Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, we know that youth unemployment is uneven across the country. There will be 6,600 new youth jobs in Alberta, by the way, this year. Let us talk about the top line here. We have the second-fastest growth in the G7, the best fiscal position in the G7, 20 new trade and security deals, non-U.S. exports up 40%, highest foreign direct investment in the G7 and that is twice that of the next country, created more jobs than the U.S. last year, wages are growing, inflation is slowing, investments in affordable gas and affordable food, affordable child care and affordable dental care. There is much more to do, but it would be great if the opposition would get serious and join us.

Mr. Speaker, we are making historic investments in young people. My colleagues today have already mentioned a number of those major projects. I am sure we will get to hear that question and get expansions of that question many more times today. Between November and April, we have reduced our deficit by $11 billion, strengthening what was already the best fiscal position in the G7. I would ask the opposition this: In 2026, right now, with the wars and the trade wars and the crisis today dragging on the economy, is this the time for austerity budgets, slashing social programs and slashing affordability supports, as you seem to be suggesting? We are—

Mr. Speaker, all agreements are considered through the lens of Canadian interests, and all agreements are considered in the context of our other agreements. As has already been mentioned, Mercosur is an enormous market. Since the last election, the government has reached 20 new trade and security agreements. These agreements open markets for farmers and ranchers in places like China and Indonesia, two countries, by the way, that are 20% of the world population and 20% of the world GDP. Since the start of 2025, non-U.S. exports have climbed 40%. We are building a strong Canada for all: for our ranchers, for our farmers and for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the more precise they try to sound, the more Canadians should be deeply suspicious of their claims, because they zoom in when the world view does not actually reflect anything they are talking about here. Let us talk about the facts: 20 trade and security deals have made a 40% increase in non-U.S. trade; wages are growing faster than inflation; we created more jobs than the U.S. last year; house prices are down; rents are down; overall inflation has been within bounds for months and months; the MOU with Alberta has created durable climate action, new energy production and record production in Alberta; and we do all that with the strongest fiscal position in the G7. Welcome back to reality.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to run through the list again. I am not sure they would be so happy to hear it. However, let us talk about this. In a time when we have global strife, wars in Iran and Ukraine and trade wars with the United States, Canada is standing at the top of the pack. We are number two in economic growth in the G7. We have the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We are investing in families and communities. There is so much that we need to do, and we are just getting started. We welcome the members opposite to get on board with us all.

Mr. Speaker, $4 billion in Cold Lake will be a nice start in helping develop the kind of overall community benefits that we are talking about. I have to say we have heard a lot of the same questions from across the way. We get the point. I think they like to talk about the fact that there are prices and deficits. Let us talk about the reality that we face right now. Let us just take a little look here. What is our fiscal position in the G7? It is the best. What are we looking at in terms of the investments we are making? We are looking at affordability, groceries and essentials, pausing the gas excise tax and reducing CPP contributions. If the Conservatives want to tell us what they want to cut—

Mr. Speaker, I would love a direct question. Are we talking deficit spending, such as the school lunch program? Are we talking deficit spending, such as the groceries and essentials benefit? Are we talking deficit spending, such as the gas excise tax? I would love to know what deficit spending the Conservatives are worried about, because on this side, we are focused on affordability. We are going to make sure we are there for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I almost do not know what to say. Calgarians certainly know the difference between credit card purchases and investments, such as investments in themselves. That is what we are doing with the groceries and essentials benefit. That is what we are doing with the gas tax. l will tell members something else. Albertans are very excited and Calgarians are very excited because of the MOU with Alberta, which is finding our path forward to new energy infrastructure and durable climate action. We are seeing record production. We would think that would be something the Conservatives would be excited about.

Mr. Speaker, Albertans know, of course, like all Canadians do, that we are in very uncertain times globally. The world is in a tumultuous place, but fortunately Canada enters this with the strongest debt situation in the G7. That is a fantastic place to be in when we are in difficult times. Now we are spending to make sure we are protecting Canadians from these dangerous headwinds. I would ask my colleague this: What are the cuts she would propose that would allow us to meet her objective of reducing what is already the lowest net debt and one of the lowest deficits in the G7?

