Greg McLean
Calgary Centre, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, today we honour the life and legacy of Philip Roderick MacAulay, a long-time president of the Royal Canadian Legion Calgary No. 1 Branch, who passed away on June 11.”
“Mr. Speaker, last week, Calgary's Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 1 hosted and was addressed by the leader of the Conservative Party on the importance of building a strong Alberta within a united Canada. It was exactly the right place for that message.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here, and I am thankful this debate is allowed to continue. I am surprised that it has to go through this last half hour of questions for the minister , but it is an interesting bill we are debating here today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member if she can just tell us what the $1.7 billion would accomplish, because we have already thrown a lot of money at the situation. We have empty condos now that do not suit the market in Toronto.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister knows this because I met him when he first got elected here on the floor of the House of Commons, and when he was named the housing minister, I told him that the first thing he had to do was to get rid of the people who have led us into this trap in the first place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from Quebec a question about government spending, because an additional $1.7 billion is to be spent on housing across the country. Quebec households are paying the cost of interest on both the federal and provincial deficits.”
The complete record
Every one of 336 lines we hold for Greg McLean, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a government stood-up instrument that had to change its mandate because it did not have anything to do. It changed its mandate to step on other funds that were already in the market. It was a government institution looking for a market that was not there, so it morphed into one that was. These projects would have been funded more efficiently with less overhead if they had not been government-invested. I would encourage my colleague across the way to look at my cross-examination of the leadership of the Canada Infrastructure Bank on its investments in Lion Electric, because it was a complete boondoggle.”
“Parliament must first answer the very question that frames today's debate: Is this truly the most responsible path forward for Canadians?”
“There are a bunch of other ones like the strategic investment fund, another replication the Liberals are going to have to go through here. There was the sustainable development technology fund. I remember the $400-million boondoggle where the government was caught shovelling a whole bunch of money into the pockets of its friends. This is another boondoggle. I know I am going to run out of time here very quickly, and I want to get to the conclusion of my speech, because I am not going to get to too much else. I had a lot to say, so if anyone wants to hear from me again, they can just let me know. The fact is that setting up this fund is one of the worst things the government can do. The government is borrowing tens of billions of dollars to create another state-directed investment vehicle.”
“The government does not know what it is doing on debt. It was terrible. I am only going to get partway through this list, because it is a long list. We have the Export Development Canada. We have Canada account by EDC, which is another account. There are two accounts in one organization. We have FinDev Canada, which has billions of dollars to invest. We have the Business Development Bank of Canada, with over $55 billion. We have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has billions of dollars that it invests on behalf of Canadians. There is Farm Credit Canada. The Canada Strong fund is a new one. They cut and paste, as I say. It is a wonderful way to do something without any principles whatsoever.”
“The government allocates another silo of Canadians' money that it is trying to take and actually borrow against. We talked about that balance sheet to borrow and pay money on, because the government wants to pick certain things in the economy that are going to move its people forward. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is an example. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was set up. It is a joke, frankly. It was set up and there were a whole bunch of infrastructure funds in Canada that wanted to invest in Canada. I think about our investment deficit at this point in time. A whole bunch of funds were set up to invest in infrastructure in Canada and then suddenly the government put together a fund and all those funds had to pay their investors back or invest outside Canada, because the government does not know what it is doing on infrastructure.”
“I think when the government put this one forward, all it did was cut and paste from a bunch of the other funds it had put together, where it is wasting Canadians' money. There is the Canada Development Investment Corporation, CDEV. Who do they think put the money into the Trans Mountain pipeline? It came through CDEV. The Trans Mountain pipeline cost $35 billion. There are a whole bunch of other investments in CDEV. I think about how big that fund is and why we need another fund now for the benefit of Canadians. It is a wealth fund. It is not a wealth fund; it is a way to tap into a whole bunch more debt and make money less relevant for Canadians. Next is the Canada Growth Fund. What a joke. It is a way of financial manipulation, but again, it is billions upon billions of dollars.”
“We have seen that in so many ways, and we will have more egregious examples to show in the next few weeks in Parliament of how the government will be spending willy-nilly. It has been spending willy-nilly and unaccountably, and making sure it gets all its fish fed. I know that is a funny way to put it, but that is the way Liberals actually say it. It is time to feed the fishes. All the little people who support the Liberals with all their narratives along the way give them money, and those little people get the narrative back. It is a circular economy, as they call it. We already have a lot of funds in Canada. I brought a list of them here. I know I am not going to get midway through my speech, because I have a lot to say here, but let us look at all the funds the government already has. There are a bunch of them.”
