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 3 of 14.
“If the Conservatives would like to say that this is no longer a proper measure for how Canada and elected officials ought to be looking at our fiscal situation and that we need to go further, then we can have that conversation. Maybe the Conservatives would like to take the test pool of countries and go wider, and that is a fair thing for them to do, but we never hear about the fact that we have the best position. We never hear that we have the best net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, the amount of debt that Canada holds as a proportion of our economy. That is fact. We do not hear the members of the Conservative Party talk about that. They can talk about the fact that they would like us to be even stronger, that we should be even better.”
“Over the time they have held that property, its value will usually be greater than the original investment they made. Governments are very similar. Governments are exactly the same when they have to make decisions. They consider whether they are going to take a longer-term view of making an investment that will create long-term economic prosperity. While the Conservatives will stand and talk about so-called reckless spending, and I will get to this a moment, the most important metric is our overall debt with respect to the size of the economy and our propensity to repay. What we never hear is that level of nuance. What we never hear from the opposition benches is that the International Monetary Fund has reaffirmed that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7.”
“Here are some facts. We have heard, even in the opposition day motion, about the idea of a credit card debt dynamic. I do not know about anyone else, but when my wife and I bought our first home in Nova Scotia, we did not have the money to buy it outright. Maybe some members of the House had that ability, had some savings and bought a house outright. We had to borrow to buy an asset that we felt was fundamental. I would argue that when many Canadians buy a home, they do not have the money to buy it outright. What do they do? They borrow the money to build a brighter future for their family, and in many cases that primary residence becomes a retirement fund. When it is time for Canadians to retire, they sell their primary residence.”
“I cannot remember the last time there were actually questions on specific, directed issues that were being asked of government ministers. It is very rare or does not happen. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, I know I am getting a rise out of the opposition because they know it is true. (1525) I hope the leader of the official opposition and the empowered and enlightened members on the other side, including the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan , who has a lot to say and whose questions I look forward to, should have a conversation inside their blue tent and ask if they are doing the best for the people they represent and are asking the hard questions. I think they should be doing a better job of holding the front bench to account by talking about the things that actually matter in their riding. We never hear that.”
“The House leader , in question period earlier today, highlighted that essentially there were 33 questions of the exact same ilk from the opposition benches. There was no deviation from the type of questions. Let me take a moment to say as a parliamentarian, taking my parliamentary secretary hat off for a moment, that I think this is troubling. Yes, there should be a national line of questioning from opposition members. Perhaps the first two or three rounds ought to be about the macroeconomic issues of the day and holding the government to account, of course. However, when do individual members of Parliament from His Majesty's loyal opposition stand up to talk about the issues that might matter in their constituency?”
“The Canada Strong fund will allow Canada to take those equity positions I am talking about, help advance major projects across this country and create long-term benefit for Canadian people. The Prime Minister said that this “will be [the] people's fund.” This is an opportunity to invest in Canadians individually and our country and society as a whole. Of course, the Canada Strong fund is one of the many measures that the government introduced in the spring economic update. I would be remiss if I did not take some time to highlight the connectivity between the Canada Strong fund and the other initiatives we are putting on the table to help make our economy more resilient in the days ahead. First I will give some facts, because we can look at the text of the opposition day motion.”
“I represent Kings—Hants in the Annapolis Valley, the largest agricultural riding in Atlantic Canada, though we may be small potatoes, so to speak, compared to the larger, sometimes prairie-heavy ridings, where we know a lot of the export focus in this country happens. I have enjoyed the working relationship I have with the Premier of Saskatchewan and have spent a lot of time in Western Canada. I believe in what prairie farmers mean to our Canadian economy and identity, and in what they do to feed the world every single day. We are proud of that. We also think about critical minerals. Again, whether seen through a lens of defence or one of clean energy, Canada's critical minerals are going to be what help shape the economy of today and tomorrow. That is what the government is focused on.”
