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 13 of 14.
“After we go to members' statements, I look forward to continuing to litigate this argument because it is important. I look forward to talking about the ways the government is addressing the concerns the opposition is raising and how we will have a process to get the money back for taxpayers.”
“I would caution Conservative colleagues, when they stand in this place, to separate the difference, because they make clips of these things and send them home to their constituents, and Canadians who are not watching closely would be led to believe from the comments of the members on the opposite side that ministers themselves were absolutely involved with what we on the government side suggest was a failure of procurement. That is a difference. That is about our level of engagement. It is a responsibility of every parliamentarian in this House to show a level of nuance, not to clip things, send them home and suggest that Liberal members or ministers are corrupt. That is dangerous language. That is not the way we should move forward.”
“It is important to separate those two things, because when we hear the way Conservative members in this place raise this issue, and we agree that it is an important issue to be raised, we hear the suggestion in their language that Liberal ministers themselves were involved in this. No, this was a failure of procurement at the civil service level. I know there are some new members to this House, particularly on the other side. It is important to separate our Westminster tradition into the elected element of government versus the civil servants who do the work on behalf of government. Yes, there is ministerial accountability, and the ministers of the former Liberal government have engaged and worked to move forward, but at the end of the day, there is a separation.”
“It is clear from public opinion and clear from the election results on April 28 that Canadians like what they are seeing from this Prime Minister , his government and the leadership regarding what we are trying to get accomplished with this new government, moving forward. The Conservative motion speaks to a company called GC Strategies. This was a two-person firm, an IT contractor. Canadians who have been watching the debate and the way that members have engaged may not recognize that the government, from day one of the Auditor General's report, has wanted to work to implement the what is in the reports. There was an absolute failure of procurement at the civil service level.”
“I have had the opportunity to review the principal elements of this motion, and I look forward to speaking to those points and to some ancillary points that will be important for all members to think about in the days ahead regarding the way this government is advancing its agenda. I want to start, from the hop, by talking about the fact that we are in week three of Parliament and this government is moving on significant issues of importance, including having one Canadian economy, defence spending up to 2% of our NATO target, working to make sure big projects get done and engagement on the international stage with the G7. This Parliament and this government are working, and I look forward to my opposition colleagues joining the efforts of what this government is trying to get accomplished.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is not my first rodeo, so to speak, in this place, so it is great to have this slot with all the members here. I know my Conservative colleagues in particular enjoy when I get up for debate. They will be champing at the bit to ask questions afterward. I am not our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North , so they have a fresh opportunity to engage with this side, although we do love our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. It is a pleasure to join this opposition day debate. Any member who knows me in this House knows that I enjoy the opportunity to litigate the text of motions and the ideas that the opposition puts forward in this place, and I intend to do that this afternoon, even if it is after question period and Statements by Members.”
“Mr. Speaker, this was a final payment from the Government of Canada for Canadian families living in a province that had a federal backstop. It was therefore a final payment for those families. It did not apply to Quebec or British Columbia.”
“Mr. Speaker, because of the U.S. government's position, there is great deal of uncertainty all over the planet regarding free trade. However, as my colleague mentioned, there are other opportunities for us, particularly with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Many G7 countries are looking into how we can reduce greenhouse gases. It is important to address economic challenges while maintaining the importance of reducing GHGs. This will be a measure of competitiveness, and we need to strike a balance between those two things.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have delivered a speech entirely in French in the House. It is a very proud moment for me. The Minister of Finance was very clear in the House of Commons. The federal budget will be presented in the fall. I think it is better to do so in the fall because we currently have many challenges ahead of us, including the relationship between Canada and the United States, the defence partnership with Europe, and the bill to build a single economy in Canada. We have a lot of important issues to address.”
“Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 people in Canada paid the carbon tax in provinces where a federal backstop applied, such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Families who paid the carbon tax received a payment from the federal government. When the Government of Canada decided to end carbon pricing, it sent them a final payment. Quebeckers did not pay this tax because they have a completely different system.”
“I have a problem with the Conservatives' position on the environmental issue in Canada. Our plan has the support of our economists; it seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more effectively in Canada, especially for big corporations. We have to work with them. With all due respect to the Conservatives, it is very rare that they raise the issue of the environment. Nonetheless, in their election platform, they say that to change our climate goals, we need to spend more. There needs to be more government spending, more public resources. In my opinion, their plan is really chaotic. There needs to be a baseline for our businesses. There needs to be stability in the climate and competition policies, but also in the context of our international free trade. I am now prepared to answer my colleagues' questions.”
