Debates of Jan. 27th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic Sovereignty

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the leader of the official opposition and the Conservative Party tend to link oil production to sovereignty because they share the same vision, the same party and the same organization.

I am not sure that this appeals to Quebeckers in general. When we talk to them about sovereignty, I do not think oil production is the first thing that comes to mind. If they do think about oil production, they may see it as more of a reason to leave this country.

Beyond that, let us look at what the government has done since it was elected. It paused the electric vehicle availability standard, put an end to carbon pricing for individuals and eliminated the electric vehicle subsidy. It introduced Bill C-5, which became law, allowing all kinds of environmental regulations to be circumvented. It even signed a pipeline agreement with Alberta.

This is my question for the opposition leader: Does he not feel as though the fact that the Liberals are eating his lunch is forcing him to be more radical, when he was already radical enough?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it funny that the Bloc Québécois thinks that Canadian sovereignty is radical.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that using our own resources rather than depending on other countries is a radical idea. The Bloc would rather import American oil than use oil that is produced here in Canada and that helps to fund health care, education and roads in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois thinks it is radical to let consumers choose their own cars and wants to force people to use EVs in the regions of Quebec, where they are not practical. The Bloc wants to impose a tax on gas and diesel in the regions of Quebec where people have no choice but to use traditional energy.

It is not radical to take back control. More importantly, it is not radical to be masters in our own house.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Stephen Harper Conservative government. After a decade of being in power, the Harper government left with a balanced budget and what The New York Times referred to as the richest middle class in the world.

I would ask our hon. leader to reflect on what we did well under the Conservative government that led to those circumstances, which seem so distant now.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his important role in the Harper government and in creating, of course, the richest middle class in the world, as declared by the ultra-liberal, internationally famous New York Times in 2015.

Can we imagine if somebody said that today? They would be laughed off the stage. Here we are, a decade later, and housing costs are the most expensive in the G7. Food inflation is the worst in the G7. The Liberals have given Canada the worst economic growth in a decade. Half a trillion dollars' worth of net investment has left. All these things have worsened since the Prime Minister took office.

It does not have to be this way. We demonstrated it before. The best is yet to come.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

It is great to be back in Parliament. I think it is important to begin by taking stock of where we are right now, because a lot has changed since we were here in December, debating another opposition motion, this one on the Canada-Alberta MOU. Since then, the Prime Minister has given a landmark speech, which the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out was well crafted and eloquently delivered. I would go slightly further and say that it was a sobering reminder of the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in.

In this new world of uncertainty, standing still leaves us vulnerable. Unfortunately, I believe the Conservative motion proposed today is the equivalent of standing still. The world has changed, and the motion is nostalgic for a moment in time that has passed. As the Prime Minister said in his speech, “Nostalgia is not a strategy.”

However, even with those criticisms of the motion, it is important to recognize the Leader of the Opposition's new-found willingness to work with the government on behalf of all Canadians. This is really important. It will require the Conservatives to work constructively, to stop obstructing crime legislation, to pass the budget implementation act and to work together to put more money in the pockets of Canadians.

I would point out that the motion, in fact, includes things we have already done, such as creating the conditions for an emissions cap not to proceed. On that basis alone, I believe the Conservative motion reveals a leader stuck in repetition rather than reflection, and it falls short of what Canadians expect of their political leaders during this critical moment for our country. It is ultimately a distraction from the real work needed to make life more affordable for Canadians, to grow our economy, to achieve greater sovereignty, to diversify trade and to make Canada an energy superpower. It seems designed for one audience, and that is in Calgary this weekend.

This is why, today, Canada is advancing its most ambitious trade and investment agenda in a generation. We set a bold, $1-trillion target for new investment over the next five years in order to allow us to build the strongest economy in the G7. This is not simply optimism. It is a fundamental reset of Canada's economic ambitions.

