Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 159
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here while you are presiding over this meeting. I want to thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak today about the government's plans in this area.
With respect to the suggestion on how savings from changes to the tax system could be used, I am pleased to talk about the government's commitment to strengthen health care for Canadians.
The mandate letter of the Minister of Health includes a commitment to support Parliament in studying the issue of dental care so that we can better understand what the government's role may be in helping to improve access to dental care in Canada. This debate provides an opportunity for members of Parliament to share their views on this issue.
Across the country, many Canadians have coverage for dental care through private employee health benefit plans, while many are supported by government programs. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, $15.5 billion was spent on dental services in Canada in 2017. Of this, 54% was covered through private insurance plans, 40% was paid out of pocket and 6% was publicly funded by a variety of federal, provincial and territorial government programs.
We know that oral health is an integral element of overall health. By the time they are adults, 96% of Canadians have been impacted by dental decay. It is largely preventable and disproportionately and more severely impacts our most vulnerable populations, such as those living with a disability, those from low-income households, those in marginalized communities and seniors.
Twenty per cent of Canadians have moderate to severe gum disease. This number is amplified in older adults and those with lower incomes. Not only can this cause tooth loss and related problems with eating, speaking and social interactions, it has been shown to complicate a number of medical conditions. Further, the Canadian Cancer Society advises that in overall cancer incidents in Canada, oral cancer ranks ninth in men and 13th in women, and the trend line is increasing. About 5,300 Canadians will be diagnosed with oral cancer annually, and nearly 1,500 will die of it.
That is why the government welcomed the Standing Committee on Health's recent decision to study the issue of dental care in Canada and stands ready to support the committee in its work.
At a national level in Canada, good data on unmet dental care needs does not exist. We know that three-quarters of Canadians visit a dentist at least once a year, higher than the OECD average, and that wait times for dental care are among the shortest in the world. Approximately two-thirds of Canadians report no dental needs. At the same time, we know that approximately one-third of Canadians are uninsured and that approximately six million Canadians have reported avoiding a visit to the dentist because of cost.
To address data gaps, the Canadian government has partnered with Statistics Canada to design an oral health surveillance component for an upcoming cycle of a Canadian health measure survey, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and in collaboration with leading researchers from all 10 of Canada's university faculties of dentistry and experts from the United States and the United Kingdom. This work will provide key information for those developing oral health programs and policies for Canadians.
In addition to improving data on dental care, the federal government provides dental care services for certain groups of people through the non-insured health benefits program delivered by Indigenous Services Canada. The government provides dental coverage for recognized first nations and Inuit. In addition, the children's oral health initiative provides dental coverage for many first nations children and their parents.
Through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the interim federal health program provides coverage for emergency dental care services for some refugee claimants and protected persons. In addition, the federal government provides members of the Canadian Armed Forces, some veterans and inmates of federal penitentiaries with dental coverage.
Alongside these federal programs, all provinces and territories fund and manage their own dental care services, which cover medically necessary in-hospital dental services for all residents. Many provincial and territorial programs also cover some dental services for certain groups of people, such as children in low-income households, people receiving social assistance benefits, people with certain disabilities and senior citizens. However, specific eligibility requirements, types of services included and the financial coverage levels depend on the province or the territory.
Provincial and territorial health care programs, including those with dental coverage, are supported by federal funding through the Canada health transfer, or the CHT. The CHT is providing $40.4 billion to the provinces and territories in 2019-20. This will continue to increase each year in line with the growth rate of the economy, with a minimum increase of at least 3% per year. Over the next five years, CHT funding to provinces and territories is expected to exceed $200 billion.
In addition to direct federal spending on dental services and fiscal transfers to the provinces and territories, assistance for dental care is already provided through the federal tax system. About two-thirds of Canadians receive dental coverage from their employee health insurance benefits. The federal government supports these Canadians by not including the value of these insurance plans in the taxable income of employees.
