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 2 of 6.
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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, this is obviously occurring; I do not begrudge it. I welcome anybody standing up to do the right thing, even if it is in private, but I do hope they will join us by doing it in public as well.”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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. (1310) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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%.”
“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 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, 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, 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.”
“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, 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.”
“Madam Speaker, that is simply not the case. I was a senior official for the Government of Alberta at the time. While I cannot go into confidences, the reality is that nothing there approximates reality.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1320) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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, 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?”
“Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. That is just the simple reality of it. However, I do think it would put additional pressure on the United States to potentially come to the table. Hopefully that is something that could be leveraged by our negotiators to get strong deals for our affected sectors. It is just very painful to see, and of course, the government needs to be there for them as those sectors are dealing with pain. I am proud to be part of a government that has invested significantly in supports for affected industries, not just in the short term, and is also helping them reorient toward the rest of the world and find new Canadian markets. I would like to just end on the same note, that I am glad we are in agreement. I welcome the member opposite to work with me. We are here to support Canada, all of us.”
“That includes diversifying trade relationships with the world, as the Prime Minister has done; that includes building the infrastructure to make us self-sufficient, which we are doing right now through the Building Canada Act; and that includes thinking of ourselves differently as Canadians and making sure that we are doing what is necessary to protect Canada during these trying times.”
“There is also the reality that we are somewhat supported at this point, with the fact that we have the best trade deal with the United States, with 85% of our products being essentially tariff-free. Yes, it is a complicated situation. It is something we have to watch closely. There are many opinions, I am sure, in the justice department. I have opinions myself. I am sure International Affairs has opinions. However, we cannot assume that any resolution to a court case in the United States would resolve our particular challenges here, north of the border. It is incumbent on us to go out and build our own destiny.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, this is a case that we are following very carefully. I will note that this is probably a question better targeted toward the justice minister , but I will say that in terms of the view of the case, one of the things that we are aware of is that while this is a lever that the President has used in the United States, there are other levers, so we should not assume, just based on that case, that our problems will go away. The reality is that the Americans have decided they want to change their trade relationship with the world, and we need to manage that situation. We need to do it in order to make sure we are protecting the various businesses that are being deeply affected, such as softwood lumber and steel.”
“These things need to be in alignment. These things take careful thought. That is what the government is going to provide.”