Kody Blois

In response to a question from Pat Kelly

“Canada has the best financial position in the G7. The other member talks about how much our debt costs, but he ignores that our economy grew at the same time. We still need to be careful with spending, but our finances are in good shape.”

“Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the household analogy, what that member fails to recognize is that if he is concerned about the overall debt as a proportion of the size of our house, he should take a look across the street and in the neighbourhood and realize that, actually, we are in one of the best positions. That does not mean that we still do not have work to do, but nowhere in his public commentary that I have heard in the House today does he recognize that Canada actually has the strongest fiscal position within the G7. If he would like to highlight that we should take that barometer out wider and look at the G20 or other comparable countries, I think that is a fair question to raise, but when he talks about debt servicing charges going from $24 billion to over $50 billion, what he is failing to recognize is that the size of the economy also grew at the same time. When we deal in nominal numbers, it can feel like a very big number to the average Canadian. Again, I am not trying to shed the responsibility. The government has to be careful and thoughtful on this question. In the context of his framing, he does not highlight the fact that the overall economy has grown to such a size that Canada’s fiscal position remains sustainable.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 96 of 100

  Of this reply, 95% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Alana Hirtle

“I do not support this Conservative motion. Government spending is not what is making life more expensive. Global issues, like wars and trade disruptions, are driving up prices everywhere. Canada actually has the lowest net debt to our economy in the G7, and the second-lowest deficit. We are also cutting $80 billion in government spending over five years, while helping families with programs like child care and school food. The Conservatives ignore these facts, and their own platform called for $130 billion in new spending.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, as always, to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Kings—Hants, but also in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to take part in the debate on the Conservative opposition day motion moved today concerning Canada’s fiscal situation. I would like to raise a few important points for the benefit of Canadians who may be watching at home today and following the debates in the House of Commons in order to better understand the overall situation. In my view and in the government’s view, the wording of the motion moved today by the Conservatives is problematic because it fails to take some crucial context into account, including Canada’s fiscal position in general. I am going to start by going to the first point in the text of the motion. The Conservatives assert that “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living.” I would reject the premise of that. The text of the motion fails to take into consideration the fact that the government has a comprehensive expenditure review, and the government will be reducing government expenditures by $80 billion over the next five years. Part of that includes downsizing the number of staff of the Government of Canada, the federal government, and targets have already been met in that domain. The motion fails to recognize that global events are having an impact on the cost of living for all countries, not just Canada. There is a blockade at the Strait of Hormuz, which is impacting global energy prices, and that is being felt globally. That is, of course, being felt by Canadians because it is a domestic challenge we are facing, but it is being felt by countries around the world. There is also a war in eastern Europe, in Ukraine, and while we have been a steadfast ally in supporting Ukraine, the implications on food security and energy security are felt globally. We are in a global trading environment, but our government has focused on controlling what we can here at home. The Conservative text of the motion today fails to understand the work that the government is doing to reduce operational costs. The text of the motion does not take into consideration the government’s promise to balance the operating spending of the government by fiscal year 2028-29. That is important. I am a proud Nova Scotian. I get to see the work of rebuilding the Royal Canadian Navy in Halifax, in my home province, where we are making generational investments that started under a previous government but have continued. We have also reinvested in the River-class destroyer. Those are long-term investments that I hope all members of this House understand are important for protecting our sovereignty and providing for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. Our goal as a government is to make sure that the expenditures the government takes on are part of the long-term industrial capacity and long-term economic growth of the country, and that we have a true balance in the types of operational spending the government is going to be taking on. The Conservatives ran on a platform in the last election that included approximately $130 billion of new spending. My hon. colleagues across the way can appreciate that it feels somewhat facetious to raise this type of measure when the platform promises of the Conservatives, had they been in government, would have led them to spend $130 billion above and beyond expenditures at the time. That is an important piece. Let us talk about Canada’s fiscal position. Governments are different from household finances, but let us think about the average Canadian. My wife and I, when we were able to buy a home, did not have the money to outright buy a home. We had to get