“Every country uses that example now and makes sure they do not double down on one sector in any economy and make it too prevalent in their total economy. However, step one in setting up a sovereign wealth fund is to get a surplus, not a $67-billion deficit like this year's. We actually have to get back to balance and start creating a surplus and then probably pay off our Canadian government debt before we start sinking a surplus into new spending vehicles. The best wealth is when we do not lose money. The number one rule for making money is to not lose money. If someone is a fund manager, they should not lose money, but be cautious and prudent with other people's money. It is one of the first things we learn in finance. Funds start with one thing, and that is fiscal discipline. The government does not have any fiscal discipline.”
“I know where that money is going to go because the government over there has a lot of pockets it needs to fill, and that is part of the problem of why we are in such a debt predicament in this country. (1550) Let us go into definitions, because of the definition of a sovereign wealth fund, which we have already heard from many people along the way here. We invest surplus funds in other places. We do not want to invest in our own economy, because we would create what is called Dutch disease. I know my colleagues across the way would not know about this, but Holland, in the Netherlands, actually had a problem where it had too much revenue coming in and being cycled through one sector of its economy, and that starved the rest of its economy. It is called Dutch disease for a reason.”
“Doubling down, as the Liberals continue to do, there is this $25 billion extra they are talking about, which is going to add to that balance sheet, but members will notice, again, that it did not show up in the budget, except for the $6 million they were going to spend to stand up the office, to hire a bunch of people to go through the effort of what this looks like along the way. It is an embarrassing amount of money to have to spend to establish a fund. We can ask any fund manager why, if they got a captive $25 billion, it would take them $6 million to stand up that fund. It effectively means structure. Most of those structures are pretty well known. It should cost almost nothing. If it costs $1 million, they have drastically overspent; $6 million is an embarrassment.”
“It has assets and liabilities, and who knows what it is worth until one actually writes it off? Well, it is actually almost $900 million in debt, or almost $1 billion. Members can think about that. It is nowhere on the government's balance sheet, except in the cash flow statement, the amount of money it is borrowing from foreign institutions, which we have to pay Canadian taxpayers' money to in order to get that money to float the way government operates. It is embarrassing. We have to make sure we understand exactly how broke this government is making Canada and how dependent we are on foreign wealth already.”
“We have more than doubled the number over the last decade. It is a shame that, on that side of the House, the government would risk Canadians' money so much that it doubled the debt, and it is continuing on that path. Recently, in March of this year, the Liberals came back and added more space for borrowing for the government, from $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion, and so $2.5 trillion is the space it has. Canadians think the government is $1.4 trillion in debt, but its borrowings are actually almost $2 trillion right now. What is the difference between $1.4 trillion and $2 trillion? It is all the money the Liberals are plowing into the Crown corporations, such as the Bank of Canada. Nobody sees the deficit and the debt incurred by the Bank of Canada because it continues to float.”
“We take a look at what is happening in the gulf region, and the gulf is full of money. It is buying the patrimony of Europe, buying all kinds of assets in Asia and buying all kinds of assets in Canada. Where is the Canadian wealth? It is going offshore because it does not see the opportunities in Canada. Let us get back to the basics here of what we are talking about. What are the definitions of actually getting a sovereign wealth fund in Canada? It is nice to have, if we actually had some money to buy it, but this government thinks, “Don't worry. We'll just borrow the money.” Did anybody notice any borrowing for this in the budget? Well, it actually was there. It is actually in the cash flow statement at the end. People think Canada has $1.4 trillion in debt, which is an embarrassing number considering where we were a decade ago.”
“There is this whole notion of “announce-ology” that the Liberal government seems to continue to go through, where they are going to do big things. Well, what do the details of those things look like? There are a lot of great sovereign wealth funds around the world, across a whole bunch of jurisdictions, including Norway, which we have talked about here a lot, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and other gulf states that are amassing money from surpluses. Those surpluses are often resource-based surpluses. Why do we not have that in Canada? It is because we have been held back on our resource development by a narrow-minded, prejudiced government. It does not like hydrocarbons. It has made that very clear several times in the House of Commons. Now, that is a problem.”