“The text of the motion says to give federal money to the Government of Quebec “without conditions”. It says without conditions, without an obligation to make the payment to Quebec families. I think that is problematic. If the Bloc Québécois wants a program similar to the one that the federal government had just before April, it is imperative to do what the Government of Canada did and send payments to Canadian families living in the provinces where the federal backstop for carbon pricing applied. I think that the text of the motion is problematic in that respect. I would like to raise two other points. In the current context, it is necessary to have a flexible policy. The government is going to develop a strategy for working with the Canadian industry. We have to be competitive.”
“According to various polling firms, a majority of Quebeckers, more than 50%, support this carbon pricing system. It was a resounding success. Today, with the motion it moved, the aim of the Bloc Québécois is to win or justify some kind of federal expenditure specifically for the province, considering that the federal tax does not apply to Quebec, British Columbia or the Northwest Territories. David Eby's government did not raise this issue, and neither did the Premier of the Northwest Territories. Had I accepted the Bloc Québécois's arguments, although I did not, I would have had a different problem with the text of the motion. Our government sent the payment directly to families and individuals and not to the government or a government program.”
“It is very difficult for my constituents to get around by public transit because the systems are non‑existent or are only available in the larger communities in my riding. This makes it absolutely necessary to have a car. The same is true for all rural communities across our country. It is also important to recognize that oil heating is particularly important in Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces in general. I must say that it is also important in Quebec. I stressed the need to change policies in order to reflect each province's and territory's realities and to address the specific issues facing the provinces and territories. (1745) I commend the Government of Quebec for introducing its own plan using the cap-and-trade system while focusing on the province's major GHG emitters. Polls have been conducted.”
“It is important to understand a few aspects of the federal carbon pricing plan. When former Prime Minister Trudeau and his government introduced their carbon pricing plan, the provinces and territories had the option of creating their own provincial plans. In fact, the goal was for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and all the other provinces and territories to have their own plans. It is absolutely necessary to acknowledge that Quebec, British Columbia and, I believe, the Northwest Territories developed their own plans. I think that Quebec's plan, with its cap‑and‑trade system, was a good plan. It was a good plan in terms of public policy, but also given the political context. I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia.”
“We understood the importance of changing the national policy, of changing the federal backstop for a couple of reasons. I am going to talk today about something that happened in the last Parliament, and that shows the need for change. This story is also about the hypocrisy of the Conservatives when it comes to their position on the environment in general, but also when it comes to their position on carbon pricing. In some contexts, carbon pricing, particularly industrial carbon pricing, is a very conservative but small-c conservative policy. The Conservative Party platform that was presented during the election campaign included a plan to spend more public money, to spend more government money to deal with the challenges posed by climate change. It is not an effective plan, and I will talk about that later in my speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise here in the House of Commons. I particularly enjoy participating in opposition day debates. I am pleased to have the opportunity to interact with all my colleagues here, particularly the members of the Bloc Québécois, but also the many Conservative members who speak French. Today's opposition motion was moved by my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague from Saint-Jean . I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, who is a good parliamentarian. I appreciate the opportunity to debate the essence of the motion. The motion is related to carbon pricing. I have a lot of experience with this issue. I am a government member who represents an Atlantic riding and, like many of my Atlantic colleagues, I had a different perspective on this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me start by again offering my congratulations to the hon. minister. We are very proud of her in Nova Scotia, and the Nova Scotia members of Parliament who sit in the Nova Scotia caucus. I know we have not shared our time, but I wonder if she could provide a bit of reflection on her Lebanese heritage, her story and what it means to be the Minister of Immigration.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will keep it brief. You are more than capable of keeping time. I am here to listen to what the minister has to say, and I think the Chair can keep time. We do not need hon. members screaming “time” when the minister is trying to actually respond to the question.”
“The Conservative Party, to its credit, actually did include this in its platform, but the difference is that it would fund that by getting rid of things like the housing accelerator fund and the rapid housing initiative, a lot of the federal support to build new houses. Yes, the Conservatives would have made a tax cut, but it would have been for a lot fewer people because the homes would not be there. Would the member care to comment on the fact that she sees that as perhaps problematic?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I was listening, I could not help but be inspired by the member's personal story of growing up in the United Kingdom. She mentioned her interaction with the Sovereign. I, too, was fortunate to have a brief interaction. I appreciate her comments, her connection and the way that Canada's constitution runs through the United Kingdom, but also that we have diversity across this country. I wanted to pick up on the remarks that the member made about housing. She rightly identified the fact that the government is removing the GST on homes up to $1 million for first-time homebuyers. I think that is a really important policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, our colleagues have been talking about a budget. We have estimates before the House here. I had the opportunity to review some of them. I think the member for Whitby actually talked about the fact that MPs have the ability to look through the expenditures of government that are being proposed. He talked about housing. I think that is really important. We are proposing to not only remove the GST for first-time homebuyers, up to $1 million, but the difference is that we still have supply-side programs. The Conservatives, in the election, proposed to fund that commitment through taking away supply-side programs. Could the member opposite comment on how that actually would have been a really restrictive policy that would not have allowed more Canadians to benefit from the GST measure we are proposing?”