Forty per cent of dental care costs are paid through out-of-pocket payments by Canadians. The federal government provides assistance with these costs through an income tax credit called the medical expenses tax credit. This is a non-refundable tax credit for eligible medical expenses that can be claimed by taxpayers if the expenses exceed 3% of an individual's net income or $2,352, whichever is less, in the 2019 tax year. An additional refundable medical expense supplement is available for working individuals with low incomes and high medical expenses.
In addition to support for dental care, the federal government improves the oral health of Canadians at the national level through health promotion, disease prevention and professional and technical guidance. In the area of health promotion, and in consultation with the national oral health professional community, last year the government incorporated oral health considerations into the Canada food guide and into its ongoing information campaigns.
In terms of prevention, the government has worked with the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Alberta to produce user-friendly online information on proper teeth cleaning for infants, children, adults, seniors and pregnant women, as well as for caregivers supporting older adults living with dementia at home. The government has also partnered with the University of Manitoba and collaborated with many key national health professional organizations to produce the Canadian caries risk assessment tool, which will now enable Canadian health practitioners to confidently assess their preschool patients and take the steps necessary to prevent early childhood caries and guide those patients into the appropriate care approaches.
The government has also worked with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to produce comprehensive knowledge products for community decision-makers on water fluoridation. Community water fluoridation remains a safe, cost-effective and equitable public health practice to prevent tooth decay.
In the areas of professional and technical guidance, the government collaborated with leading Canadian researchers in the areas of the oral health effects of cannabis and vaping to develop knowledge products for Canadian oral health practitioners to consider as they care for their patients who may be using these substances. The government has also partnered with McGill University to create and launch the Canadian Dental Connection website for rural and remote communities seeking oral health practitioners, and provide online training modules for these practitioners on cultural competency and trauma-informed care.
To support the improvement of the oral health of Canadians and fulfill our international responsibilities, the government works with partners and stakeholders nationally and globally, including organizations in the professional, regulatory and educational domains, such as the Canadian Dental Association and the Canadian Dental Regulatory Authorities Federation. We have also collaborated with international health and dental organizations, such as the World Health Organization, and oral health authorities around the world.
These initiatives demonstrate that our government is playing a constructive role in supporting access to dental care for Canadians. We look forward to participating in the study of dental care to be conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, of which I am proud to say I am member.
However, we know that dental care is only one aspect of the health care system for Canadians. The government has a strong interest in improving the health care system so that it can meet the needs of Canadians now and into the future. With an aging population, increasing rates of chronic disease and cost pressures tied to new drugs and technologies, our system must adapt if it is to deliver better care and better outcomes at a cost that is affordable.
Our government is committed to strengthening health care, including improving access to primary care, mental health services, home and palliative care, and implementing national universal pharmacare for Canadians. These commitments build on our actions over the last several years to improve access to mental health services, home and palliative care, and prescription drugs.
Our joint work with provinces and territories has been particularly successful and provides a good model for future joint work on health care. Federal, provincial and territorial governments reached an agreement on a common statement of principles for shared health priorities in 2017, which outlines key priorities for federal investments in mental health and addictions, as well as home and community care.
The common statement reaffirms our shared commitment to report on results to Canadians through common indicators; to improve the affordability, accessibility and appropriate use of prescription drugs; to support health innovation; and to engage with regional and national indigenous leaders on their priorities for improving the health outcomes of indigenous peoples. Under this agreement, federal investments of $11 billion over 10 years are being used by provinces and territories to address specific needs in our health care system, such as increasing the availability of home and palliative care and helping youth access needed mental health services.
We will continue to build on this progress as we work to implement the commitments outlined in the mandate letter of the Minister of Health, including improving access to primary care, setting national standards for access to mental health services, and continuing to make home and palliative care more available across the country. In this respect, the government looks forward to learning more about the challenges faced by Canadians in accessing dental care and will actively participate in the study of this important issue by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of Minister Dix. However, another topic that we have talked about studying on the health committee, and I believe the member is also on the committee, is palliative care. These are things we are going to talk about in the future.
This is something that is extremely important to Canadians, and it is something that we as members of the health committee will be continuously looking at to see how we can improve palliative care for all Canadians.
