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 6 of 14.
“I do not think this is the most important thing happening in the country, but we will get into that. What are individuals entitled to? Let us say that a member has a constituent in their riding, someone who has arrived in Canada from a country and decided to claim asylum. There is an entitled process where they have an ability to have their case heard. Individuals who register for asylum are, in many cases, vulnerable individuals. I will get to the point that the Conservatives are trying to raise, which is about the idea of illegitimate claims. However, we have to, and ought to, as Canadians, think about individuals who are vulnerable, and we should have a system that allows them due process. Once an individual registers for asylum, what happens in this country is that they are entitled to have a work permit and basic medical benefits.”
“Still, the principle we have is that individuals are entitled to a process. I think that is really important when we talk about how the Conservatives have framed this opposition day motion. The last colleague who spoke in this House talked about individuals who are criminals. I have heard the word “terrorist” brought around in the House. There is not a single member of Parliament in this House who would support the proposition that individuals who have a criminal record ought to be able to stay in the country, and that is not, in fact, what happens. However, the Conservatives have tried to narrow in on an issue that we will see a whole bunch about on social media, with no context, to, frankly, gaslight Canadians and try to create these types of issues.”
“Individuals who arrive in Canada are entitled to a process to claim asylum based on the concept that their return and that of their family back to their country of origin could create a situation that could put their lives or their health in jeopardy, or they could be politically prosecuted. There is an entire process that Canada has established. It is something Canadians should be proud of. We are a country that has welcomed individuals from all around the world. It is part of the cultural mosaic and the fabric of this country. We have a process for it. There is a process independent of the government that assesses the claims, their quality and whether there is enough rigour. Someone simply does not get the benefit of staying in this country if their claim for asylum is not ultimately accepted.”
“relations, the Olympics, our athletes, food security and affordability, there are a lot of places where we could be spending our time in Parliament, and this is what we have today. It is important for Canadians to understand what exactly individuals are entitled to. We have heard a lot of debate today in the House. I want to zero in on facts. Of course, Canada has a long history of being a country that is welcoming and compassionate but at the same time principled about how support is given to individuals who may find their way to our shores and how we assess their claims.”
“(1610) [ English ] Today is about the desire of the Conservatives to eliminate the interim federal health program for vulnerable asylum claimants in the country. I was trying to express in French that there is a lot going on in the world. We did not hear questions today from the Conservatives, in question period, on Ukraine. There is important context to what is going on. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot once called Ukraine a faraway land, and I think all of this bleeds into the question about the seriousness of the types of questions that the Conservative Party puts before the House, in terms of what we are looking at. Again, when we think about the economy, foreign affairs, Canada-U.S.”
“We are fully behind Ukraine. I am proud of all my colleagues who have spoken to this issue today. With that in mind, I find the motion introduced by the Conservatives today very strange. It is not crazy, but it is strange, in my view. It is unbelievable, given the numerous challenges around the world. Examples include the situation in the Middle East, the situation in Ukraine, and the talks between Canada and the U.S. For example, they could have raised the issue of our Olympic athletes or made statements about them. Today, although Ukraine is a very important topic, none of the questions raised by Conservative members during oral question period touched on that country. The Conservatives have not brought a motion on how important it is for the Government of Canada to continue supporting our allies at this time.”
“Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to be here today to discuss and debate a Conservative opposition day motion. I would like to point out that today is the fourth anniversary of Russia's unjustified and illegal invasion of Ukraine. I would like to add my voice and that of my constituents in Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia, and my colleagues on this subject. Obviously, we are extremely proud of all the people of Ukraine for their efforts to defend their territory, sovereignty and freedom from Russian forces. I believe this is important for Canadians. I believe that while most Canadians understand the situation, it is not only a matter of Russia and Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are fighting for their sovereignty and their freedom, but also for us, for international rules, for NATO, and for power in an extremely uncertain world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully encourage my colleague opposite, if we want to maintain a place in Parliament to continue to provide compassionate and welcoming places here in Canada, to not put opposition motions on the floor concerning something that is 0.00004% of the entire expenditure of the Government of Canada in any given year, and that is for legitimate asylum claims. They like to stand up and make the suggestion that individuals who have been convicted of crimes are also benefiting from this policy. That is simply not true. Why is she against individuals like the Ukrainian asylum claimants who are here? We just celebrated and recognized the contribution of Ukraine. We have vulnerable individuals. Why is she against them having due process in our asylum system and having basic coverage?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to listen to the Conservatives talk about Canadian farmers and agri-food businesses, when they had their chance in April 2025 and had absolutely nothing in their platform for Canadian farmers or agri-food businesses. We know the price of food is a major issue in this country. That is why we have introduced the groceries and essentials rebate; 12.6 million Canadians will benefit, with up to $1,900 a year. We are also introducing the national food security strategy. This is an opportunity to look at the systemic aspects of food: what we can do to help support farmers and agri-food businesses. It will not be cutting the industrial carbon price; that is not a real plan.”