“I find it very ironic when we see the member stand up to talk about some of the policies that the government has tried to work with to actually reduce emissions and grow the economy at the same time. Why was his party committing to spending more taxpayers' dollars to reduce emissions during the campaign instead of using the small-c Conservative policy of carbon pricing?”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did very well for the first five minutes in showing a level of nuance. I enjoyed the Cs he laid out. I will lay out a C, which is the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in this country. Its statistics show that oil and gas sector production increased by 41% in the last 10 years. We never hear that from the opposition benches whatsoever. Here is another C: the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I was with the member for Foothills during the election. He is a really good parliamentarian and a smart guy. He had nothing to work with because that C, the Conservative Party, had next to nothing for farmers in its platform. The last piece is a small C, because the member talked about the environment.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the government living within its means, and of course, this government has committed to an operational balanced budget within three years, recognizing that there have to be major capital expenditures, particularly for our Canadian Armed Forces, which the Prime Minister highlighted today. Does the member not recognize the irony that her Conservative Party platform actually committed to billions and billions of dollars of deficits in the election period that she just ran under? Does she find it a bit ironic to stand in this place and talk about fiscal discipline when the Conservatives were more than willing to run on a platform of major, major spending and deficit financing?”
“That is the difference: We have removed that policy but also introduced a tax cut to make sure those households that were receiving a benefit from the rebate are better off and are continuing to be supported through tax measures that this government is introducing. The opposition members would have simply cut the program and made no mention of the fact that rebates were coming back. It was good to see them actually support this measure, because it is smart public policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the differences between the way we have handled the public policy issue versus the way the Conservatives have is that this government and this Prime Minister recognized that the policy of carbon pricing at the consumer level had become divisive and that there had to be a change. Instead of just cutting the consumer carbon price, we recognized there were rebates tied to the consumer price that went back to people and that eight out of 10 households were better off. However, it had become politically challenging, and the policy did not have the support of enough Canadians to be able to move forward. That is why we also introduced the tax cut I referenced in my speech, with up to $840 a year for two-income households in this country, or 22 million Canadians, as my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has mentioned.”
“administrations and how that shoe may fall, or the one Canadian economy legislation and whether we have supportive members in this House to be able to move forward, all of that is going to have an impact on what a financial analysis and a budget will actually look like, including measures of saving, where this government will be looking to find efficiency in government spending. All of that is coming in the fall, and my colleague will have the ability to look at it, as will we.”
“Mr. Speaker, all parliamentarians have before us the main estimates and the supplementary (A)s that were provided in relation to what this government is planning on spending on defence. We as parliamentarians have an ability to look at the outlay of money here in this place to be able to make those decisions. The government has committed to a budget in the fall session. It is important. I did not get the chance to raise this directly in my speech, but whether the government is looking at defence partnerships in Europe, the continuation of the dynamic between Canada and U.S.”
“As part of the conditions, we will make sure that if they are actually driving up development charges, they will not receive federal funding. That is part of the ongoing oversight of that housing accelerator policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, my humble question back to my hon. colleague, who I know does a lot of good, important work on housing policy in this place, is about why the Conservative Party would propose to get rid of the supply-side funding that was supporting homebuilding, and has been supporting homebuilding in this country, to fund the GST tax cut. Those two things do not add up, and I know the hon. member knows that the programs need to be in place to drive supply. There was very little in the Conservative platform. Thank goodness Conservatives are not on this side of the House, because it would not have resulted in the types of housing that need to be built in this country. We are going to work with municipalities, and we are going to work with cities.”
“Speaker, you are from Wellington County in Ontario, the supply-managed capital of this country in terms of Ontario. There are lots of supply-managed farmers. Not one single mention in the platform of the Conservative Party actually said that members of the Conservative Party, if they formed government, would protect supply management. If we are going to tie food policy to budgetary policy and policy in this place, I would like to actually see the Conservatives back up some of their words with actual substantive policy in their platform. Maybe for the next election, they will have something a bit more substantive. It is this party, this government, that actually has a plan to support Canadian farmers. I hope I get asked a question on it, because I would love to be able to elaborate.”