“I have had the opportunity, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister , and as all parliamentarians have, to engage with diplomatic leaders from other countries, including ambassadors and high commissioners who are in Ottawa representing their country. Across the board, when we sit down with diplomatic representatives such as high commissioners or ambassadors, they say that they want more of what Canada has. We can look at what is happening right now in the Middle East, with all the uncertainty created by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Countries want what Canada has from an energy perspective. We are focused on building out Canada's energy sector and being able to get product to international markets. That is one way in which Canada can continue to fuel the world. We talk about agriculture.”
“I point to the examples of perhaps some of the most successful wealth funds in the world: in Norway, the United Arab Emirates or some of the gulf countries. Every single one of those sovereign wealth funds started with the same principles as the Government of Canada is using today. They allocated and put in an initial ability to put money up front, and then they built out their fund as they continued to invest in economic projects around the world. We have a tremendous opportunity to do the same. Canadians watch what the government is seeking to accomplish. We have had the one-year anniversary since the mandate of our new Prime Minister in his seat. We are focused on delivering for Canadians, but it must be said with pride, regardless, so to speak, of the colour of jersey we wear in the House, that Canada has what the world wants.”
“(1520) Of course, as the parameters are established, the fund would allow for Canadians, if they were to pull out their investment from the sovereign wealth fund, to have an interest-bearing benefit in terms of that time. As the sovereign wealth fund grows and the projects bring back economic revenues, this fund that Canadians could draw upon to invest in ourselves and our people is something we could move forward on. It has been interesting to hear the Conservatives take such a narrow and negative view of the benefits of what this type of fund could create. For example, the text of the motion says, “sovereign wealth funds must have wealth that comes from budget surpluses and resource revenues.” We certainly have resource revenues in this country.”
“We believe that the government here in Canada can do the same thing. We believe that we can draw in investments. We believe this Canada sovereign wealth fund can be a mechanism to take small but meaningful equity shares in projects that are going to matter to the country, that are going to create an economic return, and that Canadians themselves can participate in. Canadians can essentially be bondholders. They can take out an equity stake and invest in the Canada sovereign wealth fund themselves. That way, Canadians across this country, from coast to coast, can help build a country that they are proud of. If they have some additional disposable income, they can put it into the sovereign wealth fund.”
“However, if the Canadian government were to invest or be an equity partner in these types of projects that return important revenues and economic benefits, not only for private stakeholders but for the government, there would be an opportunity to grow the wealth that the country has overall. Many Canadians would point to Norway as a prime example, the way Norway has been able to use its natural resource endowments to create a fund that is larger than $1 trillion. I do not have the exact figure, but I know it is north of $1 trillion. That is because the Norwegian government, back in the 1980s, decided that it would be an equity stakeholder in projects of national interest in its country. Now Norwegians, as a country and as a society, have a sovereign wealth fund that is over $1 trillion.”
“Of course, when we invest in projects, for example if we build what Enbridge is committing to do in British Columbia, a $4.4-billion natural gas pipeline, that comes with intrinsic benefits in terms of wages, which would support Canadian households. There is taxation on that, which would then support social programs that the government puts on. We could look at the construction jobs. We could look at the economic imports or perhaps royalties in terms of natural resources that are being developed in Canada. That is a broad macroeconomic benefit that would support the country.”
“I have observed, and I am on the record in my time as a member of Parliament since 2019, that as the government looks to incentivize the private sector to come and spend in the country, as we are putting public money on the table, Canadian parliamentarians on all sides of this House have identified that there is an important mechanism about public interest return. We can become equity stakeholders, and by “we”, I mean the government, as in Canadians. The beneficial economic derivatives of these projects can be used to support social programs and to support the types of national interest projects that we may wish to advance as a country in the days ahead.”