a mortgage from a bank. We had to take on debt to build a future, raise a family and live in our community. Governments are no different. Governments have to look at the borrowing costs of making longer-term investments versus the sustainability of taking on the debt obligation to drive longer-term outcomes. Nowhere in the Conservative motion today does it highlight that Canada has the best fiscal position and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Canadians need to understand that Canada’s overall debt, as a relative size, is proportionate to the economy. We are four times the factor in the better than Germany. On the net debt-to-GDP ratio, our fiscal position is nine times better than the United States’s. We also have the second-lowest deficit in the G7. This is at a time when the government is cutting in certain areas and making tough choices, while at the same time making massive investments in energy, critical minerals, defence and the things that we believe are important long-term for the Canadian economy and our sovereignty. Nowhere in the opposition day motion does it highlight that to Canadians. It is the prerogative of His Majesty’s loyal opposition to choose how these texts are developed, but nowhere does it recognize that that is the case. The one area where I would agree with the Conservative position is that we have to remain vigilant. Bond rate increases are happening around the world. If we look at what is happening in France right now, its government bond yields are continuing to go up, which means the cost for the government to borrow is going higher and higher. That is now starting to be priced into the market. Our Prime Minister and this government understand that we need to maintain Canada’s fiscal position. That is exactly what we are doing in the face of global market uncertainty, particularly around financing. Today’s motion is also about affordability. The wording of the motion moved by the Conservatives links government spending with affordability and the cost of living in general. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives fail to mention the affordability measures that our government has introduced. For example, the national child care program is a concrete measure that is intended to help educate our young people, but it is also intended to make life more affordable for parents. We are working with the provinces and territories. As my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester mentioned earlier, there are school programs in place across the country. Through Canada’s national school food program, we are ensuring that 400,000 students across the country have the opportunity to eat breakfast or lunch made with food from local farms. There is also the Canada child benefit. In my riding, that benefit offers families nearly $17 million to help them provide for their children. The amount is calculated based on household income. Those are concrete measures that the government gas put forward. I also mentioned the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. That is why the government proposed eliminating the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel. This is important. This measure is not there to guarantee that everything goes smoothly, but the government is using this concrete measure to give farmers, businesses and the general public a helping hand. I really look forward to the debate. I did not have the opportunity to be on my feet this morning. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues about how the Conservative position seems to not reconcile the fact that Canada is in a strong fiscal position. I have no problem with His Majesty’s loyal opposition highlighting that the government needs to remain diligent and needs to be thoughtful about its approach in the days ahead, but the text of the motion was presented to the House today without presenting any of the key statistics that actually outline Canada’s fiscal position. It is difficult, certainly, for a government, and, I would say, many members of Parliament, to be able to vote without those key statistics that provide Canadians a better overall picture of where we are at. The ability to talk about the fact that the debt servicing costs of governments across the world are rising because of bond rates and that governments need to be fiscally responsible and thoughtful, balancing operations and balancing budgets, while at the same time making long-term investments, is all fair game, but that level of nuance is something that I have rarely seen from the Conservative Party in my seven years, even though I have great friends across the way and there are some thoughtful colleagues, for sure. I would like to see the party in general try to find the types of texts that we could vote on and that, I think, are a little bit more balanced in terms of how they move forward.”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “Is it the Canada child benefit?”

  Said 7 times by 3 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“Climate change is a real problem. That is why our government made a deal with Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador to build clean power at Churchill Falls. It can power Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. It is the biggest clean energy project in North American history, and my colleague should support it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the consequences of the climate crisis are real. That is exactly why our government worked with the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador to reach an agreement on the development of Churchill Falls. The clean electricity generated by this project is enough to power Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. This is the largest investment in clean energy in the history of North America. I hope my hon. colleague recognizes that this investment and this work are absolutely crucial for Quebec, for Canada and for the world.”