“They voted against it. They voted against the Canada child benefit, which helps put nutritious food on the table via extra money for parents. I have heard the stories in my own riding, and other members of Parliament have talked about this. They voted against those measures. It is important to recognize that, as much as I have heard Conservative members stand up and talk about farmers over the last couple of hours in this debate, there was next to nothing in the Conservative election platform for farmers. I had the opportunity to debate the member for Foothills as part of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture debate. The member for Foothills is a great guy and a good parliamentarian. He had nothing to deal with, because Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party had nothing in their platform for farmers. Mr.”
“I look forward to help from the member from Manitoba in support of that. I know there are many members, but I hope the shadow critic for defence is actually pleased today that he is seeing public policy advance in this country about the spending that is necessary to make sure that Canada can have a strong, sovereign and reliable Canadian Armed Forces. We have to be standing here shoulder to shoulder with our Canadian Armed Forces to help support them. The last piece I want to talk about is around the mention of food in the opposition day motion. Food is driven by our farmers in this country. It is driven by our agricultural producers. There are a few things we have to put on the record: The Conservatives voted against the national school food program in the last Parliament, which actually supports children in need in this country.”
“The last thing I want to talk about in the three and a half minutes that I assume I have left, based on my timing, is defence. We hear members opposite on the importance of investing in defence. I want to remind Canadians at home of a few things. When Mr. Harper left office, defence spending under the Conservatives in 2015 had dipped below 1% of GDP. Every single year that the Liberal government was in power from 2015 to 2024, defence spending increased. Of course, that is never recognized on the side opposite, but I will go as far as to say that was the last government under former prime minister Trudeau, notwithstanding that these guys on that side want to pretend that it is the same government, which it is not. The current government is stepping up to meet our 2% spending target by the end of this fiscal year.”
“They have to be of major economic benefit to the country. They have to have the support of indigenous people. They have to be likely to be able to be advanced and to be accomplished. They have to set and establish Canada's autonomy, the ability for these projects to help our sovereignty in this country, especially with what we are seeing around the world. The last piece is that they have to be reconciled with the goals that this government has and our country has in terms of being able to reduce emissions. This is very crucial legislation to make sure that we can advance major projects. It is an initiative of the Prime Minister and the government. It is being introduced very quickly, in fact, within the first two weeks of being back.”
“The Conservatives ran on these same types of policies in their platform. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues opposite about whether they will be stepping up to support the legislation quickly, because time is of the essence. They want to talk about the economy; they want to talk about affordability. They should be stepping up to support the legislation as soon as it gets up for debate here in this place. We also need to build major national projects. This is part of Bill C-5 , which is a commitment to identify projects of major national concern and opportunity, as well as to be able to advance them with the goal of having them permitted within two years. That is extremely important. There are five criteria, five elements, that outline how these projects can ultimately be designated by the Privy Council.”
“There are federal barriers to interprovincial trade, and, of course, there are provincial and territorial barriers to interprovincial trade. The federal portion represents a small magnitude of what is left and remaining, but the government wants to show leadership and make sure that we are stepping up. (1320) As a country, we are leaving approximately 200 billion dollars' worth of economic growth on the table every single year by not being able to remove these interprovincial trade barriers. They have been talked about for decades. Right now, we are in a political moment where I think there is the political wherewithal to actually advance these forward. I give full credit to the Minister of Internal Trade and Transport for her work to be able to advance them. Again, we should not let the legislation languish.”
“They were going to use the supply-side funding, the supports to the municipalities, the supports for infrastructure upgrades in this country and affordable housing, to pay for that tax cut. We think it has to be both at the same time, the affordability measure, while we are also building more houses. On the ways of means motion, we have also eliminated the consumer carbon tax. Again, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have highlighted that this had become a divisive policy in the country. There are ways to be able to fight climate change and reduce emissions in this country that do not involve a consumer carbon price. I do need to talk about Bill C-5 , which is the economic legislation that was tabled in this House on Friday to create one Canadian economy, not 13.”
“I want to differentiate, though, between this side of the House and that side of the House. In our platform, our commitment, we actually proposed to remove the GST and, again, so did the Conservatives. However, the Conservatives proposed to pay for that by actually eliminating the supply side of the program. Not only are we getting rid of the taxation for those first-time homebuyers, but we have programs that are around supply. It is not a great mechanism if the supply side that is about building more homes in this country is actually used to pay for the tax cut that is proposed. That would actually limit the number of Canadians who could benefit, because that would not solve the supply side of the equation. When I looked at the Conservative platform from just over a month ago, this is something that was actually problematic.”