“The government sees no reason not to continue the fiscal expansion and to continue debt upon debt for Canadians, and this, as I have come to realize over the last few days, is something the Liberals are actually somewhat serious about, but the seriousness of it has to be questioned, as far as Parliament is concerned. That is why we are here today: to ask what they are talking about and how they actually mean to structure this and to give them some background on this. As I am sure members know, I used to manage funds. Hopefully, we can understand the basics of funds here. I do not mean this to be a tutorial for my colleagues across the way, but there are a whole bunch of gaps in what they are talking about here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time today with my hon. colleague from Regina—Lewvan . I first heard the announcement on Monday morning that the government was starting a sovereign wealth fund. The first thing I thought, I have to admit, was that the government was putting up a big smokescreen because it was going to have a miserable day the next day with the budget announcements. Yes, the budget is still at a $67 billion deficit for this year. It is still the highest budget, and double what Justin Trudeau, the previous prime minister, indicated we would have at this point in time.”
“We need laws to protect first responders, preferential sentencing and to put victims first. Calgarians are demanding action so they can have safe, normal neighbourhoods again.”
“Mr. Speaker, in recent town hall meetings, I heard clearly that people do not feel safe downtown. Residents told me they avoid going out at night. Some leave their homes only to step directly into an Uber. Drug paraphernalia litters our streets, and open drug use is now a common sight on the CTrain. A Fraser Institute study shows that Calgary ranks 27th out of 334 municipalities for property crime. A smashed window can be the final blow for a small business. Boarded-up shops and graffiti drive away shoppers, not criminals. Property damage means higher insurance costs and higher condo fees. Frontline services are stretched and lack the legal tools to keep repeat offenders off our streets. We do not have to accept this as the new normal. Bill C-14 was the first step in getting our streets back. More must be done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have not asked the government for any kind of cost analysis. Whenever we see these bills, and often as parliamentarians we get to see these bills, we get to scratch into them. I did not know before I looked at this bill that there was a president of Measurement Canada and a whole bureaucracy around it. I imagine the cost of the administration of that is one thing. I hope that cost is not going to go up in this bill's examination, that it contains the cost of that structure and does not build another empire here. That is one of the main things I want to make sure we accomplish at the committee level.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the first question, namely whether there is too much red tape in the Measurement Canada process for our colleague's constituents. Yes, we need to be more efficient in resolving the situation. Regarding the second question, which touched on the minister's regulatory powers, I believe Parliament is more focused on legislation. Perhaps this aspect will be explored in greater detail by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, which is due to examine this matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, the specifics are going to be determined at the industry committee, so there are many questions here about how we make sure we maintain trust in the measurement systems across the country. Those analyses, as my colleague across the way knows, happen when we dig into the legislation and make sure we bring forth the amendments that would maintain trust. In the House here today, we have gone through a question and answer session about how we need to build on the principles, but the details, as he knows, will be ironed out at the committee level. I believe it is the industry committee. If he would like to attend, I am certain the committee would enjoy having him there.”
“That is how governments earn confidence, and that is how we protect affordability, not just at the pump and at the checkout, but in the long-term decisions that shape our economy. Lastly, the bill before us deserves serious committee study focused on transparency, guardrails and cost impacts, and why the Liberal government should proceed in a way that has put consumers and affordability at the centre of the work here.”
“At the same time, reporting bodies like the Parliamentary Budget Officer may treat pension plans differently when assessing assets held by the federal government. My point is not to litigate every accounting standard in a speech. My point is simple: Canadians deserve transparency. They should be able to see what measure is being used, what is included, what is excluded and why. When definitions change and when headline numbers rely on assumptions that are not clearly explained, trust erodes. When trust erodes, cynicism grows. Cynicism matters, because it shapes how Canadians respond to policies that touch their wallets and therefore their lives. The message is: Show your work, publish the assumptions, use plain language and make it easy for taxpayers to understand.”
“Even in the public debate, we can see dispute about how to measure debt and how to compare it across countries. For example, Statistics Canada reports net debt measures in ways that can include or exclude major public pension funds, like the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, precisely because those funds are different from other financial assets and are not supposed to be available for general spending to the government. These are Canadians' pensions, not the government's slush funds. Commentators have pointed out that when we include pension fund assets in net debt comparisons, it can materially change the picture, sometimes making the country appear less indebted on that metric than it would under a normal debt approach.”