Mr. Speaker, we will always stand with mill towns. The combined duties and tariffs are scheduled to go down to 35%, based on the updates that came out the last couple of weeks, so there is a small correction there, but all still too painful and all still unjustified with the United States. That is why we are working to both control the issues we can control and engage with the Americans on this issue. We have given $2.5 billion of supports to the forestry sector. We are going to be taking receipt of the forestry transformation task force's report imminently, and it has many great ideas. We will be there for workers, and I welcome the member to join us and work with us on that.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues across the way have heard countless times, we will continue to make sure we get the best deal, not just any deal. Let us talk about the last year. Wages have grown faster than inflation every month that the Prime Minister has been Prime Minister. FDI, foreign direct investment, is the highest in 18 years, double that of the next nation in the G7. We have record oil production, and non-U.S. trade is way up. Last year we created more jobs than the United States did. Trade wars are brutal, but we are going to win this trade war. We want the member's help doing it.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things that I think we need to level set as I begin my response here. The member talks about crippling the energy industry. The member talks about development for the last 10 years being deficient. However, I want to note that oil and gas production in Canada increased 34% over the last 10 years. If I compare that globally, global oil and gas production increased 6% over the same time frame. Impressively, Canada managed to do this while reducing our emissions profile, not per capita and not per barrel, but overall, by 6%, showing that there are ways we can both grow our energy sector and meet our commitments to the planet, which I think is a wonderful thing. The member brought up some specific questions and commentary about the Major Projects Office, which I would like to address here. First and foremost, there was a bit of a drive-by about a pipeline to the west coast that the Government of Canada has entered an MOU with the Government of Alberta to create. The Premier of Alberta, when that MOU was signed, said that they would bring forward a project in June of this year. That is still on track. There will be a project that is brought forward. I am most certain of that, and the agreement remains firm and stands. Talking about the timelines set out in that agreement, for one of them, we were a month ahead of schedule. That was on the Impact Assessment Act and on having a single review, which will improve the ability of all projects to move forward. As well, we also reached an agreement on methane a week ahead of schedule, and while we are a couple of weeks behind schedule on the carbon pricing, the details were all agreed to are in the MOU. We are just working out the technical components underneath at this point. It is a very exciting time for the oil and gas sector. In fact, we are hitting record production again this year, and that record production, it is planned, will grow even further from there. On the Major Projects Office's other stream of work, I think it is important to note that, while the Major Projects Office is responsible for taking these referrals and moving forward with them, it is not going to then go out into the public and explain every conversation that is occurring. On every single one of those files, there was something that was needed to get it to a point of reality. That is why they were put to the Major Projects Office. Sometimes it was assistance with finding private investments, and sometimes it was regulations, but in all cases, the Major Projects Office is now using those powers and is reviewing the situation to bring forward the ability to get those projects to move forward. It has been a very positive experience for the companies that have been involved in it, and that is important to note. The last thing I will note about the Major Projects Office is that the Prime Minister also charged it with making sure we can bring overall regulatory improvements into the system. The office has been working on that as well, and it is bringing those things forward to the government for consideration, because we want to make sure that we are building not only in a responsible way, but also in a way that reflects this serious moment we are at, where we need to ensure that Canada can stand on its own two feet in a very challenging global environment. There are many good signs that I am happy to talk about in my rejoinder. I will leave my comments there at this moment.

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to see what members on both sides take credit for, or not, in the chronology going back 10 years. Those are some long coattails, I would suggest to the member opposite. The reality is that this is the only government that managed to get a pipe to tidewater. That pipe is now being expanded. That is a major project going on, but let us talk about the Major Projects Office and the nature of those projects. On the first list of major projects activity, which was announced back in September, obviously some of the furthest along were going to be the ones that are best positioned to move forward, but there was also a release of transformational strategies that was provided concurrently. It includes things such as Wind West, the Port of Churchill, and carbon capture and utilization. There are many projects that are brand new and of much excitement for this country and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is picking up the same lines like a soon-to-be-gifted kettlebell, but these repetitions will not get them the gains they seek, because they require Canadians to forget everything before yesterday. We are in a trade war, and in that trade war we are performing very well. We are getting more jobs than the United States. We have foreign direct investment at the highest level in 18 years. Alberta's unemployment decreased by 0.4 points this year. There is much to celebrate, because we have a strong focus on building the economy and we are seeing results.