“She led several key organizations supporting the African Nova Scotian community, including the Black Cultural Society, the Black Business Initiative and the Valley African Nova Scotia Development Association, VANSDA. For her public service, Geraldine was awarded the Order of Nova Scotia, an honorary doctorate degree from Acadia University and the Queen's diamond and platinum jubilee medals. Geraldine made a difference in this world and will be dearly missed. I extend my condolences to Geraldine's family and the broader community on her passing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Dr. Geraldine Browning, a prominent and beloved member of our community in Kings—Hants, who passed away on December 31, 2025. Born and raised in the historic African Nova Scotian community of East Preston, Geraldine began her career in nursing in Montreal before meeting her husband, Orval. Together they raised nine children and lived a military life before moving to and building a house in Gibson Woods. Faith was a cornerstone of Geraldine's life, and Sundays at the Browning household were spent at the United Baptist Church, where she was a prominent member of the congregation. Despite living a busy life, Geraldine consistently gave back to her community.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her remarks today. She is part of a group within the Liberal caucus that is focused on the questions of immigration, refugee status and the work the government has to do to both create a better system and make sure that Canada continues to have a pathway to compassionate admittance into the country. Obviously, today we are talking about an opposition day motion. However, I would invite the member to share anything else that she believes is important vis-à-vis the government's next steps in relation to immigration writ large. I think she would have a lot to share with the House beyond the opposition day motion and I invite her to share that.”
“Mr. Speaker, 30 seconds does not give justice to this question. Let me do a quick pivot. The member is right that there are important investments in the budget around agri-food processing, but I would like to compliment her on the work she did with this government to remove Chinese tariffs on Canadian lobster. She represents one of the largest fishing ridings in the country, frankly, but certainly in Atlantic Canada. Her effort helped to accomplish that. The member needs to make sure that she is reinforcing that. We are proud of the work our Canadian fishers and our lobster fishers do. She has been a big part of that effort.”
“Mr. Speaker, since the question was substantial, I will respond in English. That way, I can give a complete answer. [ English ] It is extremely important. I would agree with my hon. colleague that the Conservative proposition before the House eliminates any elements of environmental policy in this country. I think it would accomplish very little in relation to what they are suggesting the results would be. This government has shown a pragmatic willingness to tackle the issues of affordability and to build major national projects. The view of our Prime Minister and the government is that the way we are going to be able to tackle the environment is by drawing in major investments. That is what we are focused on: drawing major investments, which will increase national energy security and reduce emissions at the same time.”
“We do not hear about industrial carbon pricing from farmers in the dairy sector; it is more about whether or not the member for Battle River—Crowfoot will actually stand up and support dairy farmers when it counts.”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed being in the member's riding before Christmas. I had the opportunity to visit with a number of stakeholders, including in Gros Morne and with mayors. I know the member will endeavour to make sure that she is engaging with local stakeholders, because they have not had the chance to actually see her in the time since she was elected as a member of Parliament. I will say, though, that I hope the member will share the important investment we made in tourism in western Newfoundland. On housing, I will remind her that the Curling investment is extremely important for the city of Corner Brook. On dairy farms, the number one concern was that the Conservatives are not actually sincere about protecting the integrity of supply management.”
“I hope Conservative members are at least acknowledging this in their riding, making sure that their stakeholders know about these investments. This is going to be an important measure for competitiveness. The last thing is regulatory reform. I introduced a bill in the last Parliament, Bill C-359 , which was about using the science and evidence of other jurisdictions around farm inputs. We can think about crop protection products, feed additives and vaccines. We have some work to do. The Minister of Health has been dialed in on this question. This is important for reducing costs on farms and the overall cost portfolio in the industry. All of those things will have benefits. I wish I had more time, but those are some of the ideas I put on the floor today.”