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“We know life is expensive right now, and our government is taking action to help. The Conservatives ran on a plan that had nothing to help farmers. They also vote against helpful programs, like the one that feeds kids in school using food from local farms.”

“Mr. Speaker, I certainly reject the way the member is framing this. I thought I was pretty clear in my remarks, and I think we are pretty clear-eyed that there are challenges across the country. That is part of the reason we are putting initiatives forward, some of which the member has supported. The member’s predecessor in the last Parliament was a very thoughtful member when it came to agriculture. I believe the member has a lot of farmers in his constituency. I hope he is a bit disappointed that he ran on a platform in 2025 from the Conservative Party that had absolutely nothing for farmers. There was no mention of AgriStability and no mention of AgriMarketing. The party that he sits with consistently votes against the initiatives that matter for the things that he just talked about, including affordability and feeding kids in school. I do not know why he would be against a program that feeds kids in school and uses local product, including maybe from his own farmers.”

“I am voting against the Conservative motion. Things do cost a lot right now, but their motion does not offer any real solutions. It also ignores the work our government has done to help, like cheaper child care, school food programs, and money to help people heat their homes.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the Conservative opposition day motion. I thoroughly enjoy opposition day motions. They are an opportunity for the government to prod ideas from the opposition benches. The text is quite simple today. It is, frankly, just two pieces. The first part is that the House recognize that the Liberal government has been in government for 11 years. We are happy to recognize that and talk about the accomplishments of successive Liberal governments. The second part is that we are in an affordability crisis. There lies a trap in how the Conservative Party has presented today’s opposition day motion. It is undeniable that the Liberal Party has been in government for 11 years, and I am happy to talk about the accomplishments and the work that I am proud of, having been involved for seven years as a parliamentarian. The truth is that we recognize as a government, and we have highlighted this, that there is an affordability challenge across the country. Reasonable members of Parliament could stand here and debate what the definition of an affordability crisis is. I recognize and this government has recognized that there are challenges across the country and that we ought to do something about them, but what is missing from today’s Conservative opposition day motion is what to do about them and what measures the Conservative Party would put forward to support affordability. That is completely lacking in today’s opposition day motion. I would suggest that the opposition day motion is also lacking any recognition of the initiatives by this government, and by extension this House, because there have been examples where members of Parliament across the aisle have been supportive of government initiatives to improve affordability. There is no mention of that whatsoever. That is why we will be voting against today’s opposition day motion. It is not because we do not recognize that there are affordability challenges or we do not think there is something to be done about them, but the text of the motion, with the way it was drafted by the Conservative side, fails to recognize the initiatives that this House has taken forward. It leaves open what the definition of an affordability crisis could be and proposes zero measures to address it for Canadians. Opposition day motions are a great opportunity for the opposition to put concrete policy forward and what it would look like. Today is a bit of a failure in leadership in that domain. We will not have the opportunity to debate policy that the Conservatives would implement if they were on this side of the bench, but that is okay. My remaining time gives me the opportunity to opine on two areas. One is that the motion talks about 11 years of Liberal government. I have been a member of Parliament since 2019. I would like to use my remaining time to talk about some of the initiatives that I am proud to have been a part of and some of the work I have done individually as a parliamentarian. I am also proud of being part of a government that has introduced measures that matter not only to the good people of Kings—Hants, but to Canadians across this country. I am going to start with a really important announcement. Today, the Prime Minister announced a $2-billion program for heat pumps. This program is going to support 800,000 homes across the country. It is going to allow up to a $10,000 grant for homeowners below the provincial median income. Of course, that will differ whether it is Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Ontario or British Columbia, but anyone below the provincial median income will be eligible for a $10,000 grant to put a heat pump in their home. This is smart public policy. This program can reduce the cost of someone’s energy bill. It is also, of course, an environmental measure, particularly in areas and jurisdictions where the electrical grid is much more affordable than using other forms of energy. This also allows for a $2,000 grant for anyone who is above the provincial median income. I see a lot of similarities between the work that was done by the Atlantic caucus in the last Parliament and the