Mr. Speaker, oil and gas production in Canada is at record highs, up 34% in the last 10 years. We have managed to do that while reducing emissions in our country by 6%. We have found a way to sustainably grow and meet the growing needs of the world, including diversifying needs from allies that are increasingly requiring lower carbon emissions. We are building strong. We have approved Ksi Lisims, the Taylor to Gordondale pipeline, NexGen's and Denison's uranium mines. TMX optimization is under way. There are LNG projects, from Cedar to Woodfibre, Tilbury and LNG Canada phase two. They are happening. We are building strong, and we welcome you to join us in that building.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite well knows, oil and gas production in Canada is up 34% over the last 10 years. Compare that to global production, which is up only 6%. These are record production levels that we are seeing. We are seeing new infrastructure coming all the time. Obviously, there is Trans Mountain. We are now talking about optimizing that. We have Ksi Lisims. We have Taylor to Gordondale. We have Nexgen's and Denison's uranium mines. We have LNG projects from Cedar to Woodfibre, Tilbury and LNG Canada phase two. We are building, and we will continue to build. We welcome the Conservatives to get on board.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is sincere in his wanting to support the forestry sector. He does try to work with us on occasion in committee. I really do hope, however, that Conservatives will bring that forward more positively in the House generally, and help us vote in support of an agenda that is trying to modernize and strengthen the forestry sector in Canada. We have announced $2.5 billion in support so far. We have a transformation task force going on right now. We do want to work with the member. I look forward to continuing to work with all members.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to the Standing Orders. I have not been a member of Parliament for very long, but this is a venerable institution. Our regulations, procedures and practices are part of a parliamentary tradition dating back to the Magna Carta. They were adopted by thoughtful parliamentarians who came before us to respond to Canada's unique reality, and they have evolved over time. I am not exaggerating when I say that they represent centuries of work. I am very mindful that to immediately have opinions on how to better operate could be taken poorly or viewed as presumptive, even arrogant. However, I also know that, like frogs in hot water, we can all become used to the intolerable when given the benefit of time. In those times, it is on those of us who are new and experiencing the shock to our system to speak up, to present the view of the people who have fresh eyes. After talking with colleagues on both sides of the House, I also do not believe that what I am going to say is remotely controversial, though we may disagree on how best to resolve it. Question period is broken. Canada's system is built on the idea that government must answer to Parliament routinely and in public, and I believe this to be a very good thing. A deteriorating executive cannot hide here, as it can in the United States, but beyond serving as a daily wellness check, the current format of question period falls short of its goal of providing true accountability. There are shallow questions, shallow answers, a degree of repetition that would make an advertiser blush, and mad applause on both sides as though we were hitting oratory high scores in 35-second exchanges about procurement. If I can relay one thing today, it is that it does not need to be this way. Question period does not need to be this way. There are many things that we can try to do to improve question period. There are also many lessons we can learn from our own history and from the experiences of other countries. The Standing Orders do not actually say much about question period, other than to indicate that it happens. Procedures and practices are established under the authority of the Speaker, often following consultation with the House leaders. Often, the goal is to ensure that changes have unanimous or almost unanimous support. That is fitting, and I am not suggesting that a mere majority should be able to make changes, but change is possible. We can as a body be more prescriptive through the Standing Orders, or we can encourage the Speaker through our leaders to consider modification to improve accountability and to improve the value of question period to Canadians. We can experiment: We can agree to try different formats on different days; we can agree to try different formats for one session, having QP revert after that; or we can do both. Then we can see if our experiments have the intended effect or if they create new problems, and we can make changes more permanent or adjust accordingly. We can improve. Once we embrace that, a world of possibilities opens up to us. For example, we could have different ministers answer questions on specific days. This would provide an opportunity for more targeted questioning and ensure that government weaknesses do not go unnoticed just because they involve topics that do not get much media attention. We could limit the repetition of substantially similar exchanges. If the goal is to ensure accountability, not to get sound bites, we do not need eight versions of the same back-and-forth. We could do this or any number of other things as an experiment. This leads me to the most obvious way to improve question period. In Canada, and uniquely in Canada, questions and answers are capped at 35 seconds each. In 35 seconds, anyone can hide. Members do not need to listen to the question to give the answer, and they do not need to engage with the premise. They do not need to back up their attack. Weak performances on either side of the House go undetected indefinitely in the shallow end. Other countries with parliamentary systems do not do it the way we do it. We have not even always done it this way. The U.K., Australia and Ireland all measure answers in minutes, not seconds; this was also the system here in Canada until the 1990s. The tight clock was introduced to allow more participants. This is well-intentioned, but let us look at the current situation. Before I was elected, I was a public engagement practitioner, and I would often talk about the conflict between an audience's stated and revealed preferences. Stated preference is what we say we will do; revealed preference is what we actually do. We say we want many questions, but our revealed preference is for longer exchanges. There are not 40 members asking 40 questions; members stay on one topic, one question, with a great deal of repetition for many rounds. Here is my modest proposal. For one session, for two days a week let us do the following: lengthen the allowable time for both the question and the answer to two minutes apiece. As questioners, in two minutes, members can lay out their values and the facts they rely on, and they can prosecute their case. They can demand information. They can show their deep understanding of the issue and where they believe our understanding may be deficient. As answerers, in two minutes, we can lay out our values and the facts we rely on, and we can explain our decision-making and, if necessary, give our statement of defence. We can provide requested information. We can show our deep understanding of the issue and where we believe questioners' understanding may be deficient. We can raise the level of debate and provide Canadians with thoughtful exchanges, at least from time to time, during these complex times. The purpose of question period is to provide accountability, and accountability is a very good thing. However, true accountability requires substance. Longer questions and answers do not guarantee substance, but they do increase the cost of dodging the question. They force consistency. They expose ignorance. They reward members who have have a firm grasp on their files and penalize those who do not. More in-depth discourse is the most important change we can consider. We shape our systems, and then our systems shape us. If we allow question period to be shallow, we will become shallow. If we allow question period to be thoughtful, we will be thoughtful. I want to end with a conversation I had with a teacher a couple of days ago. He told me that when he brought a class to question period many years ago, he was embarrassed because a lesson in democracy became a lesson in how sometimes adults act like children. We have all winced on occasion when we have looked up and have seen a class in the gallery. We see there the leaders of tomorrow watching us, the leaders of today. I am new to the House, but what I have learned is that while we disagree often and vigorously, we have a chamber full of dedicated, kind and brilliant people from all walks of life; we just do not act accordingly in the chamber. Question period as currently constructed shows us at our worst, not our best, so let us improve, or at least try to improve. I believe that Canadians deserve better, and I believe we can do better. I hope to work with all members in providing them with better.

Madam Speaker, I do believe that one of the things we should explore is mixing up who is up and for what duration on each day, and I think that having Wednesday PMQs is a good idea. One of the challenges we saw in practice was that it then became a question of, “Why is the Prime Minister working only one day a week?” The challenge with implementing anything like that is that we are going to need to work across both sides of the House to say that this is a standard that increases accountability, and to not suggest otherwise. We do know that the current limits of question period are that the 35-second exchanges also do not necessarily feel like we are getting a lot of meat.

Madam Speaker, I think that would be very challenging to do without getting into matters of debate on a regular basis. I do want to note though that it would also be nearly impossible to answer some of the questions. Here are some samples from QP just yesterday. There were multiple questions about whether we would please adopt Conservative policies. That is very difficult and broad. There was also one question I want to draw attention to: “Is the member...aware of his lack of empathy and moral compass?” I do not know how one holds a government to account with a question like that. That is the simple reality. These questions are just from yesterday. There is always going to be a certain element of that in question period; I appreciate that, but it makes it difficult to imagine that we could create a rule that says that someone must answer a question. I do not know how we could ask a member to answer a question like that.