“It is moving quickly to be able to implement that by July 1. We also need to talk about young people in this country and the fact that it is a difficult housing market. We should all acknowledge that, as parliamentarians. The government has already moved to remove the GST, which is the federal tax portion of home sales up to $1 million for first-time homebuyers. I am in my mid-thirties. There are a lot of people in their late twenties, thirties and early forties who are trying to get into the housing market in this country. The government recognizes that. We are removing the GST; again, this is something that was supported by every member in this House on the ways and means motion. It is directly accountable to affordability, and it is a good measure.”
“First of all, the opposition day motion really talks about affordability. I did not hear, in any of the speeches from the opposition members, their support or their acknowledgement of the government's middle-income tax cut, notwithstanding the fact that they actually voted for it just a few days ago on the ways and means motion. This represents up to $840 a year for two-income families in this country. Twenty-two million Canadians will benefit from this policy. We have not heard one word about the work the government has done. I went back and reflected on Hansard this morning. I give full credit to the opposition and, in fact, all of this House, for at least having enough foresight to support this type of measure. However, there is something concrete that this government is doing.”
“We have just gone through a federal election, and the Prime Minister won the referendum in this country about who was best to serve during a very uncertain time. The Canadian people are also the ones who ultimately hold to account all of us here in this place: our constituents. The 343 members of this House are tied directly to a constituency. They are responsible to constituents, to this country and its citizens. Ultimately, the Prime Minister and our members of Parliament are going to be tied on that side. I do think it gives us an opportunity to reflect upon the work of the Prime Minister and the leadership of the Liberal government. We are now in week three of the House returning. It is important to reflect upon what has already been accomplished in two weeks and what is going to be accomplished in the days ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to stand here in this place, particularly on opposition days. I know the member for Winnipeg North enjoys it, and so do I. It is a good opportunity for us on this side of the House to critique and also perhaps to find fallacy in some of the arguments that are being put forward by opposition members. I have had the opportunity to look into the opposition day motion, to read it in great detail and to be able to identify some pieces that I am going to pick up on here today. The first piece that is particularly important is around these words: “the Prime Minister...will be held to account.” That is in the opposition day motion from the Conservative Party. It is important to reflect upon what that actually means.”
“Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Oshawa referenced Mr. Carrie, her predecessor, who helped, in her words, deliver an incredible amount of federal funding to the constituency of Oshawa. I remind her that of course it was our government that helped deliver that funding, whether it was the $259 million into the Oshawa plant on the auto side or the Oshawa port investments. Again, I am looking these up in live time right here. There is also rapid housing. I hope my colleague will continue to be a constructive voice in this House, but will she recognize there has been major federal investment from this Liberal government into Oshawa? I know she will continue to engage constructively with this side of the House so that we can keep doing good things for Oshawa in the days ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Whitby for his speech today, which had lots of passion. What needs to be noted in the Hansard of the debate here is that he is an absolute champion for sustainable finance. He has hosted a number of forums outside Parliament, bringing stakeholders together from across the country. I am interested in his thoughts on that. He mentioned regulatory reform and cutting red tape. I offer an opportunity for him to either address sustainable finance and how the government can continue in this avenue or red tape. Is there a way to blend the two? I hand it over to the member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague to the House. His predecessor, Mr. Lehoux, was a very good member of Parliament. I will work with him to advance agricultural issues in the House. Listening to my colleague's speech, I understood how important the agricultural sector is to Beauce. However, during the election campaign, I was a bit surprised because there was no mention of the importance of supply management in the Conservative platform. There was nothing about the importance of the sector or about concrete initiatives. Will my hon. colleague raise these important issues with Mr. Poilievre and talk to him how important it is for the Conservative Party to make concrete promises for the agricultural sector?”
“member that it was this government that built a pipeline to tidewater. Under Harper, there was no pipeline built. Can we bring this back? Would the member at least recognize that there has been an increase in oil and gas production in this country in the last 10 years? It is important to at least recognize facts and not just conjecture here in the House.”
“Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would share the desire to want to focus on regulatory reform. I would like to hear more from all members on this side of the House on some of those pieces. We have heard a lot about the oil and gas sector. The government is signalling its desire to drive and build big natural energy projects across the country, whether conventional oil and gas or renewable in different types of forms. I want to bring the House back to some air of reality. Perhaps the hon. member did not like some of the ways in which the government did speak about the oil and gas sector, but it is important to recognize that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Reuters both talk about the fact that oil and gas production actually increased over the last 10 years. I will remind the hon.”
“According to the International Energy Agency, oil and gas production has actually increased by 29% in this country over the last 10 years. How does the hon. member stand in this place and suggest that oil and gas has not benefited under this government in terms of oil and production?”