announcement today. I represent a number of people, some of whom may be on a fixed income and may not have the means to do some of the renovations that might be needed and that could save money long-term because they do not have the ability to get over the hump of having money up front to pay for some of the expenditures. One of the things I am proudest of as a parliamentarian was advocating for a $500-million fund that we worked on with the Atlantic provinces to help roll out a similar type of program. It was successful. I have dozens of examples. There are many more than that, but I am talking about dozens of people who have come to me personally and said that this intervention saved them on their home energy bill. Obviously, it is a smart environmental choice, but more importantly, it is an affordability measure. It was quite remarkable to hear the Conservative Party attacking this idea. We want to put something in front of Canadians around affordability. Here is something important. We can produce heat pumps here in Canada. There are, for example, heat pump producers, independently, in my own constituency in Nova Scotia. They exist across the country. This is good public policy, and it is an example of something I am proud of today. I am proud of the national school food program. We have a lot of constituents who were strong advocates of this. Many across the country advocated to say that we needed a program that could ensure that children who need this support in school have access to a healthy school food program. They said we should try to source the ingredients locally. Because of the action of many members of Parliament, the support in the last Parliament and ultimately the Liberal government, that policy is here today. Again, we hear questions on it from the opposition benches. In fact, the leader of the official opposition calls this bureaucracy. I would invite the leader of the official opposition to come to Kings—Hants, where we see this program rolling out and benefiting children in schools today. It is quite remarkable that the leader calls that bureaucracy. I call it action. I call it making a difference on the ground. It is guided and informed by many people across the country who advocated to parliamentarians across the political spectrum to move in this direction. As for national child care, we talked about this for 50 years in this country. This is something the Liberal government has introduced. The program is working across the country. There have been growing pains, but I think we need to recognize that there is a desire to have additional space. The government just recently announced a $5-billion augmentation to support the provinces in the continued expansion of child care access across the country. Right now, in Nova Scotia, we are on target for $12 a day on average. This additional money will hopefully and presumably be able to get us closer to that mark. Whether or not it gets exactly to $10, it has demonstrably moved the needle on affordability, access to early education, and the infrastructure that is needed to support our communities. How about agriculture? I am up on my feet often talking about this. I am very proud to represent a constituency in Atlantic Canada that is the heart of agriculture. I am very proud of our 2025 platform. This platform had serious measures to support farmers, whether it was the AgriStability increases or the money for AgriMarketing. A pledge to have $200 million in an agri-food processing fund was realized by the current Minister of Agriculture under the national food security strategy. We are seeing those investments roll out in real time. The Conservatives will sometimes talk about the idea that these announcements are not resulting in concrete action. I can tell members that they absolutely are. I am proud of the work that we have done around the increases to AgriStability, something that the Conservative Party under Mr. Harper cut. We have actually increased it over the time. There are a lot of very good measures in the recently introduced Bill S-7. It is starting in the Senate, and it will work its way to the House. It is about reducing red tape in agriculture and has amendments to the Fertilizers Act, amendments to the Seeds Act and amendments to the Feeds Act. Anyone who knows agriculture well will know that a whole host of work had to be done. It did not happen in the last government, I am afraid to say, but I am very proud to see that some of the work I did as the minister of agriculture just before the last election has been continued by the current Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Malpeque. There is some really good stuff there. I am proud of the work I have done to advocate for the resolution at the Avon River. This was an issue where the constituency and individuals in the Windsor and Falmouth area were not happy with successive decisions from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the ministers therein. I have worked with the current Minister of Fisheries to resolve that issue in a way that balances fish passage with ensuring that the community perspective and indigenous rights are respected. I am proud of the rural transit fund. This is something I helped advocate for, along with our colleagues, so we could have a fund to help support smaller communities that did not have access to regular funding. I am proud of the fact that we have increased the volunteer tax credit for firefighters from $3,000 to $6,000, and allowed funding that goes to municipalities to support fire hall infrastructure. Lastly, I am proud of the work we have done to create a facility for The Flower Cart Group and CCOA, two really important organizations in my constituency.”