“I would like to note that on the cattle industry side, I believe there is an opportunity to create equity in terms of how we finance these risk management tools. Crop insurance has more contribution than the livestock index amount, which is something we could work on. In my last 90 seconds, I would like to talk about two things. One is controlled environment agriculture. I offered a question to my hon. colleague from Windsor West about the importance of the immediate expensing of greenhouses. We have a competitive advantage in this country around greenhouses in the Leamington area in southwestern Ontario. There is a great opportunity to continue to build upon this with the government's announcement in this domain.”
“The Conservatives have said nothing about business risk management tools. It was actually the Harper government that cut these tools quite significantly, walking back the compensation amount and walking back the trigger before farmers could benefit under AgriStability. Our government has consistently brought back the BRM tools to a greater extent. I am proud of the work we have done in this last programming year to increase the compensation amount. We have moved the $3-million cap up to $6 million. We have reduced and eliminated the reference margin limits. There is more work that can be done, and I think there is also an opportunity to bring in private sector insurance to complement the BRM programs, which are provincial and federal cost-share programs.”
“These workers are extremely important to our food security in this country. They do incredible work. There is a requirement for our farmers to have housing in place. I believe it is important, because right now, the CRA does not actually determine that housing is a foundational piece of the farm business. Therefore, although farmers can reduce the capital costs of building or repairing homes for workers over the lifetime of that home, with an HST input tax credit they would be able to reclaim that cost up front early, perhaps in year one or two, which is important for cash flow. We should have that type of measure. It is something I have spoken about with the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association and Horticulture Nova Scotia. It is something I hope the Minister of Finance will consider.”
“On agricultural land trusts, there is a lot of good work happening across this country to identify agricultural land, put it into a trust and make sure that it continues to remain available for farming. That is important, not only in Ontario but across the country, so that young farmers can access and buy land at a price that is comparable to the yields and the return going in. There is a lot of speculation happening in this country around the price of land. That is something we could do to reduce the cost of farming, and we should be taking it up more earnestly. I am a big proponent of an HST input tax credit for farm housing. I represent Kings—Hants. We welcome somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 international farm workers coming to the Annapolis Valley, particularly in the fruit-growing and horticulture sectors.”
“I would submit to the House that on the cost of capital associated with paying out the retiring farmer, the math on the economic margin in many commodity groups has represented a real challenge in finding access to capital. Even if a young farmer has the opportunity to access the capital, debt management has become a real challenge in terms of that debt cost, where the capital has become quite significant over the last number of decades. It is incumbent on the Government of Canada, along with the provincial governments, and maybe the FCC and the private banks, to identify a financial mechanism whereby we can help smooth the transactional costs. That is an important measure that I would like to see.”
“We have not heard a whole lot in the House, particularly from the opposition, about the opportunity this represents for the agri-food supply chain and farmers across the country. I am going to put a few thoughts on the table in the time I have remaining, which is about five or six minutes. (1215) When we think about this policy, there are three angles, if we are going to be comprehensive about it. We have to think about the farm gate, our supply chain and agri-food processing, and short-term income measures along with procurement and public initiatives that can help drive demand and support regional processing across the country. First, there is a national youth strategy to get young farmers into the profession.”
“The Canola Council of Canada and the Canadian Canola Growers Association consistently highlight that this is an important policy for demand-side signalling. It also reduces emissions and is good for investments, which we are seeing across rural Canada. Again, the fact that this is not going to demonstrably reduce or stabilize food prices makes it a complete and utter failure of a policy suggestion from the Conservatives. We agree on the continued need to work on competition reform in the country. I would highlight to members and to Canadians that this work has begun. I agree with my opposition colleagues that if we want to move, we need to move quicker. I agree on that dynamic. The government has announced a national food security strategy.”
“It is embarrassing for a party that represents so many people. Farmers across this country should know that the Conservatives had nothing to say about them in the referendum we had in April on who was the best to govern this country. What about the clean fuel standards? My colleague earlier mentioned that this is a similar policy to when we took lead out of fuel, yet the Conservatives are suggesting that we should walk it back. This is the continuation of the clean fuel standard and being able to have measures to help reduce the carbon intensity in our fuels. It is a policy that has very good impacts in rural Canada. A biofuel policy is important for farmers in western Canada. The member across the way continues to suggest that this is a bad policy. He should go and talk to farmers in his own constituency.”
“I would make the connection that there is a fallacy in the way in which the Conservatives are tying the industrial carbon price to food price affordability. In fact, the Canadian Climate Institute says there is a negligible impact in tying industrial carbon pricing to the price of food, so the Conservatives want to throw out one of the most effective climate policies we have to reduce emissions to perhaps get a negligible impact on the price of food. That is important to recognize. I have said repeatedly in the House that the Conservatives had absolutely nothing in their entire platform for farmers. The member who is heckling me from across the way ran on a platform with nothing for farmers. In fact, when they stand up in question period and mention farmers twice, that is two times more than they did in their entire platform.”