Madam Speaker, the United Kingdom, I understand, does a version that is somewhere between written and oral, in which a question has to be put on the Order Paper. The Order Paper gets very long; there might be 300 questions on it at some point, but a minister knows the questions. This allows the minister to prepare and to get the answers ready. I think something like that could be explored. I do appreciate there is a spontaneity to question period; it allows us to address issues of the day. Maybe we could do a hybrid, where a leaders' round could be about anything, but if we go on to those next rounds, then it has to be about something that is on the Order Paper. I think we should explore something like that. With respect to cameras in QP, I think we have to realize that most of the country sees us through the video clips. That is a reality. I may not love it, but I think it is one of the accountability mechanisms, personally. However, it is certainly worth exploring what other parliaments do.

Madam Speaker, I agree with all of my colleague's first three reforms. I think they are all worthy of exploration. I will say, as a father of three young children, an 11-year-old, a nine-year-old and a seven-year-old, and also as the son of aging parents, that I have really appreciated the flexibility that hybrid sittings have allowed on those unique occasions when it was necessary. My father was in the hospital recently, in the ICU for 11 days, and being able to be there at his bedside and do my work for Parliament from the hospital was really important to me. However, I think I understand my colleague's overall thrust and appreciation for this House and how important it is. I think that was the thrust of his speech. I wonder if he would be willing, in his proposal, to look at a modified hybrid Parliament that would allow, in certain exigent circumstances, the use of hybrid sittings.

Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague has been visiting university campuses. Members of the House may not know I was vice-president at the University of Calgary before being elected. Youth employment and youth education are issues near and dear to my heart, and I am very happy to have the privilege of answering the member's question. Students certainly face challenges they did not face in years past. One we hear about a lot on university campuses, of course, concerns the very challenging and tumultuous world we are in: climate change beset by anxieties that students did not have to deal with in previous generations. Of course unemployment is one of those challenges as well. Creating youth opportunities is one of the things the current government and any government should be very fixated on. As the member said, though, a lot of that is anecdotes, and I captured my share of anecdotes over the years as I was doing my job for the University of Calgary, but I do want to talk a bit about job numbers. In April 2025, when the government was elected, youth unemployment was 14.2%, which we can all agree is too high, with 63% participation. The most recent job numbers from December 2025 show unemployment had reduced to 13.3%, with 63.2% participation: lower unemployment and marginally more participation. It is good progress, but there is still work to be done. Those numbers are comparing us against ourselves and seeing some progress within the government's mandate, but let us also talk about the United States. In the U.S., youth unemployment was 10.4% in December. That sounds a lot better. I do want to caution though about comparing apples to oranges. Canada and the U.S. measure youth unemployment differently, because Canada includes 15-year-olds, and Canada also has a higher student participation rate. What I want to point out is that in April 2025, the U.S. youth unemployment rate was 9.6%. The United States is actually going the wrong way, while Canada is going the right way. I think that speaks to the steps the government has taken. If we want to do more, there is a simple solution. It is called the budget implementation act, which includes a number of supports for youth: $1.5 billion over three years. It has supports for 20,000 youth; student work placements, 55,000 opportunities; and the youth climate corps. That is to say nothing of the general priorities that will create jobs, provide housing and mental health benefits. While I appreciate the concern, I think the figures tell a bit of a different story. This is work we are going to continue to push on. I am happy to say we will be building on progress we are already seeing.

Madam Speaker, I would invite members and anybody watching to look at the statistics themselves. Of course, someone can pick month-over-month numbers, but if we look at the trend line, we see that it is very clear: Progress is being made, and that progress is absolutely contrary to what the United States is seeing, where the trend is going in the other direction. I think that speaks very well for us here. In terms of the private colleges question, that is of course very complicated. It brings into it the market prices and the market forces that private colleges have, the incentives and their ability to charge whatever tuition they wish. Of course, there are challenges when we start using public dollars in that way. Canada has a number of great public institutions, from SAIT in my own riding, which is one of the largest polytechnics in the country, to Seneca in Ontario, as well as many other options that people can continue to make use of government benefits to be able to attend.

Madam Speaker, I completely agree that the forestry sector is a vitally important sector for Canada. It is part of our Canadian identity. It is, of course, part of our Canadian economy, and the tariffs and duties that are being levelled on us are completely unjustified. It is true that we are seeing mill closures. We are seeing strain across the entire system, whether that be in primary saw milling or in pulp industries and associated industries, and we do need to resolve this with the United States. Everybody appreciates that. The United States is 85% of our export market for softwood lumber, for example. That is not going to be replaced, at least in any kind of short term, by any of these other opportunities, so we need to make sure that we are working to get a deal. In the meantime, there are two other streams of activity that we need to do. First, we need to support the companies, workers and communities that are going through these challenges. The government has given $2.5 billion to that effect. We also have a task force that is looking at other supports and other ways we can get through this moment. Second, we need to be thinking about how we make sure we are not in a situation like this going forward. That is where we start talking about a clear vision for a future forestry sector, and I believe we have one. A forestry sector requires four components. It requires access to capital. The federal government can help with that. We can help make markets. It requires infrastructure. That is certainly something that allows us to get to markets and, in general, produce products. It also requires the skills and the talent, and it requires access to timber. The last of those, of course, is a provincial jurisdiction, but it is something we can work with people on. We have the wood. We have high-quality timber, and we know that the Americans need the wood. Timber prices are currently low in the United States, which is why the higher costs that come from Europe have been competitive, but that will not always be the case. They need us as much as we need them down south, and we will get a deal. However, in the meantime, we need to work toward supporting our industry. On mining, I will look into the mitigation plan that the member discussed. I am not familiar with it myself. I am not familiar with the deficiencies or the concerns, but I will certainly look into that. I appreciate the member's advocacy on behalf of her constituency. These are vital sectors that the government needs to support.

