Corey Hogan
Calgary Confederation, Alberta · Liberal · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 284 lines we hold for Corey Hogan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“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, 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, 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, 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, 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, $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 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, 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, 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, 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, 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?”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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, 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, I feel sad for the members opposite, who look through the good news to find the bad news every day and bring their misery to the chamber. Here is the absolute reality. There has never been a better time to be in energy in Alberta. There has never been a better time to be in energy in Canada. We are building, and we are building strong. We welcome the Conservatives to get on board.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, the digging for conspiracies about Brookfield is just exhausting. I think this entire House is tired of it. We trust our regulators to make decisions, and we work on the political level to make sure that the framework supports good decision-making. I think we just have to put aside some of this searching for conspiracies on the other side.”
“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 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.”
“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, 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.”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. [ English ] 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.”
“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. [ Translation ] 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“[ Translation ] 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. (1005) [ English ] In Canada, and uniquely in Canada, questions and answers are capped at 35 seconds each. In 35 seconds, anyone can hide.”
“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. [ English ] 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.”
“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. [ Translation ] 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.”
“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.”
“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. [ English ] 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.”
“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.”
“I appreciate the member's advocacy on behalf of her constituency. These are vital sectors that the government needs to support.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”