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member as well for her incredible contribution as former minister of health and the work that she did on behalf of all Canadians.
The member is absolutely correct. The number one thing we heard at the doors in Atlantic Canada was for better health care. In addition to the Canada child benefit, which has done incredible things for our country, one of the things I am most proud of is the $11 billion, in addition to the health care accord, that we have put in separate streams to go toward mental health care and home care. This investment allows the federal government to have a say in how that money is spent, and it comes with expectations on behalf of the provinces and territories to ensure those funds are spent in the proper way.
It is the first time that I am aware of that we have had federal health care transfer money go toward dedicated streams within health care funding. It is something that I found was met with lots of resistance when it was first negotiated with the provinces and territories. However, the provinces and territories did fall in line and did accept those funds. I think they probably look at those funds now and say that this was money well spent and that they will work with the federal government to show how they have invested those funds in their communities.
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The motion we are discussing today is on dental care for Canadians. What we have said from the start, and what we have seen in the mandate letter of the minister, is that we are willing to look at these things. We are willing to do whatever is necessary and whatever is possible to consider for the better health of all Canadians.
We have said from the start that we would take suggestions from other parties and from all parliamentarians in this House on how we can move forward for the better health of all Canadians. This is something that we take very seriously.
Again, going back to the health committee, all the members discussed the possible studies they would be able to do, and one of the ones that was mentioned first was dental care. The Minister of Health had this in her mandate letter as something that we have to look at within the terms of her mandate. It is something we are very proud to work on, and we will collaborate with all members in this House to ensure that we are working toward better health for all Canadians.
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, we cannot get where we need to go for Canadians if we do not collaborate and partner with all provinces and territories. We will not get national universal pharmacare if we are not able to work with the provinces and territories.
We cannot trample on jurisdiction. The provinces and territories need us as partners and we need them as partners. We need them to see how important this project could be and how important national pharmacare could be. Whether it includes dental or it does not, a national universal pharmacare program requires partnership and collaboration with every province and every territory in this great country.
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, in 2019 over $40 billion went toward health transfers. Almost $200 billion will go toward it over the next several years, and it is going to go up by 3% every year. We are making those commitments to the provinces.
Health care is provincial, but the federal government does have a role. I went over several of the things that we do and several of the things that past federal governments have done toward health care. There is a big role for the federal government.
The fact that I have mentioned a collaborative partnership has been commented on several times. We absolutely need to be a partner at the table and we need to collaborate with provinces and territories, recognizing that health care is indeed the jurisdiction of the provinces.
View Darren Fisher Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on the great work that Quebec does for health care. I look forward to perhaps using this as a model on dental care that we can study at the health committee. Maybe we can learn from Quebec.
Quebec has done many things to lead the country in the past. I look forward to the upcoming dental study and looking at the models that work in Canada and finding ways to make them work in other provinces and territories as well.
View Darrell Samson Profile
Lib. (NS)
Madam Speaker, our government firmly believes that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. We are committed to a federal assessment regime that is robust, based on science, protects our rich natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous peoples and supports our natural resources sector. We know that efficient, credible assessment processes are essential to encouraging investment in Canada and maintaining economic competitiveness.
The Government of Canada understands the economic importance of the oil and gas sector and the opportunities it presents for hard-working Canadians. At the same time, we need to develop these resources in a sustainable manner.
The Frontier oil sands mine project underwent a rigorous environmental assessment that took into account scientific evidence and indigenous knowledge, and was informed by federal experts and extensive consultation and input from indigenous peoples and the public. The environmental assessment of this project was conducted by an independent joint review panel, an excellent example of how the federal government can work co-operatively with other jurisdictions.
Under the federal legislation, a final decision on the project was required by February 28, 2020. As we all know, Teck publicly indicated its decision to discontinue the project on February 23, 2020. While Teck has indicated that it no longer intends to move forward with the proposed Frontier oil sands mine, the Government of Canada is committed to working with the resource sector to make sure that the best projects get built so that we can create jobs and ensure clean, sustainable growth.