Madam Speaker, I will action those when I receive them. I appreciate the member's advocacy. I want to cap this all by saying we want to grow. We want to build. We want to have the strongest economy in the G7, but some of that requires the plans we have put into motion actually being allowed to be put into motion. That includes passing the budget implementation act. It is vitally important for this country that we are able to proceed on those economic initiatives that would strengthen our economy, build jobs and provide supports to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, what can we say about the motion? It includes a few things we are already doing and a few things Canadians rejected. It feels like the Leader of the Opposition found it in a jacket he has not worn in a while. It is time of new ideas. We have some like the MOU with Alberta. It is an exciting time to be an Albertan. We are getting things built, and we invite the members opposite to get on board.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. It is great to be back in Parliament. I think it is important to begin by taking stock of where we are right now, because a lot has changed since we were here in December, debating another opposition motion, this one on the Canada-Alberta MOU. Since then, the Prime Minister has given a landmark speech, which the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out was well crafted and eloquently delivered. I would go slightly further and say that it was a sobering reminder of the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in. In this new world of uncertainty, standing still leaves us vulnerable. Unfortunately, I believe the Conservative motion proposed today is the equivalent of standing still. The world has changed, and the motion is nostalgic for a moment in time that has passed. As the Prime Minister said in his speech, “Nostalgia is not a strategy.” However, even with those criticisms of the motion, it is important to recognize the Leader of the Opposition's new-found willingness to work with the government on behalf of all Canadians. This is really important. It will require the Conservatives to work constructively, to stop obstructing crime legislation, to pass the budget implementation act and to work together to put more money in the pockets of Canadians. I would point out that the motion, in fact, includes things we have already done, such as creating the conditions for an emissions cap not to proceed. On that basis alone, I believe the Conservative motion reveals a leader stuck in repetition rather than reflection, and it falls short of what Canadians expect of their political leaders during this critical moment for our country. It is ultimately a distraction from the real work needed to make life more affordable for Canadians, to grow our economy, to achieve greater sovereignty, to diversify trade and to make Canada an energy superpower. It seems designed for one audience, and that is in Calgary this weekend. This is why, today, Canada is advancing its most ambitious trade and investment agenda in a generation. We set a bold, $1-trillion target for new investment over the next five years in order to allow us to build the strongest economy in the G7. This is not simply optimism. It is a fundamental reset of Canada's economic ambitions. By establishing the Major Projects Office, we are creating the pathway and the expectations needed to mobilize billions in capital for nation-building projects. We are already hearing from companies that it is a positive signal for global capital. The first two sets of initiatives referred to the office already represent more than $116 billion in combined investments, demonstrating real momentum on jobs, on productivity and on economic capacity. This unprecedented strategy of investment is bolstered by over $280 billion in government funding and incentives over the next five years, designed to trigger even greater private sector participation. This is how we turn ambition into steel in the ground, put paycheques in people's pockets and create long-term prosperity for Canadians in every region of the country. Crucially, this work is not happening in isolation. It is being done in partnership with the provinces, with indigenous communities, with workers and with industry because serious nation-building in Canada has always required collaboration, not confrontation. As we speak of the Harper years, we remember how they fizzled out in a series of court challenges and broken projects. That is where the Conservative motion fundamentally misses the moment we are in. The motion before us is framed as a bold act of sovereignty, but, when we look closely, it is not a plan to build; it is a plan to tear down. It offers to repeal instead of to resolve, slogans instead of strategies and nostalgia instead of answers. Repealing laws does not, on its own, build a single project. Scrapping frameworks does not, on its own, unlock a single dollar of investment. Picking fights with provinces, indigenous partners and trading allies does not make Canada stronger. It makes us weaker. Canadians learned this lesson the hard way. They know that ramming projects through without consultation leads to court challenges, delays and cancellations. They know that uncertainty scares away capital. They know that economic sovereignty is not achieved by pretending the global economy no longer exists. Real sovereignty means having the capacity to build and the credibility to attract investment. It means stable rules, predictable processes and a government that brings people together rather than pitting them against one another. We are doing exactly that as a government: bringing people together. Through the Major Projects Office, through regulatory efficiency without abandoning environmental responsibility, through trade diversification and through unprecedented investment in clean energy, critical minerals and Canadian supply chains, we are strengthening Canada's economic independence in a way that will endure. The Conservatives, by contrast, are offering a familiar tactic dressed up as urgency. They present a long list of things to repeal, as though the complexity itself were the problem. They reduce economic strategy to a checklist of grievances. They ask Canadians to believe that, if we simply get government out of the way, prosperity will magically take care of itself. However, Canadians are not looking backwards, and they are certainly not interested in magical thinking. They are looking for seriousness. They are looking for leadership that understands the risks we face from global instability, climate change and shifting trade relationships, and that is prepared to meet these head-on. The motion falls well short of that test. It does not grapple with how we actually get projects built in Canada. It does not explain how to reconcile provincial jurisdiction, indigenous rights and investor certainty, and it does not acknowledge that the world has changed and that Canada must change with it. In a moment this consequential, slogans are simply not enough. The government is choosing the harder path but the right path, the path of doing the work, building consensus and mobilizing capital at a scale Canada has not seen in generations. It is a path focused on outcomes, not outrage, and on nation building, not political theatre. That is why we will not support the motion, and that is why we will continue to work day by day, project by project, to build a stronger, more sovereign and more prosperous Canada for the long term.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Building Canada Act, which the members opposite supported. We have seen new trade deals with every continent in the world, and we have seen significant momentum on the acquisition of capital, including major acquisitions, deals with the U.A.E. to bring in over $70 billion. I understand that does not meet or match the narrative the opposition is trying to forward here, but it is the reality, and Canadians see the good work that is going on.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be a pragmatic government. I do not agree that we have weakened environmental regulations, but we are looking to streamline them, run them in parallel in many cases, so rather than there being a waterfall of regulation A and regulation B, we are exploring both at the same time. We do know the world has shifted. We know Canada can meet this moment. We do know the Canadian ability to both grow the economy and meet environmental obligations is not just a hypothetical; it has been proven. We increased oil and gas production 34%. The population increased 15%, and in the last 10 years, over that same time period, emissions went down 6.5%. It is possible.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the question. This is a topic that is of course near and dear to my heart and, I hope, to the hearts of every Albertan member of the House. Separatism in Alberta has been a pervasive background thing my whole life, at around 20%. We have not seen major changes to that in the last while. However, we are certainly hearing much more loudly the 20%, and that seems to be going unchallenged far too often. I implore my colleagues from Alberta to stand up and say no, to stand up and say we love this country, we stand for this country, we support Canadian sovereignty and we support Alberta's ambitions within that, and to be unequivocal about that. We may have our differences now and then in Confederation, but we are one family, and we love this country.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of recycling, we have the 2015 playbook here in 2026, and it is just not going to work. Canadians know that the environment, economy, trade and reconciliation are all related. Canadians in Conservative ridings expect better than obstruction and speak-and-spell politics, where we get one of five answers to every problem. On this side, there are new programs for affordability, economic growth and building big things, and this is a big moment for this country. I invite the members opposite to join us, to see the world as it is, and to build Canada strong.