“I will repeat that: The government has an intention of spending and catalyzing private sector investment to $1 trillion. That is a large amount. I dare not doubt that for many people, parliamentarians in this House or Canadians at home, it is hard to understand the quantum of what that is, but that is a large investment in Canada's future. Of course, we have seen that reflected in the government's work to help establish the Major Projects Office, to look at identifying major projects of national interest and look at the work we can do to remove some of the regulatory barriers to be able to streamline processes, get shovels in the ground, draw in global investment and make that happen.”
“I think the role of Canadian parliamentarians is to explain the policy positions and the ways in which we would handle government, and let Canadians decide who they think is best able to handle the current circumstances. This week, the Prime Minister announced the Canada Strong fund. This is Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund. It is an initial allocation of $25 billion from the government. Canadians at home might ask what a sovereign wealth fund means and what is the intention of the government in trying to move forward with this policy initiative. First, I think it is important to understand that the government has an intention of catalyzing a trillion dollars' worth of investment spending in this country over the next five years.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to be able to join this afternoon's debate to talk about the opposition day motion. Those who know me know that, over my seven years of serving as a member of Parliament, I love opposition day motions because it is an opportunity for members on the government side of the House to critique the text and the policy ideas that are being put forward by the opposition members. Of course, today is no exception to that. I want to start by giving an opportunity to Canadians at home to understand what the government announced this week, because it is a core element of what the opposition has put forward. In its view, what we have put forward is not a good policy idea.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, yes. This being the first time I have sat as a member of Parliament where we are actually in a majority situation, I have seen the good work that has happened over minorities. I know that will continue in a majority context. At the end of the day, regardless of the party's standing in the House of Commons, we are here to serve Canadians. There are great ideas on all sides of this House. I have great relationships on all sides. I know we will continue to work collaboratively where it makes sense for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to have 6.2 members per committee. Tradition dictates that the composition of committees reflect that of the House. For example, if the Liberal Party holds a majority of seats here in the House of Commons, then of course it is possible to have a majority vote. Parliamentary committees need to reflect that reality. That is why we need seven Liberal members on each parliamentary committee and not six. That will also enable the Conservatives to maintain the same level of representation at committee.”
“These are major capital expenditures, and we think this is a policy that will help support his communities in the days ahead. I know he will be sharing this with his constituents.”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the banter I have with the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. I will remind the hon. member, first of all, that we do have a trade deal with the United States. It is called CUSMA, and 85% of our products go into the United States tariff-free. We are continuing to make the case to the U.S. administration that we feel section 232 tariffs are unjustified and are against the spirit of that agreement. However, I am glad the member mentioned the immediate expensing for greenhouses. I would suggest to him, humbly, if I look back over time, that this may be one of the most significant federal policies to that member's riding in the sense that Leamington is the heart of the greenhouse sector in North America.”
“The chamber is not always busy, and I am an active member in this place, but it allows for an ability to have more members able to share their piece. The last thing is Private Members' Business. I think we should have a dedicated day for Private Members' Business in the House. Yes, we have hours that are kind of connected throughout the week. I think a larger block of time that could be strictly dedicated to Private Members' Business would be smart. We could make additional amendments. I will leave that for the PROC committee. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.”
“I think that is something we should be introducing into our system. Members do not clap in the Westminster system in London unless it is a real ceremonious occasion. Notwithstanding the fact that I love our Prime Minister and I think he is doing a good job, and I am sure the leader of the official opposition appreciates the clap, I do not think it is needed. I think we could say “hear, hear” and bang the desk a little, but I do not think we need to be clapping. That is actually in the standing orders in the U.K. The last piece is the second chamber. In Westminster, there is a definitive second chamber to allow for specialized debates on topics. MPs can go into a committee room in the Palace of Westminster, where it is on the record. Constituents can actually see those debates.”