The opposition wants to focus on the discontinued Teck Frontier mining project, but let us not forget something very important: that we have hundreds of major resource projects worth $635 billion already under construction or planned across Canada over the next 10 years. Let us move on.
We know that efficient, credible decision-making and assessment processes are essential to attracting investment and maintaining Canada's economic competitiveness.
Better rules give companies and investors the certainty and clarity they need and ensure good projects can move forward in a timely way. To support Canada's competitiveness and to attract investment, the new impact assessment system provides clear expectations and shorter and strictly managed timelines, while aiming at avoiding duplication in other jurisdictions wherever possible with one project, one assessment. These new rules aim to ensure public confidence by making federal decisions about projects like mines, pipelines and hydro dams more transparent and by ensuring decisions are guided by science, indigenous knowledge and other evidence.
We also realize that climate change is the greatest challenge of our time. Not everyone in the House does, but we on this side, of course, do. Also, the environment and the economy must go hand in hand to be successful in moving forward. The science is clear: Human activity is driving unprecedented changes in the earth's climate, and the impacts on the environment and on human health and well-being are real. Canadians are feeling the impacts of the changing climate.
Climate change is a huge challenge, but the opportunities are even greater. Again, we need to move on. Taking strong action can protect the health of Canadians, support biodiversity and create opportunities for Canadian businesses and jobs in the clean-growth economy.
Since the 2015 election, the federal government has been helping Canadians to seize on these opportunities. We worked with the provinces and territories to develop an ambitious plan to fight climate change, increase resilience to the impacts of the changing climate and drive clean economic growth. Today, our climate plan and actions are setting us on a path for more success as we move forward.
We are seeing a decline in absolute emissions while our economy and population continue to grow. Canada's most recent projections estimate that our emissions in 2030 will be 227 megatonnes lower than what was projected prior to the introduction of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This is a historic level of emissions reductions.
How are we getting there? We are supporting climate actions that are practical, proven and affordable while creating good, middle-class jobs. We are doing it in a way that puts people at the centre of our policies. Our plan includes over 50 concrete measures, regulations, standards, programs and investments to reduce emissions, build resilience and grow the economy. It is a plan that will continue to grow as we introduce additional new and enhanced measures that will enable Canada to exceed our 2030 emissions targets, providing a foundation for net-zero.
There are also economic considerations. We know creating good jobs and economic growth for our communities across Canada is an essential part of our environmental protection. We understand the economic importance of the oil and gas sector, and the opportunity it presents for hard-working Canadians.
We also recognize that transition takes time. We cannot do it overnight. We must be realistic. We must work together to move forward. The government understands that Canadians want to know that they can count on the government to make sound decisions to ensure that economically beneficial and environmentally responsible projects are moving forward.
We will continue to engage local communities, indigenous groups and Canadians in the review process for major projects, and we are committed to making decisions that reflect the views of Canadians and the mandate that we have been given.
View Darrell Samson Profile
Lib. (NS)
Madam Speaker, I have to say that I have only praise for Teck Resources. I feel it has done its work and it has decided, after doing all its analysis, that it was not feasible at this time.
The message Teck sent is much stronger than that. The message it sent is to all Canadians. It is that we have to work together for climate change. It is taking it seriously, and it understands.
A little while back a member opposite said that Teck had decided that it was still feasible. That is not the truth. Let us look at paragraph two. It says:
Since the original application in 2011 we have, as others in the industry have done, continued to optimize the project to further confirm it is commercially viable.
As it is today, it is not feasible and that is why Teck walked away. Please, do not forget that the message is clear—
View Darrell Samson Profile
Lib. (NS)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Our government invested heavily in green energy in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, and it continues to do so. As we work on this, we have to remember that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. We can take care of both, but there has to be a transition, and everyone has to work toward that.
We cannot be like the Conservatives. We could search through the Hansard and print out everything they said about the climate, about how it does not exist. They could give that to their grandchildren later on. It might help them understand.
View Darrell Samson Profile
Lib. (NS)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is always very specific, he does a good job and I have worked with him on committee.
I want to share some key things with my colleague.
When it comes to the market, the Conservatives do not understand the market, because they did not ship any oil outside of the United States.
