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 12 of 14.
“Mr. Speaker, this legislation is crucial. We are in an economic crisis. This legislation would move forward with the ability to move on interprovincial trade and the reduction of barriers and allow major national projects to get built. The government is absolutely committed to advancing indigenous participation in major national projects. Projects would not be listed if there were not adequate consultation or if section 35 rights and UNDRIP were not recognized. Members in the House can argue otherwise, but the government has been very clear and committed. This legislation is crucial. Let us get it passed because it matters for Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre can wait for her turn in this place, when she can happily ask the question. My position, and the position of the government, is that we need to be able to move projects of national interest that include indigenous equity in this country. There are indigenous communities that want to move on national projects— An hon. member: Oh, oh!”
“What she does not understand is that this represents an absolutely tremendous opportunity for indigenous people in this country. She wants to, I guess, perhaps, limit the economic opportunities available to indigenous people in this country. We have increased the loan equity in this— An hon. member: It's about free, prior and informed consent.”
“There has been some concern outside the House that somehow this legislation would disallow or lessen the constitutional rights indigenous people are afforded in this country. That is not what is happening whatsoever. Any project that would ever find its way onto this list of national projects of concern would have to have involved deep consultation with indigenous people, and one of the actual provisions is that indigenous communities would have to be consulted as part of this. Nothing from this bill would take away from UNDRIP, which the House passed. Nothing would take away from the ability of indigenous partners to actually benefit. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, there is a member from the NDP heckling me here on today's point.”
“There are five criteria the legislation lays out. I want to cover them for all members of the House and for the public at home so they can understand what would actually constitute a major project in this country. A project would have to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security. Obviously, it would have to have a clear economic or other benefit to Canada. It would have to have a high likelihood of successful execution in terms of the ability for a project to actually move forward and happen. It would have to advance the interests of indigenous people and contribute to the clean growth in Canada's objectives in relation to climate change. Those are the criteria the government would use. (1225) There are a few things that are extremely important to highlight. I go back to section 35 rights and UNDRIP.”
“We have major projects, and the world needs what Canada has, whether it is in critical minerals, agriculture or the forestry sector. We are blessed to have natural endowments and people with ingenuity, such that people around the world want our products and services. On major projects, the government is delineating a process to be able to approve major projects more quickly. It is extremely important. Proponents have talked about wanting the ability to move faster on this, and the legislation would allow there to be a major national projects office with the Governor in Council and one minister who would set the conditions for the projects. The cabinet would have the ability, of course, to engage with indigenous partners, provinces and other stakeholders to identify major projects of national concern.”
“I look forward to a member of Parliament's suggesting that is not a good idea, because I do not think it is what public opinion is, and I certainly do not think it is where public policy should be in the moment of the factors I just laid out to the House. We are going to be moving on it. The bill would allow for federal regulatory agencies or departments to ensure that where there is comparable, and that is the word used, legislation in a provincial or territorial sense, it would receive the same accreditation as federally. That is important. The legislation lays the foundation. There would be a lot of heavy lifting to ensure that we can exercise that. The legislation is step number one. The sooner we can pass it through the House, the better. The second aspect of the bill is that we need to get our economy going.”
“It is easier for wine growers in Nova Scotia to send their bottles of beautiful handcrafted products to France than it is to send them to New Brunswick or Ontario. That is just one of the examples. How about the accreditation for surveyors? A surveyor who has accreditation in Ontario would have to re-register in order to work on a federal project in the same city. These are the types of things that we can no longer take for granted and not move on with a sense of urgency and action. The bill is very clear and is only 25 pages long. The first half is dedicated to interprovincial trade and the mobility of workers in this country.”
“There is certainly political will right now, and Canadians are looking for their elected leaders to break down the barriers and make it easier to do business. Ultimately, this is about growing our Canadian economy. Over the last 10 years, Canada has had the second-highest overall growth in the G7, but productivity remains an issue. This is something the Prime Minister and the government are serious about tackling, and they want to get started on this domain in earnest. The bill would help do that. The bill would help to break down barriers, to allow small businesses across this country to send their products east-west, as opposed to necessarily looking to other international markets. I will give an example. I represent the Annapolis Valley, Kings—Hants, in Nova Scotia. There is an emerging wine industry there.”
“Twenty per cent of our national gross domestic product is from services, goods and products being moved within our federation, and for far too long, there have been impediments to that free mobility, the ability for products to move easily between jurisdictions or for the accreditation of professions and services in this country to be recognized among provinces, territories and the federal government. That is exactly why the government has introduced the bill, which would remove all remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade. There are very few, but it is incumbent upon all of us, certainly upon the Prime Minister and the government, to show leadership such that the provinces and territories will follow suit.”