“While I am on my feet, I did not have the opportunity to join the debate when there was general debate on the Standing Orders, and I think this is tight enough within Motion No. 9 for me to opine on it. We have an opportunity to revisit some of the Standing Orders in a more expansive way. I take notice the government House leader has done this on committee composition. I would love to see the Speaker or individuals who are in the chair, during question period, for example, have a little more latitude. I see this in the United Kingdom, where there is about three-quarters of a list, so to speak, where government party leaders will be able to put forward suggested names. Of course, there is an idea of when someone might get a question, but then afterward, the Speaker has the ability to catch the eye of any member of Parliament.”
“I would echo some of the comments of the chief government whip, who respectfully challenged the opposition about the fact that there are important conversations inside that party, inside that caucus, about how best to position themselves. I do not think it is lamenting the idea that there have been members of Parliament in that caucus, for whatever reason, whether it is the Prime Minister 's leadership or perhaps leadership issues with the leader of the official opposition , the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who have made those decisions. Those are important conversations that I know my hon. friends on the other side will have so they can do the good work of His Majesty's loyal opposition to hold the government to account. We are obviously here talking about the Standing Orders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for ensuring that more members join us here in the House of Commons to listen to my excellent speech today on Motion No. 9. This is very important, and I appreciate a large crowd being here for me. [ English ] Again, I think that the government is simply exercising the Westminster tradition. I would reject the premise we have heard from the Conservatives about the idea that this is orchestrated. This is members of Parliament going back into their riding with a government with a 70% approval rating among Canadians, saying that this is the type of leadership they want to see.”
“It started with a conversation at Shooters Bar & Grill with the hon. member for Acadie—Annapolis . There have been a number of disparate conversations that Liberal members have had. Again, I think it is a reflection of when members of Parliament go back into their ridings and the Prime Minister and his government have an approval—”
“At the time, it would have been a bill before the 42nd Parliament, I believe, where a number of members of Parliament, some of whom still sit in the House, made their decision about whether to support that bill, which was around putting an automatic by-election if a member of Parliament were to cross the floor. The government whip I thought did a great job highlighting the fact that former prime minister Stephen Harper felt at that time it was not necessary, that this was not a major public policy concern in our system. I would agree to this day that this still, as I have already asserted, should be the role of a member of Parliament, and I know no one takes those decisions lightly. The Conservatives have kind of talked about this idea of backroom deals. I can be a prime example.”
“[ Translation ] There were three by-elections: in Terrebonne, University—Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest. All three resulted in the election of new members of the House, who are here with us today. They were sworn in this morning. This is a positive result for us, and I would like to welcome my new colleagues. The government has outlined the privileges available to the Liberal caucus for amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. [ English ] It is instructive as well that the government whip took us down a bit of a path of history about Bill C-306 .”
“If we are going to get into a situation where we are going to take away the inherent right for members of Parliament to choose their party affiliation, we are consolidating even more a leader's prerogative with particular political parties. I think MPs should have the ability to make their own judgment and their own calculation. These decisions do not come easily, and they are relatively rare. In fact, with respect to what we have seen in Canadian history, this is quite unique, but it is a moment when I think the Prime Minister is governing a big-tent coalition. That is evidenced by the fact that members of Parliament who have previously been affiliated with the NDP or with the Conservative Party have made the choice to join the Liberal Party under his leadership.”
“[ English ] The proof is in the pudding. We have talked about the fact there is a long-standing tradition that in Canada, and frankly in any jurisdiction where there is a Westminster style of government or Parliament, voters elect members of Parliament. I have heard a lot of narrative from the Conservatives about how Canadians elected a minority Parliament. Yes, with the 343 members of Parliament at the time, that was the case. However, members of Parliament have always had the ability to determine where they are best placed in the composition of the House. I think that is important. We have had a lot of conversations about the role of party leaders and party discipline in the country.”