To my colleague's question, we have seen today that there are over one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. There has been major—
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2020-02-25 21:41 [p.1578]
Madam Speaker, when I listen to the Conservative speeches, they seem to be refusing to confront the central challenge put forward by Teck Resources.
The letter from the president talks about the need “to have a framework in place that reconciles resource development and climate change, in order to produce the cleanest possible products.” He goes on to say about Teck Resources, “We are also strong supporters of Canada’s action on carbon pricing”, something that the Conservative Party is absolutely against.
Is it not hypocritical to try to pass the blame across the way? In their eagerness to pass the blame on the government for this, are the Conservatives not failing to address this challenge when they disagree completely with the approach of Teck Resources and when they fail to accept the challenge to actually come up with realistic climate policies that will overcome this problem?
View Kody Blois Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Kody Blois Profile
2020-02-25 22:18 [p.1584]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance this evening to bring my remarks to this discussion as a rural member of Parliament from Nova Scotia.
I believe it is an important time to talk about our energy sector in this country, and I appreciate that the member for Lakeland has brought this motion forward.
I will start by recognizing the role that the energy sector, particularly in western Canada, has played and will continue to play in supporting our prosperity across this country. Many of my colleagues have highlighted that in their speeches here this evening.
The economic benefit that these projects have brought to our country have helped pay for public services from Newfoundland to British Columbia and everywhere in between. In my riding of Kings—Hants there are many residents who have benefited and continue to benefit from these types of projects, and they are not just Alberta projects or western Canada projects. They are truly national projects.
My perspective on the discourse around the Teck Frontier decision, particularly in the last month, is that it was polarized in a very detrimental way. In one sense, many of my Conservative colleagues alluded to the positive impact that this project or similar projects would have on job creation and taxation for public spending in this country, and that certainly resonates with me. However, there is very little acknowledgement of the environmental impacts of these projects and our ability as a country to meet our international climate targets.
Some of my Bloc, NDP and Green colleagues rightfully pointed to the reality that these projects, like Teck, create challenges for us to be able to meet our climate targets and that they have an environmental impact both locally and regionally. However, I think they fail to appreciate that the oil and gas industry will play a reduced but still important role in the Canadian and global economy in the days ahead.
The reality is that Canadians want balance. They want a government that is focused on climate change and protecting the environment, but also supporting a strong economy. The Prime Minister has made this clear time and time again, and we have done that. We have created 1.2 million jobs since 2015 while implementing a price on pollution and reducing the GHG emission gap that the Conservative government had left us in 2015.
I want to provide a couple of examples which I believe illustrate Canadians' desire for a government that is balanced on both sides of this issue.
Canadians overwhelmingly support a price on pollution. They overwhelmingly voted in the last election for parties that want to move forward on environment and climate change. However, Canadians overwhelmingly also support the construction of Trans Mountain pipeline. Canadians are pragmatic, and they want a government that has this balance.
My concern is the tone of this particular debate and narrative in this House. The middle ground on these issues seems to have eroded.
I want to address first the narrative from the Conservatives that Teck represents 10,000 jobs, and that somehow Alberta and western Canada's only way forward is through oil and gas.
The member for Lethbridge suggested that people in her province want to work, but suggested that seemingly the only way forward or the only type of work is in the oil and gas sector. I know that is important, but to suggest that this is the only way forward is, frankly, naive of the other opportunities. I do not mean to be unparliamentary, but I think it sells short the potential that is in western Canada.
I want to talk about the 10,000 jobs. We know that there would be 10,000 jobs if construction had moved forward. However, Teck decided not to move this project forward, and the jobs would have only been created if the project were to be built. The CEO of Teck had mentioned three impediments in being able to move that forward.
One impediment was price. The Government of Canada does not control the world oil price. The project was built on an economic analysis of $95 for a barrel of oil. I believe right now the price of oil on the global market is about $50. Although my Conservative colleagues would talk about the viability of this project, there is no doubt that the analysis was originally built on an expectation of something that is far from reality at this point or in the foreseeable future.