“The legislation that is being considered here in the House aims to do just that: It aims to ensure that we can strengthen our Canadian economy, which is under duress from U.S. tariffs and is facing an uncertain world for all the reasons I just laid out. (1220) The bill seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to establish one Canadian economy, not 13. This has been a concept for quite some years, many decades in fact. It is fair to say that some Canadians, and maybe indeed some members of the House, could be cynical about the idea that we can break down the interprovincial trade barriers that cost Canadian GDP in this country approximately $200 billion.”
“If someone is a steel worker in Hamilton, or if they are in Quebec or in the Soo, there is great uncertainty right now for our Canadian workforce, and particularly for certain industries across the country. Canada is at a crossroads in terms of what we do next. The Prime Minister and the government were elected in April in part to be able to handle the world that we are living in and the economic uncertainty that has been presented because of all the factors I just laid out, and that brings us to the legislation that is before the House here today. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we as Canadians can give ourselves so much more than anyone can take away from us as a country.”
“In the backdrop of all I just mentioned, and we could spend an entire debate talking about that today, the U.S. administration and the United States, our largest trading partner, regardless of one's partisan affiliation or ideological viewpoint, is seeking to re-establish and to reimagine the relationships it has in the world, with maybe less on multilateralism. It is certainly changing the relationship that the United States has in relation to trade. We as parliamentarians sit in this place today with tariffs on Canadian products going into the United States that are unjustified and illegal. I am sure all members of the House would agree with that, but they exist.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join today's debate on Bill C-5 , the one Canadian economy legislation. Before I get started, I want to recognize that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville this afternoon. We are living in a very uncertain world. As I speak right now, there are missiles being exchanged between Israel and Iran. There is great tension in the Middle East. War continues to ravage Ukraine after three years of brutal Russian onslaught, naked aggression against that democracy that is simply trying to defend its sovereignty. Authoritarian regimes are on the rise. I think it is fair to say that this is probably the most uncertain time in the world, certainly since the Cold War; parallels can be made. It is the most dangerous time since World War II.”
“The government is taking accountability, it is taking actions, and it is seeking to recover the taxpayers' dollars. However, when the Conservatives were in government, they awarded contracts to GC Strategies. I hope that the member will make the distinction that this was rooted at the federal core and that we are getting the money back for Canadian citizens, but maybe not in 100 days, because there is due process in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate for the people who are sitting in the public gallery or who may be watching at home, because the opposition clearly has not delineated the facts on a few things, and one is that there is a process. The motion before us talks about 100 days. My question to the hon. member is this: Does he suggest that there should not be a court process, that if GC Strategies or its associates choose to defend the allegations in court that the government should just find a way to railroad that process? The government is actually under a process to recover the money. It is following the Auditor General's steps the entire way. The situation was rooted in the federal public service. It was a problematic procurement.”
“Will the member stand up and suggest that they were Conservative insiders too, or will he recognize there is a difference between the civil service, the processes and the political elected representation who is taking action?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member listened to my speech. He heard very clearly that there is a judicial process and that the government is moving on legal action to recover the taxpayer dollars we agree need to be recovered. The member suggests there are Liberal insiders. The member for Winnipeg North made the distinction that the elected members of the Privy Council, when they became aware of this, addressed and sought to address the issue. The problem is at the procurement level of civil servants, and when we listen to the Conservative speeches, they blend the two. It is absolutely problematic. The member for Winnipeg North suggested and rightly highlighted that GC strategies received money under the Conservative government.”
“Mr. Speaker, the 8% increase in government spending is due to the measures proposed in the motion that we studied and that the hon. member voted in favour of. This motion includes a tax cut, a GST rebate for first-time homebuyers and spending related to the removal of the carbon tax. We will be tabling a budget in the fall, and it will show the effectiveness of government spending.”
“Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip is correct to highlight that fact. As I said throughout my entire remarks, this was a serious issue, a breach of the way in which the federal public service handled procurement. This was a problematic issue. However, the problem is that when we hear the Conservatives speak, they make it sound as though the elected officials who were in these ministerial portfolios were actively involved. That is a complete fallacy. It is untrue. It is dangerous. When the allegations were raised to the political level through the Auditor General's report, the government took action. However, this is the stuff that we see clipped on X and on social media. There is no context. Gaslighting is an issue that we hear a lot about on this side, but the Conservatives are the best at it.”
“Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member suggesting that the Prime Minister of this country should not be engaging with the President of the United States? Obviously we take issue with the illegal and unjustified tariffs that have been put on Canadian industry. The Canadian people just elected the Prime Minister. It was a referendum on which party and which leader is best to handle the nuance and the difficulty of this situation on the continental relationship. I find it absolutely unbelievable that the member for Edmonton Strathcona would suggest that the Prime Minister should not be engaging with the U.S. President on the pathway forward. We are going to be there to protect Canadian jobs and Canadian sectors, and our Prime Minister is going to engage to make sure we can find—”
“Procurement does have to be addressed. We are working on that across the board, and that is why we are going to be able to stay focused on the big things in the days ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member picked up on a few things. Yes, the government agrees that this was an absolute abuse of the procurement process and that the federal civil servants who were responsible for this did not do their due diligence on behalf of the country. When this became abundantly clear to this government, per the Auditor General's reports, we worked on every single recommendation. We had representatives from GC Strategies, who were admonished before the bar of this House. There have been parliamentary committees. At every single turn, this government, when it became clear that this was a problem, sought to address it. There is a process under way to legally claim the money that ought to be returned to taxpayers. The Conservatives are choosing to burn a day on this, instead of talking about other major issues.”
“The Prime Minister has shown tremendous leadership. We have an opportunity to continue that on the G7 stage next week. We are going to continue to stay focused on the things Canadians care about.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Winnipeg North really got to the essence of what I was talking about. The issue around procurement and improving processes is an important one, but the opposition day motion today blurs the lines in terms of the way the Conservatives have litigated this argument, which does not show any level of nuance. It does not recognize that the government has taken steps. I think that if the member for Winnipeg North, and many members of Parliament, went back and surveyed constituents right now, the issue would be around the Canada-U.S. relationship. It is around Canada's economy. It is about how we build one Canadian economy and get major projects built. That is the focus of this government. This government is working quickly to make the changes that Canadians want to see.”
“We agree with that. As soon as the allegation came to light, the government took actions for recourse and a reset to make sure the issues were addressed, as per the recommendations of the Auditor General. That is the key element that people need to take away from this.”
“Mr. Speaker, while I respect my colleague from Edmonton West and I am glad he enjoyed the remarks today, I wish he did not feel as though they were all fiction. Again, that plays into a narrative that I do not think is particularly helpful on that side of the way. What is very clear is that the government has a legal process to recover the money that the Conservatives are saying needs to be recovered, and this side of the House agrees. There has been a process all the way through. The member made the assertion that Liberal ministers were involved in that, which is problematic. This was an issue at the core of the federal public service with the way in which procurement was handled. It happened under the Harper government, which the member was part of, and it happened over the last number of years. It should never have happened.”
“It is a bit surprising to me that the opposition has used today's opposition motion when the government is in court with GC Strategies, when the government does have a process to try to recoup money from GC Strategies and when there are processes and recommendations being followed from the Auditor General. I listened to many hours of Conservative debate, and none of that is being recognized. We have major national projects to build in this country. We have a one Canadian economy bill and defence spending. Those are the issues that Canadians want us to be focused on. I would invite the Conservatives to join us on the real issues that matter before us here today.”
“We also have to make sure that we increase pay to our Canadian Armed Forces members to protect retention and ensure a very strong force moving forward. This is something that all members of Parliament, regardless of partisan affiliation, should be willing to support. It is a crucial moment for the country. I think I have recognized in my speech that the issues being raised by the opposition are serious and that they require some level of due diligence, which has happened over the course of the entire year, but we have big, major issues before the country that we have to tackle.”
“I have a number of Canadian Armed Forces bases in my riding, 14 Wing Greenwood being one that I would certainly like to recognize. I thank the honourable members of the Canadian air force and the Canadian Armed Forces who are located there. They do tremendous work. We have to be able to scale up. I had the opportunity to talk to the local base commander and the mayor from the municipality of Kings county this week, very briefly, about the way we can work on partnerships to build more housing for the Canadian Armed Forces, but also more housing for the general community in Greenwood and in Kingston. That is extremely important. It matters for the broader community, and it matters for CAF members. The investment that the government is making and committing to this week is going to help support those types of concepts.”
“Whether it is the Canadian Armed Forces, additional investment in housing or building the major projects that have to get done and catalyzing private investment, we are in a moment when, particularly on the capital side of government investment, we have to continue to invest to drive our economy forward, to reduce our reliance on the United States and to find other trade markets and other economic opportunities. That level of nuance in the debate is never actually highlighted from the opposition benches, and that is what is, in my mind, so frustrating moving forward. Again, the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement has a really important job, which is to make sure that the investments the government is putting forward result in material difference on the ground.”