Mr. Speaker, the government stands with forestry workers. We have announced $2.5 billion in supports. We have a task force active right now looking at additional supports. I was in Prince George last week. Members in Conservative ridings want results, and I want to tell members of the House a little bit of a story. The last time we talked about this in the House of Commons, we got suggestions from the NDP. We put them into effect. We got suggestions from the Bloc. We put them into effect. We got no suggestions from the Conservatives. We want their help. We want to support this sector. We are tired of hearing noun, verb and no solutions every time these guys open their mouths.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more out-of-touch comment than talking about 30 by 30. They are clearly not talking to people on the ground. These are not the challenges the sector faces. We need solutions, not obstruction, from the members opposite. I am welcoming them to work with us. We want to help them out. We need their help because they are the people on the ground representing the Conservative ridings with these mills. We have not been hearing from the Conservatives. These ridings deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right that this is not abstract. This is livelihoods, which is why we cannot get into sound bites. We need to do the hard work and maintain the best deals possible, which is what Canada has right now. The CUSMA negotiations will be difficult. We know that, but we also know that Canadians are anticipating and expecting government to work with opposition and get the best deal possible by working with provinces, indigenous peoples and all shareholders and stakeholders across Canada, and that is going to require us to come together. We have to put aside the rhetoric and get the job done. That is what Canadians expect.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to follow through on the general thread of my colleague's questions because it provides a pretty good framework to go through them bit by bit. The Prime Minister did, in fact, talk about feed, fuel and defend, things that Canada does very well. We are an energy superpower. Our oil and gas production from 2015 to 2024 went up 34% when, across the globe, it only went up 6%. We grow more food than most nations could even dream of. We are increasing our NATO spending to 2%, moving on to 5% in the years to come. When we talk about dependence, yes, it is true that Canada does have a challenge with dependence. Currently, 71% of our exports go to the United States of America. The next closest G7 country is Japan at 19%. When she talked about the issues at home that Canadians talk about, such as affordability, this is also true, which is why I hope members opposite will support us in passing very promptly the groceries and essentials benefit that was announced by the Prime Minister today. There is a rupture, and that rupture caused goods under CUSMA at first to not even be eligible to move forward. When President Trump decided that those would be allowed to go forward, it provided us a great deal of benefit as a country. In fact, Canada has the lowest effective tariff rate in the world at about 8%, the next closest being Mexico. We understand now that when we talk about negotiations with Donald Trump and the United States, we also have to measure that sometimes those deals can change as they go forward, as we saw with Europe being threatened with tariffs over Greenland recently. Talking about outcomes, the outcome is that we currently have the best deal, and we will sustain the best deal as we do the hard work to reset and diversify. That brings us to the pipeline. The pipeline we currently have, Trans Mountain and the Trans Mountain expansion, has allowed Canada to diversify some away from the United States. Currently, 90% of our oil goes to the United States. The 10% that does not is because of the Trans Mountain pipeline that a previous Liberal government managed to get over the line. We have to do more, and that is why we have an MOU with Alberta, which is getting us another pipeline to the west coast. However, I will say this. Bulldozing will not work. We get things done in this country by working together. The Government of Alberta understands that. The Government of Alberta is working toward a submission in June for a pipeline project. There is no pipeline project right now for the government to approve. Just as the Prime Minister said that nostalgia is not a strategy, neither is wishful thinking. We will do the hard work as the government, and we will get things built.