“I want to step back for a moment, because there is a broader principle here, one that connects directly to consumer trust and affordability. Trade measurement works, because people believe the rules are fair and the system is transparent. When the rules are clear, published and consistently enforced, people have confidence. The same principle should apply to government itself, especially when it comes to public money. Canadians deserve clear, transparent reporting about how government presents key fiscal indicators, because those indicators are used to justify spending decisions, borrowing decisions and policy decisions that affect affordability for every household. One reason Canadians get frustrated is that fiscal headlines can be built on different definitions that produce very different impressions.”
“During the banking, commerce and the economy committee's hearings, Senator Elizabeth Marshall, an auditor by profession, put her finger on the public mood. She noted that when she spoke to people about what Parliament was studying in Bill S-3 , people were suspicious and feared it would end up costing them more. It comes as no surprise, but that cynicism exists for a reason. Canadians have lived through too many examples where modernization meant new administrative costs, new compliance burdens and new uncertainty, and then those costs appeared later in higher prices. The task before the House is not simply to update a framework. It is to ensure that the updated framework actually produces confidence, clarity and affordability.”
“Therefore, when buying a tank of fuel, are we really buying a tank of fuel or are we buying the distance from A to B? Suddenly, that distance got shorter with the government-imposed clean fuel regulations, and Canadians did not seem to notice. That is where governments lose trust. Suddenly, we are paying more and getting less. That leads to inflation. It leads to costs to society. It leads to inefficiencies throughout society. (1650) Those questions may sound simple, but they are fundamental, because the moment consumers lose confidence, it is not merely a technical failure. It becomes a cost-of-living issue, and that is why I want to highlight something that came out clearly during the Senate committee study of the bill.”
“That is the architecture of the bill, and it is precisely because the bill would create new tools, new flexibilities and new forms of rule-making that transparency and affordability have to be at the centre of our scrutiny. For Canadians, the system works only if it passes what I call the trust test. Do Canadians believe that when they pay for 50 litres of fuel, they get 50 litres? Do Canadians believe that when government changes the rules, those changes will protect them, not increase costs that get quietly passed on? Let me give the example of biofuels. When we bought 50 litres of fuel at a gas station, it used to be petroleum fuel, and we got a certain distance with it. When it is watered down with biofuels, we get less distance.”
“Fourth, the bill would expand and modernize inspection powers, including the ability to access and reproduce data from computer or telecommunication systems, and it would treat remote access by telecommunication as a form of entry for the purposes of inspections. It would also enable telewarrants in certain contexts. Fifth, it would add compliance tools aimed at preventing or remedying contraventions, such as orders requiring corrective or preventive measures and directions regarding compliance procedures. Sixth, it would repeal certain outdated regulatory provisions, including prescriptive fee schedules and legacy requirements, and it would introduce mandatory reviews every 10 years, with reports to be tabled in Parliament.”
“First, it would update and clarify the roles and authorities of the minister, inspectors and, under the electricity and gas statute, the president of Measurement Canada in the approval, verification and inspection of trade measurement devices. Second, it would introduce the ability to inspect devices and meters by sampling: examining a representative set of devices of the same class, type or design and applying the results accordingly. Third, it would create temporary permissions to allow certain measuring devices and certain electricity or gas meters to be used on a temporary basis under conditions set by the regulator, even without the usual approval or examination steps: again, under defined conditions and with notice and an opportunity to make representations in the event of suspension or revocation.”
“The key question is whether Bill S-3 would modernize the system in a way that improves transparency, protects affordability and avoids creating new layers of red tape, or whether it shifts too much power into discretionary processes that Canadians cannot easily see, understand or challenge. My Conservative colleagues and I support modernization that protects consumers and supports innovation, but Parliament must ensure that the tools are accountable and not overreaching. That is the lens through which I will address this bill today. Bill S-3 contains a set of targeted amendments that can be grouped into a few themes.”
“That is why trade measurement laws exist in the first place: to protect consumers, to ensure fair competition and to maintain confidence that the marketplace is honest. Bill S-3 is presented as an update to that system, an attempt to modernize the Weights and Measures Act and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and to repeal outdated fee provisions in the regulations. “Modernization” is not a bad word. In fact, it is necessary. These statutes were last substantially updated decades ago, and the world has changed. Measurement today is more digital, more software-enabled and more complex than the world of paper processes and legacy devices that shaped the original framework. The key question is not whether modernization is needed, because it is.”