“We have to be able to get results with the way the government is spending. Those things are important. This government is also committed to balancing the operational budget within three years. We hear the Conservatives stand up and rail on about fiscal discipline. I believe in the importance of that. I am glad that they are raising this and that there is an accountability function. However, what they forget is that they just ran on a platform to have well over $120 billion of deficit spending. Pardon me when I sit here in this House and listen to the Conservatives' narrative talking about government spending and not recognizing that.”
“The Conservative opposition members stand up in this House, and I give them credit because they should be raising issues of the Canadian Armed Forces, as it is important across the board, but they forget that they did not leave the cupboard very full when they left government, did they? Every single year since 2015, the Liberal government has increased defence spending on an actual GDP percentage basis, and now we are going to be able to get to 2%. We should be celebrating that. There may have to be more investment. NATO is now looking at a target of perhaps 3.5% of GDP. This is important, but we do have to get procurement right. There are lessons to be learned, whether it is with this opposition day motion, about government efficiency and the way government operates and procures. It has to be faster, and it has to be more agile.”
“I would hope that all members of this House agree that this is good public policy. (1535) We heard that the Bloc, for example, during debate earlier this week, actually supported this concept. The Conservatives have talked about this for a long time. I would like to see a little more enthusiasm from their benches about the fact that this is good public policy because, to be honest, consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments did not take this question seriously enough. Our Prime Minister is taking this question seriously. This government is taking this question seriously. Here is the thing that is often forgotten. The Conservative Party, when it was leaving office in 2015, had defence spending below 1% of GDP.”
“Again, they could hold the government to account once the allegations were found by the Auditor General about what the political representation was doing, but they should not blur the lines. It is dangerous rhetoric in this country. It is not helpful, and it actually does not even reflect the true reality of what the government is doing to resolve the situation. I do want to take my time. I want to take the opportunity. This is about procurement. We have a secretary of state now, explicitly for defence procurement. While we are talking about procurement and defence, it is important to recognize what the Prime Minister and this government announced this week, which is a commitment to get to 2% of GDP defence spending, as per NATO guidelines, by the end of this fiscal year, and I think that this is extremely important.”
“They should say that they take notice and are upset about the way the procurement process happened and that they want the government to take more action, but to suggest in any way that the elected officials of this government were involved in this is an absolute problem. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kody Blois: This is the problem, Mr. Speaker. They do not like the truth. The truth hurts with regard to what happened three years ago in relation to not following law and order. There are some members on that side, by the way, who come from the public sector prosecution office; they come from law enforcement. That party should absolutely be about those principles. but the Conservatives are falling into this trap.”
“The idea that this government does not take this issue seriously and is not actively taking the steps that have been put forth before this House, and before many parliamentary committees, is absolute fallacy. It is not true. Again, for the integrity of this House, members of Parliament need to make sure that they are cognizant of this when they raise these issues. When we blur these lines, this is where the level of mistrust and hate is fomented, because someone sits at home and listens to Conservative members stand up in this House and talk about Liberal government corruption. It is not true, and that is the problem. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, of course they are going to heckle from the other side, but they are playing into a dangerous game.”
“We are going through with a legal process to be able to recover the money, what is available and what will be available in that process through GC Strategies and its affiliates. The government has taken the advice of the independent organization that determines bans on federal contracts. Again, it is seven years. Could it be higher? Certainly it could, and I think members on this side would agree, but again, it is not for the government to say, because there is an independent process on that. The idea that the Liberal government and the elected officials on this side had anything to do with this is a fallacy. The idea that the government is not taking action to recover the money is a fallacy.”
“We formed government, so at the end of the day, my message to the Conservative Party and my colleagues on that side is that they ought to listen to some of the small-c conservative base, the progressive conservative tradition, and actually make sure that they do not go towards some of the politics that we are seeing elsewhere in the world, which I think are farther and farther right. We have to maintain the tradition of law and order in this country. The Conservative Party used to stand for that. Sadly, I am not seeing much of it anymore on that side. This is ultimately an opposition day motion around procurement. The government, again, as I have made abundantly clear to my colleagues in this House, is taking the steps that the Auditor General has recommended to a T.”
“There were members of Parliament from the Conservative Party who absolutely were supporting it. Instead of saying that they understood people might be frustrated with the government's position, but respectfully, they had to follow the advice and the authority of legal authorities and police in this country, the Conservatives said, “No, no, let us go out and actually actively promote it”. That is why small-c conservatives in Kings—Hants and across this country were abandoning the Conservative Party and coming to the Liberal Party. We won. We are on this side.”