“Now they say, “Let us get rid of the industrial carbon price.” The industrial carbon price is recognized by economists, Conservative governments and, frankly, a wide political spectrum as being the most effective way to reduce emissions in the country and globally. Conservative governments in western Canada were some of the first in the country to introduce industrial carbon pricing. Now the Conservatives would have us believe that just getting rid of that policy is going to solve the challenges that exist in the global supply chain and here in this country. That is a fallacy, and I look forward to talking about that. I want to highlight a few things. In 2007, Alberta was one of the first governments to introduce an industrial carbon price in the country. It is a policy that is still supported by Premier Danielle Smith.”
“I worry that the proposed measures from the policy shop of the Conservative Party are not going to get us to the tangible goal we need to meet, which is stabilizing food prices and perhaps even lowering them, where applicable, in our global supply chain. I want to start with industrial carbon pricing. The Conservatives, in the last Parliament, made the case that the consumer carbon price was the ill and that it was causing all affordability challenges in the country. I agreed with the Conservatives on the applicability of how the carbon rebate was structured in rural Canada, but not that it was the ill of all challenges facing Canadians. Now we are in the 45th Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Conservatives stood up and said that if we listened to them and got rid of the consumer carbon price, everything would be fixed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche this afternoon. I rise today to speak to the opposition day motion on food affordability. I believe that if we were to ask every member of Parliament in this place, they would agree that there is work to be done to address this particular challenge, there are initiatives that have to be introduced to support some of our most vulnerable Canadian citizens and there is work we can do across the supply chain to be able to tackle this persistent issue. However, I think there are differing viewpoints about how best to get there. When I take a look at the opposition day motion put forward today by the Conservative Party, what I worry about is that it fails to recognize the nuance of the situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the Conservatives finally starting to talk about farmers. The member ran on a platform that had absolutely nothing for farmers, notwithstanding he is in southwestern Ontario in the areas around Leamington and Chatham-Kent. I just listened to his 10-minute speech. There was not one, single measure about business risk management, and nothing about controlled environment agriculture or helping to get young farmers into the industry. The Conservatives talk about industrial carbon pricing, which is going to have a negligible impact on the price of food. They do not have a concrete plan. Is the hon. member sharing, in his own riding, the government's intention to immediately expense greenhouses? There are 4,000 acres of greenhouses in southwestern Ontario and Leamington, all around Windsor West.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a great idea for the member opposite. This government has put a series of measures in place to help support young Canadians getting into their first home and to be able to build more housing supply in this country, whether it is Build Canada Homes or removing the GST up to $50,000 for new homebuyers buying their first home. The Conservatives obstruct at every single pass. The member has to go back and answer to his constituents for why Conservatives are standing in the way of the progress this government is seeking to advance. There are important measures in Bill C-15 . They should get on board and actually be a part of the solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about initiatives that the government has put forward in the budget through the budget implementation act, Bill C-15 , which is before members at the moment. One thing the member knows the importance of is international trade, so I was surprised that when I looked through the opposition day motion today there was not a single mention of diversifying trade markets and Canada's place in doing exactly what he talked about, fuelling and feeding the world. The member represents Portage—Lisgar, and I had the opportunity to have a quick look. Over 5,000 of his constituents, according to the 2021 census, are involved in the agricultural industry. Peas, oil seeds and beef are major elements of the regional economy that he represents. We were just in China. We established a trade arrangement.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and for speaking English. I congratulate him on that. I have a fairly simple question. If this motion is so important to the Conservatives, and if they believe it is important to Canada, why not introduce a bill? If the Conservatives want to promote certain priorities, they can introduce a bill, not just a motion on an opposition day. Furthermore, why is there no mention of the importance of our farmers or of defence in general? Sovereignty is closely tied to the importance of investing in the Canadian Armed Forces. There is no mention of the importance of artificial intelligence, either. Many elements of economic sovereignty are missing from this motion. Why do the Conservatives not introduce a bill?”