“Mr. Speaker, at first glance, Bill S-3 looks like one of those technical bills that only policy specialists would read cover to cover, but the truth is that it touches something Canadians care about very deeply: fairness in everyday transactions. Measurement is money, and we cannot manage what we do not measure, at the end of the day. The two go hand in hand. When a family pulls into a gas station, the number on that pump is not an abstraction. It is the difference between what they plan to spend and what they actually spend. When a parent buys groceries priced by weight, such as fruit, vegetables and meat, the number on the scale and the label is not a suggestion. It is the basis of the price at the checkout. Thinking about product inflation, that is what this means at the end of the day.”
“I also note that my colleague's background was to visit a policy upon the people of Ontario that cost them billions of dollars and ramped up the Province of Ontario to the highest debt of any subnational jurisdiction in the world because of horrible energy policies. It has taken the Province of Ontario a decade to try to dig out from those horrible energy policies. I ask the member if he would like to consider the broad mix, and why his party would continue to be so prejudicial against one of the most sustainable forms of energy we have in Canada and around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to correct something that my colleague across the way mentioned in his speech. He mentioned that his party was the one that was for all sorts of energy, and that the party across the way was the one that was stuck on only one form of energy. I will directly contradict that, because my party, this opposition party, His Majesty's loyal opposition, believes strongly in all forms of energy and how they fit in a mix that is both sustainable, which is very important, and affordable, which is very important to Canadians, but also reliable. The number one thing in any energy system is the reliability of that energy system.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the way love to talk about how Canada excels. Well, it excels in a few things: the highest housing cost in the G7, the highest food inflation in the G7 and affordability out the window with the Liberal government. Among G7 countries, we are among the worst as far as our results for Canadians go. A decade of failed Liberal policies has left Canadians falling behind in so many metrics. Fiscal anchors have become optional. Restraint has vanished. The government now is more interested in testing how much it can expand our debt than it is in delivering for Canadians. When will the Liberals stop overspending and deliver—”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal debt is now over $1.4 trillion. That means that each Canadian is now paying an average of almost $2,000 per year in interest on government debt alone. Liberals call that affordability. I thank central bankers. These deficits are about wealth transfer, nothing less. The more the Liberal government increases the debt, the higher inflation will rise, and lower spending power will result. Canadians pay more and get less. When will Liberals understand whom they work for, international bankers or the Canadian taxpayer?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will stand up to ask a question and let my colleague across the way take a breath. On the path toward his fantasy of electrification, if he looks at any electrification vehicle policy in Canada, they have failed everywhere, costing billions, tens of billions and fifties of billions of dollars. How many billions are we going to spend on this experiment before we realize we are forcing a market? I will not let the member across talk to me about supply and demand. I could give him a lecture and a course on it, because I do not think he understands it, but the whole thing about market penetration is that we have to let the market go. There are going to be electric vehicles in our future. We know that. It will not be because of the forced mandate the government tries to push on it. It is managing our decline.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been intimately involved in labour negotiations before, but also negotiations in general. One of the things about negotiations is that we always have to understand what the other party wants. In the policy put forward by my colleague, the shadow critic for labour, is the whole concept of the other party benefiting as well as Canada benefiting. That is perhaps what the U.S. administration wants. Can my colleague comment on both parties winning in a negotiated strategy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will first say that counting on a new task force for the RCMP to investigate crimes in the past is shutting the gate after the horses have left. I also do not expect the government to be actively investigating people who are clear insiders and well-connected with the Liberal government that sits today. This is something that we need to get to the bottom of very quickly. The sole thing I am asking here in the House of Commons is for the government to finally acknowledge how much money the Export Development Corporation, which guaranteed the loans of the financiers who made money hand over fist from the Lion Electric “pump and dump” scam, has on its balance sheet as far as a liability goes for the taxpayers of Canada. They have not disclosed that. How many times do I have to ask for that? That is public information.”
“It is an obscene amount of money, and it is something that needs to be disclosed. Accountability rests with the government here. We are looking forward to it. I have asked many times, and I am asking again tonight that it provide those numbers from Export Development Canada.”