“9 put forward by the government House leader seeks to accomplish: to change the Standing Orders. How did we get here? I think that is important. Right now, the Prime Minister is governing the country in a very difficult and uncertain world. (1855) [ Translation ] When I talk with my constituents, I find that they have many concerns about world events: the war in the Middle East, issues related to free trade between Canada and the United States and the relationship between our two countries in general, as well as the importance of fostering economic growth here in Canada. However, for most of my constituents, and I say this to all my colleagues, the Prime Minister and his government are positioned in the centre of the ideological spectrum, and Canadians, in general, are encouraged by the government's current performance.”
“Mr. Speaker, greetings to all my colleagues. I am pleased to rise today to speak to and debate Motion No. 9, which seeks to make changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons now that the Liberal Party has the majority of the seats in the House of Commons because some members changed their party affiliation and because of the three victories our party secured in the by-elections. The Westminster parliamentary tradition is absolutely clear. The composition of parliamentary committees must reflect the number of seats that the different parties hold in the House of Commons. Therefore, with 174 seats, the Liberal Party now holds a clear majority. We have four more seats than all the opposition parties combined. [ English ] It is important to recognize that there is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, which is what Motion No.”
“Mr. Speaker, that member may not know that the International Monetary Fund has actually reaffirmed that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We actually have the second fastest growing economy in the G7. As it relates to the tough decisions government has taken, we have a comprehensive expenditure review that is going to save taxpayers $40 billion over the next five years. As it relates to spending, part of the large portion of our spending has actually been on the Canadian Armed Forces. I thought the Conservatives used to stand for investing in the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces. We will stand by them every single day.”
“Mr. Speaker, we already have a trade deal with the United States. It is called CUSMA, and we are going through the review process. We understand the challenge to Canadian workers and to Canadian industry. As the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister have made very clear, we are at the table. We are having conversations with the U.S. administration. We are engaging. The Conservatives have made very clear, and the Prime Minister has made very clear, that we are not going to settle for a bad deal. In the interim, we are supporting industries and supporting workers who are being impacted by the tariffs, which we feel are unjustified. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives. I will take Canadians back to 2018 when they would have had us fold before we got the best deal for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague did not hear the Minister of Finance this morning highlight the fact that the International Monetary Fund has reaffirmed that Canada has the best debt position in the G7 and that we have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7. The member asked for the government to be able to make tough choices. Our comprehensive expenditure review is going to save the taxpayers of this country $40 billion, but some of the spending we are doing is about supporting the Canadian Armed Forces. Is the member suggesting we should not spend $60 billion to support our men and women in uniform? Is that the position of the Conservative Party?”
“There is a piece in the bill around putting in stronger provisions, particularly in a world where there is a rise of disinformation online and how that can be accelerated by artificial intelligence. The parliamentary secretary can decide which of the three he wants to raise, but I would like his thoughts on one of those three subjects.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in Bill C-25 that I think are important and supportive. I am feeling charitable this morning, so I am going to mention three different areas and will let the parliamentary secretary decide where he might want to respond. First, I think it is important that Bill C-25 would extend some of the foreign interference provisions into nominations and into leadership contests. Second, I like the provisions around political financing and walking a balance with regard to transparency, and also the idea that sometimes advance notice has drawn in a whole host of protest, I think unfairly disallowing Canadians from participating in political financing in a way that should be supported. The last piece is around artificial intelligence.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know the importance of the U.S. market and the importance of that continued engagement. This member is from Leamington. I am wondering if he has told his constituents about what was in budget 2025, where the Minister of Finance provided immediate expensing for greenhouse infrastructure in this country. We see that Leamington area as an asset for greenhouses. I have not heard the member stand up and talk about how important that is. However, as much as I respect that hon. member, the Conservatives had nothing for farmers in this country. They had nothing in their platform, especially nothing for farmers in southwestern Ontario.”