“However, I have highlighted a number of areas in which the Conservatives have not been thoughtful with respect to their policies today. There is nothing on trade diversification, nothing on the future of artificial intelligence and what it means, nothing on hard defence in terms of investments in the Canadian Armed Forces and where they stand on that policy, and nothing as it relates to some of the actual concrete investments in farmers. Again, the Conservatives like to mention farmers, but there has not been really concrete policy about what they would do for Canada's farmers. We have a plan for that. That matters for folks in Kings—Hants. The last thing I will say is what we have introduced: a national food security strategy, which I look forward to talking about later—”
“Madam Speaker, I would go back to where I started in my remarks in the speech. It is not an actual piece of legislation. We have heard Conservative members reference the Canada sovereignty act. As far as I know, and I would have to check with the table officers, there has not actually been a piece of legislation tabled before this place. The Conservatives have simply put principles on a piece of paper and suggested that the government should introduce that. I have hopefully reminded Canadians at home and my own fellow parliamentarians that we have the measures the Conservatives are talking about around reducing red tape, advancing major national projects and focusing on economic resiliency. That is in the budget implementation act.”
“People in Kings—Hants increasingly want to see a party and the type of politics that are about bringing people together, about finding solutions and about being reasonable and nuanced in our public policy, but increasingly what I see from the leadership of the Conservative Party, if not the backbench of the Conservative Party, is not a really nuanced and thoughtful approach. If they are serious about winning back ridings like Kings—Hants, they should actually try to find a way to be that way. If they want to continue down this path, it would be very beneficial for me and the Liberal Party to continue to hold the seats like Kings—Hants, because people expect moderation, not extremes, in their politics.”
“Madam Speaker, the good people of Kings—Hants, for about 72 of 78 years, voted for Progressive Conservatives. It was a consistently blue riding, but it was a riding that was a moderate Progressive Conservative riding, and that tradition still continues. I identify as a blue Liberal. I identify as a business Liberal, and my constituents increasingly say that they do not recognize the type of party and the politics we are seeing from the federal Conservatives. We will take ideas from all sides of the House. There are hon. members on the other side who I think contribute to the debate in this place in a responsible and reasonable manner. However, this will be an interesting week for the leader of the official opposition in terms of the membership voting in Calgary about what type of mandate they may give him moving forward.”
“I am sure the member's own constituents would, in a very sensitive environmental area on Vancouver Island, come to her expecting a balance regarding how we drive this forward. Why does she not see the benefit in that? She represents those stakeholder whose interests I expect she would see in this government proposal.”
“Madam Speaker, the member represents a riding on Vancouver Island. My question to her and her constituents is whether they would like to see a thoughtful approach to resource development. I can probably assure her that if I went to her riding, her constituents would expect that, yes, we are moving forward on important resource development in this country, but we are being smart about what it means for B.C. coastal communities. We are being smart in terms of engaging with indigenous first nations. There is not a single word about that in the Conservative proposal before the House today. We are willing to take smart ideas from the Conservatives when they have them, but we have legislation before us that would drive projects of national significance and balance the natural resource development this government believes needs to happen.”
“We have an MOU with Alberta to focus on driving natural resource development and working on reducing red tape. This would also make sure that these are done in conjunction with indigenous people, that we have commitments around industrial carbon pricing to reduce emissions and that we have a competitive lens in terms of what we are doing. There is no mention of artificial intelligence. Again, we want to talk about what is going to be revolutionary in the global economy. The expectation is that, by 2035, artificial intelligence will contribute $15.7 trillion to the global economy. There is not a single mention in the Conservatives' economic plan about how the government harnesses that opportunity.”
“There are a lot of very important measures there, including what is called the superdeduction. This is around businesses being able to expense capital expenditures in a year as opposed to multiple years, which is an important tax measure to drive productivity. We are focused on putting the lowest marginal effective tax rate in the G7 into place. This is all residing in legislation that is before the House. (1525) The Conservatives and, frankly, all members on the opposition side have to ask themselves why they are slowing down this progress when the government has measures to drive the economy forward and do some of the things the Conservatives, among the few elements they have, would agree with the government on. Let us get to it. Let us move forward and focus on that. I will finish with this.”
“The members of Parliament who represent these areas in western provinces and who are actively arguing against policies that support their own communities have to ask themselves why they are doing this. Why are they acting against the interests of their farmers and their own communities when this is an environmental policy that actually benefits rural Canada? This is what I find perplexing. However, I do have some good news for my Conservative colleagues. On the elements they are talking about around reducing red tape, fast-tracking national projects and focusing on building a resilient Canadian economy focused on tools to drive additional investment in this country, we have a plan for that. In fact, it is before the House. It is called the budget, Bill C-15 , which is the budget implementation act.”