“It was not just Canadians, as it turns out. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S., Lee Zeldin, has publicly stated that the purchase of these buses by American entities cost American taxpayers $160 million in buses that were not delivered. In his words, the people involved got to keep all the money, and people need to go to prison. The CEO of Lion Electric, Marc Bédard, cashed in $33 million of his shares prior to Lion's declaring bankruptcy. Michel Ringuet, an insider of Cycle Capital and closely associated with the government's $400-million green slush fund scandal, took 1.1 million shares himself. My question to the government has always been, can it please disclose how much Export Development Canada has guaranteed funds to the financiers of Canada on this?”
“All in all, it was a much higher cost to society than the buses they were destined to make obsolete, but the scam lies in the financial fraud. Investors were duped out of the entirety of their funds when Lion faced the inevitable bankruptcy of a business built on hype, a house of cards and a false premise from government officials guilty at least of ignoring all the facts. Here is the connected complicity: $50 million from the strategic innovation fund, $400 million in financing arrangements through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and to top it all off, a loan guarantee from Export Development Canada to the lenders associated with the company, who were making money all the way home. This is the very definition of socializing risk and privatizing profits: Heads, banks win, and tails, Canadian taxpayers lose.”
“Private funds flowed to Lion at cheap valuations from connected opportunists. Then came the merger with the U.S.-listed special purpose acquisition company, known as an SPAC, that put almost half a billion dollars onto the balance sheet of Lion. Why the confidence in this transaction? It is because two months before the transaction, the Government of Canada announced a grant of $100 million to Lion, half of which came through the strategic innovation fund and half from the Government of Quebec. It was a well-funded company participating in the inevitable and supposedly cheap green transition that the Liberal government trumpeted loudly. What could go wrong? As it turned out, almost everything could: school buses that burned, school buses that cost more to maintain and insure, and school buses that were less reliable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have asked the government more than once to provide some clarity on its complicity in the pump-and-dump scandal, Lion Electric vehicles. I will give a quick recap. Lion Electric built school buses in Quebec, and the government of Quebec invested $230 million in an electric bus maker as part of its green transition efforts. It stipulated that all electric school buses purchased in Quebec must be produced there. This was one more salvo from the green everything crowd, most of whom are just profiteers, as it turns out. In the case of Lion, this could not be more clear. With all the hype, the mandate, the supposed inevitability of electrifying everything, what appears to be a monopolistic mandate, and a quarter-billion-dollar investment from a provincial government, the profiteers got to work. The hype machine ratcheted up.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very quantitative question. I really appreciate it because the net effect of what the Prime Minister has done, going around the world at this time, has been his signing paper that means nothing. How do we get resources somewhere else when we do not have the ability to deliver those resources? Therefore, going there and signing a co-operation agreement with XYZ company results in zero effective trade with that country for the next Lord knows how many years, but we are all co-operating. Signing paper is easy. The government is one of announceology and of delivering absolutely zero for the taxpayers of this country.”
“It would require somebody knowing government and having a friend in government to get some taxpayer money to fund a project in Canada, because the rule of law is gone. The rule of contract law is gone. Companies do not want to invest in something because there is no certainty about the outcome in this country anymore, thanks to the policies of the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been lost over the last 10 years in the government's approach to the economy is the rule of law and respect for the rule of law. That is contract law as well. Members can think about how many companies are not investing in Canada. The government recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, yet every company that would put that infrastructure into place has said, “Not a chance.” There is no chance that this has any clarity as far as investment in Canada goes. The government has even said that we cannot put government money into these projects anymore. Therefore, there is a stalemate as far as getting our major projects built in Canada. It would require government money.”
“That is a net number, with half a trillion more in Canadian money being invested in the European Union and U.K. than there is coming back from that jurisdiction into Canada. This is something that has to turn around, and that is because of the bad economic policies of—”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is exactly right. It is good news that we are finally exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada. It took way too long, and there is one plant. One plant is exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada, when we should have a significant amount more. There are now 12 coming from the United States, and this is in the same time period it took for us to get one up and running in Canada. That is a shame, and it is a failure of government, at the end of the day. Let me give my colleague some facts. Canada's net trade position, net current balance with the European Union, which concludes in the numbers, unfortunately, that the U.K. is about a half-trillion-dollar creditor, where Canadian investment goes over to the U.K.”