Mr. Speaker, we support a pipeline. We support the whole MOU, which is a careful balancing of the economy and the environment and gets us away from the United States as a primary trading partner. This is great news. It is also an MOU that balances the interests of indigenous peoples and other jurisdictions. We do not support, and we are happy to vote against, games played by the opposition that make a pipeline less likely. That the Leader of the Opposition would do this is ridiculous. It lets Alberta down, but I should not be surprised. Being elected in Battle River does not an Albertan make.

Mr. Speaker, Albertans are steady people and sensible people, and they know imaginary taxes are imaginary. They know there is no packaging tax, and they know that wages are growing in this country. While there is much work to do, we are managing a very difficult storm very well. We welcome the members opposite to help us with that storm, instead of whatever this has been today, because this has been wild. There is much work to do in this country, and we want the Conservatives to help.

Madam Speaker, I welcome the progress made in the amendment, but I am very curious as to how it did not mention industrial carbon pricing and the increase of the industrial carbon price as part of this amendment, one of the most important parts of the MOU. Would the member be willing to consider further amending his motion to do the entire MOU rather than, again, cherry-picking the things that his caucus seems to be willing to support?

Madam Speaker, the member made comments about the differential. I agree that it is important to manage the differential between WTI and WCS, or presumably between Brent and WCS, given that he is talking about a pipeline to the west coast. The differential is driven by quality differences, such as the sulphur content and the gravity of it, as well as transportation costs. I wonder if the member could explain what he thinks would be an appropriate differential, either to WTI or Brent, as he sees fit.

Madam Speaker, this government would be very happy to support a motion for the entire memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding is a balance that makes sure we are striking interests from coast to coast to coast and doing it in a way that strengthens our economy, strengthens our environment and makes us less dependent on the United States. It is an excellent memorandum of understanding. Part of it is a pipeline, which we fully support. Honestly, this is just a continuation of the games. If the Conservatives do not want to play games, bring us a motion for the entire MOU.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. Before I entered politics earlier this year, I was a regular commentator on political strategy. One thing I tried to do in my appearances, particularly on a popular political podcast, The Strategists, was to lift the hood and show how and why political strategic decisions get made. It was my belief that by identifying and naming the strategies and tactics, I was helping people see what was actually happening, and I was helping people defend themselves against those strategies and tactics being used on them. Sometimes what I explained would allow listeners to keep from being fooled by unscrupulous politicians, and sometimes what I explained would allow listeners to keep from being fooled by themselves. While speaking about this Conservative motion, I can do a service to Canadians by explaining the tactics this motion attempts to use and what these tactics reveal. I also think that, while speaking about this Conservative motion, I can do a service to Conservatives by explaining how, at this point, they are most certainly fooling themselves. Let us start here. If the goal is to get a pipeline built, there is no train of logic that leads to either the original or the amended motion before us today. The Conservatives should know very well the risks of plowing ahead thoughtlessly when it comes to pipelines. In 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal deemed the phase four consultations undertaken by the Harper government on the Northern Gateway pipeline, a pipeline project I worked on, insufficient. It said, “Canada fell short of the mark.” In Canada, to get things built, we need to work with indigenous communities, show respect to indigenous communities and take the duty to consult seriously. While I am glad for the Conservative amendment, merely appending “while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous peoples” to a motion with a predetermined outcome falls laughably short of the mark. In Canada, to get things built, to de-risk activity, we need to work with all affected communities. Ignoring the role of British Columbians in this conversation does not make a project more likely to succeed. Ignoring environmental concerns does not make a project more likely to succeed. This creates conditions that would concern any investor. By the way, Pathways requires a price on carbon, so the amendment does not take a coherent policy position. Smart money knows we do not ram projects through. A yes vote on this motion would antagonize stakeholders and undermine the important conversations to be had by Canada, Alberta, British Columbia and indigenous peoples. It would make getting to an accord harder. A yes vote would make a pipeline less likely. How about a no vote? A no vote could be interpreted, and would certainly be spun by the Conservatives, as the government not supporting a pipeline, but nothing could be further from the truth. I will say now, and I will say clearly on behalf of our government, that we support a pipeline. We support the MOU. We support the entirety of the MOU. If people believe government does not support a pipeline, if companies even have creeping doubt about the government's support, it makes it less likely for a private proponent to come forward, which is one of the conditions of the pipeline proceeding under the memorandum with Alberta. A no vote would make a pipeline less likely. If a yes vote hurts the project and a no vote hurts the project, what is the point of the motion? This brings us back to strategy. The point of the motion is to provoke divisions and to upset a careful balance. It is to cherry-pick one part of one side of the ledger, building a pipeline, and to focus on one possible resolution, a pipeline that requires an easing of the tanker ban. It is to ignore the rest of a thoughtfully constructed and far-reaching MOU that has the support of this government caucus. The very point is to put the government in a no-win situation. The very point is to try to create a situation in which there is division in the government ranks. Here, I want to talk about how deep the Conservatives have fallen into their own echo chamber and how they no longer see the forest for the trees. The division they seek, the division that is frankly on display in their own party as they lose members, is one they believe will help their political fortunes. It is a game to them, a game in which there is a winner and a loser. However, with their motion, the loser is Canada and the game hurts this country. The game reduces the chances of a pipeline being built and exposes something they probably did not want exposed: Their interest is coming out on top in a zero-sum fight with the Liberals rather than defending our country at a very challenging time. Rather than putting nation over party, the Conservatives have put party over nation. To them, the motion is solely and exclusively a political strategy; it serves no other purpose. “Yes” hurts Canada and “no” hurts Canada, but they brought the motion forward anyhow. The win Conservatives seek is for themselves, not for Canada. There are two ways to detect the influence of a political strategy: We can work backward from the action and figure out what conditions would need to be present to arrive at that action, or we can work forward from a series of stated motives and see if a coherent chain can lead us to the present place. In each case, a deviation shows strategy at work; a deviation reveals true intentions. The Conservatives' action here, in this motion, does not match the words saying that they deeply care about getting a pipeline built. We must ask what they do deeply care about. The Conservatives have fooled themselves. They have conflated their interests with Canada's interests. They have come to a place in which they believe that anything that is good for them is inherently good for the country, and they believe this motion to be good for them. I ask them to step back and ask themselves, when they really think about it, if any outcome of this motion would be good for getting a pipeline built or good for the country. I will close by saying that there is another possibility, but it is one I discount: The Conservatives simply made a terrible mistake, they did not realize that either a yes or a no vote would reduce the chances of a pipeline being built, and they are sincere in simply wanting clarity for all. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition to be a stupid or thoughtless man, but he has put his cunning in service of his political movement rather than in service of this country, and I believe that to be terrible judgment. Canadians seek serious leadership in these times, and I am glad the Prime Minister offers that leadership. I do not believe the opposition has shown such leadership today, but I do believe in the immense capacity of people to change and improve. It is why I am a Liberal. I ask my colleagues to step back from the brink and remind themselves of the moment we are in, with a trade war with the United States; an increasingly dangerous globe; and a western world beset by anti-immigrant and anti-intellectual forces, often driven clandestinely by our geopolitical rivals, who love nothing more than to poke at our divisions. I ask if it is not possible for them to take a better, more collaborative and more pro-Canada approach. As I see it right now, the Conservatives' strategy reveals everything. Under the current leader, the Conservatives are treating matters of nation as political games to be won. The actual question in front of the House is, is the Leader of the Opposition acting as a serious man? Does his leadership reflect a serious party? The answer, unfortunately, came the minute he put forward this motion, and the answer is no. The motion does not reflect a serious party. The motion reflects a party that is addicted to the game of politics and has forgotten how to fight for outcomes and ideas.