“I would like to highlight the $224,000 that the government is supporting the Nova Scotia fruit growers with to help establish markets around the world. This is but some examples of what we are doing to work concretely. In addition to what I just talked about around the trade arrangement with China, it is absolutely fundamental to Canadian farmers. Conservatives love to beat their chests on this, but there is not a whole lot of actual pen to paper about what their policies would be. Rather, they continue to talk about any type of environmental policy as just being problematic in the country instead of highlighting, for example, what the Minister of the Environment did in question period around the biofuel policy in this country actually being good for Canadian canola farmers.”
“The member for Battle River—Crowfoot has not done his work. However, let us talk about farmers. We heard a lot of questions in the House about farmers, but I am going to remind my hon. colleagues from the opposition that they had their moment in April to talk about farmers. In fact, the hon. member from Kelowna mentioned farmers three times in a question. That is three times more than what the Conservatives had in their own platform in April. They had an opportunity to concretely put forward what their vision was for farmers in this country, and there has not been a single word. I will remind farmers in Kings—Hants and farmers across this country that the Liberal platform was comprehensive. We included measures around increasing business risk management tools such as AgriMarketing, for example.”
“They do not really want to talk about how important that is to the five billion dollars' worth of export markets for Canadian farmers, particularly for canola in the prairie provinces, for the re-establishment of beef market access and for Canadian farmers to export their peas, which is almost $600 million a year to the Chinese market. In fact, I asked Conservative members earlier today whether they even support the government's work to remove those tariffs. There was no response. They are not making clear what their position is. Our position is very clear. Part of our economic sovereignty in this country has to be to diversify our trading relationships. That is what we are doing. There is not a single word about this in the Conservative opposition day motion. Again, it is not a bill before the House but a few lines on a piece of paper.”
“Notwithstanding it is a country that we have not always had agreement with fully, the government believes we have to focus on the pragmatic and co-operative elements of enhancing our trade relationships. We were also in China in the new year to establish a trade arrangement. This is not a free trade agreement, of course not, but it is to resolve existing tariffs to make sure Canadian farmers and seafood harvesters in Atlantic Canada have access to that market. There has not been a single word from the Conservatives about that this week.”
“administration, in order to make sure we can secure a continental economic free trade agreement. Make no mistake that Canadians elected this government to build trade relationships around the world, and that is what the Prime Minister and his ministry have been doing. Our Liberal team has been building trade relationships around the world. I can point to the United Arab Emirates and 70 billion dollars' worth of a sovereign wealth fund that is going to be focused on investing here in Canada. I keep referencing my hon. colleague behind me, but she has ties to Nova Scotia. She is heading to India in a few weeks, which is one of the largest consumer markets in the world. It is a democracy.”
“member for Acadie—Annapolis and I are working with the Minister of National Defence on identifying additional housing in the Annapolis Valley. We think this is important not only for our Canadian Armed Forces members but also the broader community in the Annapolis Valley. It is something we will have more to say on. How about trade diversification? Again, the Minister of International Trade , the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the entire government have had a deep focus on building international trade. There is not one single mention of this in the Conservative opposition day motion. We recognize fully that the partnership we have established with the United States, with the economic co-operation we have had for many decades, has been beneficial to both countries. We will continue in earnest to make that case to the U.S.”
“colleague from Oakville East grew up in Kentville, but she also spent time at 14 Wing Greenwood. I know she would agree with me that when we think about the men and women who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces, in the Royal Canadian Air Force, those investments that matter for our men and women in uniform are absolutely crucial. There is not one mention in the Conservative opposition day motion about the importance of defence as part of our economic sovereignty. (1520) That is a blatant error that the Conservatives have not really thought through. It is something that we have moved on. We are increasing long-overdue pay increases for the Canadian Armed Forces. This matters at Aldershot; it matters at 14 Wing Greenwood. The hon.”
“There are areas where I will give them some credit and some areas where they are just blatantly missing very important elements. First of all, I think many Canadians would agree that in this environment, economic sovereignty is absolutely connected to defence and defence sovereignty. I have behind me the former minister of defence, the current Minister of Global Affairs . She would tell the House, having been experienced in that role, that we absolutely have to invest in the Canadian Armed Forces. She was a great champion in her time on that portfolio. She continues to support the Minister of National Defence and is continuing to do that work globally today. This is exactly why we are spending $81 billion over the next five years to rebuild our Canadian Armed Forces. My hon.”