“I hope that has made his householder because I can almost promise he is not sharing the good news that this government is actually fighting for workers every single day.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister , along with the Minister for Canada-U.S. Relations, continues to have dialogue with the U.S. administration. We will continue to be there to support Canadian workers who are being impacted by unjustified and illegal tariffs and we are having a conversation about the best pathway forward. If that hon. member would suggest that we should have just thrown the cards on the table and gotten a bad deal, we do not agree. We are going to stand up for Canadian workers. We are going to stand up for workers in Windsor. By the way, I hope the member is highlighting the fact of immediate expensing for greenhouse infrastructure. That is important in the Windsor and Leamington area.”
“The Valley Wild finished the Atlantics with a dominating 18 goals for and only three goals against. I find it impressive that the top male and female hockey teams at the under-13 level are from Nova Scotia. I congratulate all the players, coaches and family members on a tremendous season that will not be soon forgotten.”
“Mr. Speaker, April is playoff hockey season, and it was great to see the Montreal Canadiens get off to a great start last night. Closer to home, I want to recognize the tremendous success of two under-13 AAA hockey teams from the Annapolis Valley. The Valley Wild female under-13 and the Valley Jets male under-13 both won their respective provincial championships, earning them the right to represent Nova Scotia at the Atlantic championships this past weekend. In Halifax, the Jets went 3-1 in round robin play, narrowly missing the gold medal game, but edged the Kings County Kings from P.E.I. to earn the Atlantic bronze. In Cape Breton, at the Kehoe Forum, dedicated to girls' hockey, the Valley Wild went 5-0, beating Pownal 3-0 in the final to win the Atlantic championship.”
“Beyond the provisions of what is in the act, what are the member's thoughts or commentary on whether he has picked up on the same thing and has started to see a rise in certain actors, perhaps trying to manipulate at a local level, what is and what is not true?”
“Mr. Speaker, during the last election, I noticed this increasingly, with the way in which political commentary is happening online, on social media, Facebook, Instagram and a whole host of different mechanisms, including TikTok in some cases. We see the rise of artificial intelligence in society writ large. AI can have the benefit of creating good in the world, but if wrong actors are trying to misinform the public about what is and is not true, it can also have the ability to deliberately sway or have an impact on elections. There is a provision about creating an offence for digital impersonations and provisions for AI deepfakes. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts about this.”
“I have seen increasing activism around that, particularly around the idea that political parties have to give five days' notice of the location of these public events. I wonder if the member would agree that it is a reasonable step to protect participation and try to avoid the manifestation of unreasonable protests with transparency still in place.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told the House he is 39 years old. Based on my math, with 20 years in public service, that is more than half a lifetime already. I congratulate him on the work that he has done both here in the House of Commons and in municipal forums as well. I agree with a lot of what the member talked about, particularly the work in this bill on extending foreign interference concerns into nominations and leadership, where the Elections Act had previously not been, and some of the work on returning officers and their privacy. Political fundraising is an important aspect of democracy as well, so all parties have the resources to be able to contribute in this place. Whether it is in Kings—Hants or elsewhere in the country, people want to step up, and sometimes they want to be involved with registered events.”
“Is it to spend more money in terms of taxpayers' dollars and subsidies to get to the same outcome? Is that what he is saying?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is great. I enjoy being here. I love engaging with my Conservative colleagues. What I just heard from the hon. member on the question I asked was that he essentially talked about biofuel policy, and I have not heard the Conservatives talk about that. We obviously have a biofuel policy. It is around the clean fuel regulations. In fact, when I go to Calgary or Saskatchewan and talk to people across this country, such as the Grain Farmers of Ontario I just talked to, they say we need the clean fuel regulations because they are an important driver for farm gate revenue in those spaces. What I heard the member talk about is biofuel, mentioning the U.S. I guess he is getting down the line of spending more public money, because we can either regulate it or cap it. Where is the Conservative policy?”
“If not, is their plan to do what was actually proposed in the platform of April 2025, which was to spend billions upon billions of dollars, which is ultimately a cost to the taxpayer and has an impact on constituents in my riding and his? What is it? Can he flesh out a little where the Conservatives actually stand in this area?”