They talked about a partner. The Government of Canada is not involved with supporting a private sector partner to move this forward, and so that would be another impediment. Of course, our government is committed to making sure the pipeline and Trans Mountain happens so that we have the ability to get our resources to market.
However, the narrative in the House has been “if only this project was approved”, which, of course, we did not have the ability to choose to go forward with, and “if only 10,000 jobs would be created” is a fallacy. We cannot tell Canadians that if only this happens they will have 10,000 jobs, because it is selling short and not explaining the nuances of this particular project.
Here is why it is a fallacy. As far as I know, there are currently 38 petroleum or oil and gas projects that have been approved. They could start tomorrow if industry wanted to move them forward. They have gone through the regulatory process, but they are not being built. As much as my Conservative colleagues would suggest the cause is Bill C-69 or other legislative measures that we have taken forward on environment, the reality is that these energy companies are looking at a 40-year window. They are recognizing that the world is making a transition.
We are moving to a low-carbon economy. We are moving on renewable energy around the world, and they are rightfully asking whether they can return their cost of capital. We know that the Canadian energy sector is important and that they do amazing work, but we also know that the process to extract the bitumen from the oil sands is much more energy intensive.
The fact is that we have 38 projects. Some colleagues in this House would be excited by the fact that they are not being built because they would put us further and further away from our emission target, and I can appreciate that. However, I think all Canadians, not just Albertans or those from western Canada, need to understand the importance that these projects have played and the revenue that they have created for our economy to pay for public services. We need to make sure that we can transition and support, if these energy companies do not want to move forward on these projects.
Those who would suggest that the petroleum industry in Canada has no future, or that it is not economically viable, fail to appreciate that transition does not happen overnight. They fail to appreciate the work the Government of Canada has done in the last four years to meet and exceed our Paris climate accords.
In 2015, our government inherited the reality that our country was on pace to miss our international climate targets by over 300 megatonnes. In the four years that we have been in office, we have been able to reduce that gap to 72 megatonnes, and that is not including the measures that we will be bringing forward in this parliamentary session.
My message to my progressive colleagues in this chamber is that we need an industry and we need western provinces that will co-operate and help us get there. We need to be able to work with them accordingly. Having a petroleum industry that provides the needed international product and also helps our country on its path to meet its much-needed GHG emission targets is the best path forward.
I, for one, certainly appreciate Don Lindsay's words on reducing partisanship on these particular issues. We can find a way to balance the reality that the petroleum sector will play an important role in the Canadian economy and the global economy in the days ahead, but it will not necessarily play the same integral role in the next 50 years as it has in the last 50. I think we need to be mindful of that.
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to this issue this evening, and I welcome some questions from my colleagues accordingly.
View Kody Blois Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Kody Blois Profile
2020-02-25 22:27 [p.1585]
Madam Speaker, I think this is the exact problem that I am alluding to, the “yes or no”. I had the opportunity to write an op-ed on my position. I am happy to send it to the member opposite. It is on what I believe to be the best process forward.
Had we chosen to go forward with approving the project, I think it would have had to include concessions in getting the province of Alberta to work on building within our climate plan. If we had chosen not to, we would have had to recognize that this would have played an important role in the Alberta economy and there would have had to be investments to help diversify their economy as a result.
This “yes or no” idea is the problem. It is “yes, and” or “no, but”.
View Kody Blois Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Kody Blois Profile
2020-02-25 22:29 [p.1585]
Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoy collaborating with the member opposite on the agriculture committee, where we do work outside of this House.
The question in particular was about Iron & Earth. I am not familiar with the organization specifically, but the broader question was on how we can ensure that we make that transition happen.
We all know that transition needs to happen, and I alluded to it in my speech. Some of my Conservative colleagues do not give credence to the fact that we do need to transition. The oil and gas industry is not going to play the same role in the next 50 years as it did in the last 50 years.
Transition is important, but we need to recognize that the oil and gas industry is going to play a role in the global economy in the days ahead. There is no way in which we are going to shut it down overnight, nor should we.
Results: 1 - 15 of 159 | Page: 1 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data