inclusion that the last government had. This government removed it. What else was there for agriculture? There was nothing about CFIA or PMRA. There was nothing about the regulatory reform that is needed to drive the industry forward. There was no mention of additional funding to support international trade missions. The Minister of International Trade has been deeply focused on this question. He and I had the opportunity to engage with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture this week about the work the Minister of International Trade is doing and the agricultural lens that is on it.”
“We hear a lot of bluster in the House and a lot of conversations, but not a whole lot on public policy that matters. I would objectively say that the Liberal Party of Canada, in the last election, had a more comprehensive program about what the elected Liberal government was going to do for agriculture. We see some of that work bearing fruit. We see some of the work that we are doing to help support farmers. There is an opportunity to talk about that here today. There have been a lot of conversations about support for social programs and food banks, but let us talk about farmers, what we are doing and, frankly, what I would like to see a little more of from the Conservatives.”
“I know that the other members of the House of Commons feel the same way. [ English ] The question of agriculture is an important piece for us to talk about. I had the opportunity to be in the House debating an opposition day motion on Monday. I reminded Canadians at home and parliamentarians that, notwithstanding that sometimes we will hear questions from the Conservatives about food, agriculture and farmers, we saw very little in the Conservative platform in April 2025 related to farmers. When the member for Battle River—Crowfoot was up on his feet, I looked through the Conservative platform. There were four mentions of farmers, but nothing concrete about what the Conservative Party would actually do for farmers in that platform.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this afternoon's debate. Today is an opposition day, and I am always pleased to have the opportunity to discuss issues with my Conservative colleagues and address some of the points in their motion. Today's opposition motion focuses on food and the cost of living, which includes the issue of agriculture. Kings—Hants has a very rich agricultural heritage. I believe the Speaker's riding of Perth—Wellington has the largest number of supply-managed farms in Ontario. Something similar can be said of my riding, because it has the highest concentration of supply-managed farms east of Quebec. The vegetable sector is also very important. We produce a lot of apples, potatoes and wine, among other things. I am very proud of our farmers, everyone who grows and produces things across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to wish my colleague's constituent a happy birthday. Our government is focused on two priorities: advancing projects in the best interests of the country while ensuring that we continue to fight climate change—”
“As a note, there was a 40% increase in oil and gas under the last guy, Mr. Trudeau. I do not think it has been a completely terrible day for the oil and gas sector in the country, but we are going to make sure we support our energy—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say to Belinda that this is exactly why we introduced a middle-income tax cut in the last session of Parliament to help support 22 million Canadians. That is why we have removed GST on purpose-built homes in the country. That is why we are advancing major national projects that we think are going to stimulate the economy. I will correct the hon. member. I was always proud to run under a Liberal banner. Even if I did not agree with the previous right hon. prime minister about everything, I certainly believed in the Liberal Party as a better vehicle to represent this country than the official opposition and the leader from Battle River—Crowfoot . I am particularly pleased that the hon. member for Nepean now sits in the Prime Minister's chair. I believe in his vision. That is exactly why we are going to move forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member for Winnipeg North. The Prime Minister has said this himself. He is a pragmatic individual. He is putting forward a pragmatic government that is looking to balance those two really important metrics. I highlighted, and I think I have made the case to the House and to my hon. colleagues, that there is now an economic imperative. There always is, but it is particularly the case in the global environment we find ourselves in right now. The hon. member will know that we have put the Port of Churchill in his home province of Manitoba on the agenda. He mentioned LNG. There is an opportunity for offshore wind in Atlantic Canada. The government is about building major projects focused on economic development and making sure that there is a competitive lens on reducing emissions at the same time.”
“We are proud to have foreign investors alongside Canadian companies that want to invest in Canada's energy sector right here in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, our government believes that there is an important role for foreign direct investment in this country. We want to deploy Canadian capital for projects, and we want to support Canadian companies. However, there is capital that is global that wants to invest in Canada, support Canadian workers and provide Canadian energy to the world. I would remind the hon. member that when we look at the Indo-Pacific right now, coal that is being generated for electricity is actually on the rise. Canada needs to provide its low-emitting LNG to help reduce emissions for countries that do not have available access to other energy sources. LNG Canada is a great example of indigenous partnership. We are making sure equity is supported in this country. It is a great example of Canadian ingenuity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Our government's position is crystal clear: We will continue to take economic interests and the importance of climate competitiveness into consideration. Our Prime Minister thoroughly understands the importance of addressing the challenges raised by climate change and the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That said, the world is now a different place. The global free trade environment and economic threats have changed. That is why the Premier of Quebec is saying that he is open to the idea of a pipeline and other projects—”
“The member can say what he wants in this place. I am willing to put money on the line. How about supper? How does that sound for Bay du Nord?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am deeply proud of the men and women who work in Canada's offshore energy sector in Newfoundland and Labrador and, of course, all across this country. I will remind the hon. member that under the Harper government, it was a 900-day process to actually get a regulatory review and approval. The Liberal government moved it to 90 days. I am happy to actually put on the record here in the House of Commons that I am willing to bet steak dinner, fish dinner, lobster dinner or whatever he wants, we can do it, that there will be projects in Newfoundland's offshore in the days ahead, within the next six months. I am happy to say that I believe in our Canadian offshore industry. We are going to see success because the Prime Minister is sending the right signal, that we are going to make sure energy projects get built in this country.”
“We will continue to take that approach on a case-by-case basis, working alongside the provinces and working alongside industry, to make sure we can be smart about growing the economy at a critical time, building out Canada's economic sovereignty and looking at our climate competitiveness at the same time. We do not see that level of sophistication from the opposition benches. That is why we are here, and that is why we are going to continue to be here in the days ahead.”
“The government is serious about building nation-building infrastructure and working alongside indigenous communities, the provinces and the private sector to build in this country. We think that is extremely important. We are a pragmatic government. This is a new Prime Minister , as much as the opposition would love to have the old guy back. They had a lot of obsession about that. This is a new Prime Minister who is popular in this country. Canadians across the political spectrum, from the left to the right, are seeing his pragmatic nature and his decorum about how he is bringing the country together. This includes premiers who do not always agree and have not always agreed with Liberal governments in Ottawa. They are saying that they like what they are seeing from the Prime Minister.”