“Mr. Speaker, I see it as absolutely on topic, because we are talking about the way the Conservative Party today is litigating its argument on the opposition day, and it is suggesting things that the government should do that do not follow judicial process. I make the natural step to say I have seen over the last two or three years a slipping of that foundational principle by Conservative members of Parliament in understanding the rule of law in this country and how parliamentarians ought to be making sure that we follow it. Now, my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre , for whom I have great respect and who does tremendous work on behalf of his constituents, talks about the Conservative position. Mr. Poilievre has pictures standing with the truckers saying, “We think this is great”.”
“I have no problem, by the way, with people who are frustrated with government policy, but when law enforcement authorities are asking people to clear streets, as we saw in Ottawa, and the Conservative Party, instead of standing up for the rule of law and saying it understands that people are frustrated with government policy, and that it understands that people want to move forward—”
“I think many of us would say at least that, if not more. My personal view is that, yes, it should go higher. Again, there is an independent process for the government to absolutely weigh in. The Conservatives are not showing that level of nuance in their argument here today. It is important to be able to distinguish between those things. Back to law and order, again, the Conservative Party, for the longest time, would have put law and order as one of the foundational cores of what the party stands for. We were here on Parliament Hill a few years ago when we got into the challenge around the trucker convoy and people who were frustrated with government policy.”
“Let us get a few things clear for everyone at home. The government is taking GC Strategies, its membership and its directors to court to recover the money the government ought to be able to recover. It is not just by decree that should happen; there is actually a legal judicial process for that to happen and move forward, and the government is following that. In relation to the seven-year ban on anyone involved with GC Strategies, there is an organization called the office of supplier integrity and compliance. This is built within government processes so that government itself does not determine what that ban should be. Therefore, an independent, arm's-length review process of government has determined that it be seven years. (1530) We can all have a view on whether that should be higher or lower.”
“However, their job is not to blur the lines, take 30-second clips, send them home without any context and suggest that somehow the political representation of this government was involved in any way in the malfeasance that we have seen from the procurement process within the Government of Canada. I would expect my hon. colleagues to conduct themselves in this place with the level of respect and integrity I think is befitting and is the responsibility of parliamentarians and make sure that line is corrected and shown nuance. Of course, they should push and ask the government what steps are being taken, but it is important to recognize that the Auditor General, in her second report, provided no further recommendation other than to continue and that the government is taking the steps in the first Auditor General's report.”
“The government has provided the information to the RCMP in relation to whether or not there could be criminal charges moved forward on the individuals who were involved with GC Strategies. The minister acknowledged to this entire House that the government, through the Department of Justice, is actually going through a court process to recover the money that has been fraudulently taken or misappropriated as part of that procurement process. It is important for Conservative members to recognize that. Their job is to hold a government to account. Their job is to raise these things. I understand that, as do the members on this side.”
“This government has been very clear that what happened in the contracting around the ArriveCAN app and GC Strategies, which spanned, by the way, the Harper government and also the last Liberal administration, was absolutely problematic. We have to separate those two things. We have to recognize that the government has responded to the Auditor General's report, has condemned the way in which this procurement happened and is taking active steps. I continue to hear the Conservatives ask when taxpayers will recover the money they feel, of course, and the House recognizes, was problematic in this procurement process. What they seem to forget is that this is a country of law and order. There is due process. What has been very clear from the Minister of Government Transformation in question period is that there is an ongoing legal process.”
“Ministers are nominated to cabinet to serve king and country. However, it is the civil service that actually delivers the programs. When we listen to the Conservatives on the benches, and I noticed it during question period, they blur the lines between the political representation of the government and the civil servants who actually conduct the work on behalf of government. What has not been litigated during this opposition day debate, and for which the Conservatives have blurred the line, is that when the political representation in the ministries became aware of the allegations and the bad behaviour that was demonstrated, the government took action right away. The political representation responded.”
“There are two members who may or may not be in and around the capital region or around this House who I want to recognize and get their names into the Hansard: Burnell Lyons, a long-time volunteer in the Annapolis Valley who joined my office about a year ago; and Kaleb Boates, who is a summer student. They are two fine gentlemen who do great work. It has really been nice to have them up around the Ottawa region. I want to make sure that their names forever live in the Hansard and that their work for the good people of Kings—Hants is recognized. Turning to the important element of why we are here today, I want to get back to where I was before question period, which is the separation between the political actors of government. We are never permanent here; we are elected to come to this place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand I have about 16 minutes left in my remarks, which is a great opportunity to be able to litigate the opposition day motion that has been put before this House. A lot of Conservative members have stayed around, and I look forward to engaging with them in my round of questions. It is always fun to barb back and forth and to engage in this House. I think this is important. Every one of us as parliamentarians has support systems at home, the people who support us in our constituency office and help allow us to get to this place.”