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. One thing that struck me about the Conservative amendment was that it had carbon capture and sequestration as something they could support, but it did not talk about a price on carbon, which is essential for carbon capture and sequestration to work. Otherwise, what happens is that we are subsidizing oil companies instead of making oil companies pay a carbon price, which is what makes the Pathways project economical. I think I agree on some of these components. I will say, and I want to underline, that the benefits of a strong oil and gas sector are felt very strongly by my home province. We see it every day. We see it in employment. We see it in the investment. It is not as simple as just looking at the ownership percentages of major oil companies.

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of ways to look at that. There is recklessness in how we might approach getting a project built, and there is recklessness in the balance between the environment and the economy. I will speak very briefly to both. First, it would be reckless to not consult with people. It would be reckless to just say we can will these conditions into fruition. We saw what happened when the Conservative government tried to do that in the past. The Federal Court of Appeal struck down the approval of northern gateway, the phase four approval, because there was just not due care and attention put to it. Second, on the environmental front, the Prime Minister has been very clear that we can and must grow a strong oil and gas sector, but that has to be tied to strong environmental protections. Those strong environmental protections are not just for the benefit of the planet, although that, to me, is the essential component; our markets will increasingly demand that. We are not going to be selling oil to Europe and Asia if we do not have strong environmental protections.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that struck me about the Conservative amendment that was moved recently was that it expresses support for the Pathways project. However, the Leader of the Opposition emphatically told me that they do not support a price on carbon. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts on how they could possibly reconcile that without creating a subsidy of tens of billions of dollars to the oil and gas sector.

Mr. Speaker, I worry that the follow-up betrays a bit ignorance of Canadian jurisprudence and the operating of the oil sector. I have worked on many pipeline projects in my career, and it is not just building a pipeline; it is building the product to get into that pipeline. That is going to take some time. Those things need to be aligned. Now, Alberta will not even submit a case until the spring. It is only at that point that the federal government can respond to specifics. I will also note that in the meantime one of the things the MOU talks about is optimization of the Trans Mountain expansion, which could increase, by hundreds of thousands of barrels, our ability to get product to the coast, which is something that can be used to take up the production that is currently envisioned to be constructed. These things need to be in alignment. These things take careful thought. That is what the government is going to provide.