“The investment in the Canso spaceport is important for Canada. Defence experts and a former Conservative defence minister both agree.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed by my hon. colleague’s comments about the Canso spaceport. Stakeholders in the defence sector consider this investment essential for Canada, a view shared by former Conservative defence minister, Mr. MacKay.”

“Businesses in Nova Scotia tell me they need projects built faster. What are businesses in your riding saying about why this bill is important?”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the importance of building quickly. She mentioned, of course, lots of products. I would encourage her to buy Nova Scotia lobster too. We will add that to her list of great Canadian products from across the country. When I am at home in Nova Scotia, my business community talks about the need to move quicker. The hon. member is from Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East. Maybe she could give the House a bit of a reflection on the conversations she is having with her business community about why this bill is so important.”

In response to a question from Clifford Small

“Our government supports Canadian fishers, including those in Newfoundland and Labrador. We put $1 billion into small craft harbours and $10 billion into Churchill Falls, which will create thousands of jobs. The member across the way should tell his voters about this support instead of complaining.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries just made it absolutely clear. Notwithstanding all the theatrics we have on that side from the member, we will always stand up for the Canadian fishery. We will stand up for the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we already have. I wonder if the member has told fishermen in his community about the $1 billion that this government has put into small craft harbours. I wonder if the member has actually engaged his constituents and talked about the $10 billion that our government put into Churchill Falls as part of the agreement that will create 23,000 jobs in this country, including a lot in his province. Is he doing his work to share the work that this government is doing in his province?”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 20 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from David Bexte

“Our government supports farmers. We cut fuel taxes, expanded business support, and created a three-billion-dollar food security plan. The Conservatives had a chance to present their own plan for Canadians a year ago and offered nothing.”

“Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that, and this is certainly true on this side of the House, all members of Parliament know the important work that Canadian farmers do across the country. That is exactly why we have eliminated the excise tax on gasoline and diesel. It is why we have increased business risk management programs. It is why we have introduced the national food security strategy, which is over three billion dollars’ worth of targeted support to the agriculture sector and the agri-food sector across the country. We have a plan to help support farmers in the country. That member is from farm country. What should be a little embarrassing to the Conservative Party is that, a year ago, when they had the opportunity to present their plan, there was nothing for Canadians.”

“We are taking action and getting real projects built, like new nuclear power and power lines that create good jobs. Past Conservative leaders would back this plan. I want the member to admit these projects are happening and vote for this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be encouraging the members in his party. I think he would make a tremendous leader of the official opposition. He mixes important oratory skills with the ability to point to where the government is moving in the right direction, while keeping his obligation to the loyal official opposition to continue to push the government to do more. I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that this government is an action-focused government. This is not about symbolism; it is about delivering concretely. The bill before Parliament is of the nature of things that I know former prime minister Stephen Harper would support. I know Jason Kenney, who sat on the side of the House that Harper did, is supportive of the work the government is doing. The Sisson mine, Darlington new nuclear and the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick intertie are projects that are actively under way, creating good jobs. Will the member at least recognize that these projects are happening? Is he going to support this bill?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 42 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Braedon Clark

“I want this bill to pass. It improves how ports like the one in Halifax are run, which helps them work together and move goods in and out of the country more easily. The ports asked for this.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have the opportunity to work together, and I know we share an interest in the port of Halifax. If Parliament is to bring this forward, the bill itself would allow for additional governance for the port of Halifax or other ports across the country, which would centre around regulatory decisions, trade corridors and the ability to work together on how best we get to the outcomes around both importation and exportation of products across the country. This is what the ports were calling for. This would give additional flexibility for governance in that area.”