By establishing the Major Projects Office, we are creating the pathway and the expectations needed to mobilize billions in capital for nation-building projects. We are already hearing from companies that it is a positive signal for global capital. The first two sets of initiatives referred to the office already represent more than $116 billion in combined investments, demonstrating real momentum on jobs, on productivity and on economic capacity. This unprecedented strategy of investment is bolstered by over $280 billion in government funding and incentives over the next five years, designed to trigger even greater private sector participation. This is how we turn ambition into steel in the ground, put paycheques in people's pockets and create long-term prosperity for Canadians in every region of the country.

Crucially, this work is not happening in isolation. It is being done in partnership with the provinces, with indigenous communities, with workers and with industry because serious nation-building in Canada has always required collaboration, not confrontation. As we speak of the Harper years, we remember how they fizzled out in a series of court challenges and broken projects.

That is where the Conservative motion fundamentally misses the moment we are in. The motion before us is framed as a bold act of sovereignty, but, when we look closely, it is not a plan to build; it is a plan to tear down. It offers to repeal instead of to resolve, slogans instead of strategies and nostalgia instead of answers. Repealing laws does not, on its own, build a single project. Scrapping frameworks does not, on its own, unlock a single dollar of investment. Picking fights with provinces, indigenous partners and trading allies does not make Canada stronger. It makes us weaker.

Canadians learned this lesson the hard way. They know that ramming projects through without consultation leads to court challenges, delays and cancellations. They know that uncertainty scares away capital. They know that economic sovereignty is not achieved by pretending the global economy no longer exists. Real sovereignty means having the capacity to build and the credibility to attract investment. It means stable rules, predictable processes and a government that brings people together rather than pitting them against one another.

We are doing exactly that as a government: bringing people together. Through the Major Projects Office, through regulatory efficiency without abandoning environmental responsibility, through trade diversification and through unprecedented investment in clean energy, critical minerals and Canadian supply chains, we are strengthening Canada's economic independence in a way that will endure.

The Conservatives, by contrast, are offering a familiar tactic dressed up as urgency. They present a long list of things to repeal, as though the complexity itself were the problem. They reduce economic strategy to a checklist of grievances. They ask Canadians to believe that, if we simply get government out of the way, prosperity will magically take care of itself. However, Canadians are not looking backwards, and they are certainly not interested in magical thinking. They are looking for seriousness. They are looking for leadership that understands the risks we face from global instability, climate change and shifting trade relationships, and that is prepared to meet these head-on.

The motion falls well short of that test. It does not grapple with how we actually get projects built in Canada. It does not explain how to reconcile provincial jurisdiction, indigenous rights and investor certainty, and it does not acknowledge that the world has changed and that Canada must change with it. In a moment this consequential, slogans are simply not enough.

The government is choosing the harder path but the right path, the path of doing the work, building consensus and mobilizing capital at a scale Canada has not seen in generations. It is a path focused on outcomes, not outrage, and on nation building, not political theatre. That is why we will not support the motion, and that is why we will continue to work day by day, project by project, to build a stronger, more sovereign and more prosperous Canada for the long term.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the member opposite cannot see the action plan that is the Canada sovereignty plan. He said slogans were not enough.

Does he believe that empty words without action are enough? That is all we have seen from the Liberal government.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

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.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that, as he said earlier, the Liberals have already adopted several of the measures set out in the Conservative motion, including doing away with environmental protection measures, providing additional support for oil companies and axing the carbon tax.

Can my colleague explain why the Liberals are shifting toward favouring oil companies and away from protecting the country from climate change?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

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.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if my hon. colleague could either agree or disagree that something like this has happened, because this is something I have experienced. The Conservatives are standing in the House disparaging the Major Projects Office, talking down our initiatives to build up Canada, create more projects and ensure that more projects get built in Canada. Publicly the Conservatives are against all that, but in my personal email inbox, they are asking how their ridings can have access to this funding and these opportunities.

I am curious. As parliamentary secretary or as a member of Parliament in Calgary, has the member experienced the same thing: that the Conservatives say one thing in the House of Commons in public and something totally different in the inbox?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

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.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I note that we are debating something today on supply that is titled as something for economic sovereignty.

I am concerned about the growing movement toward separatism within Alberta. I am wondering if the member, as an Alberta MP, has noted whether the leader of the official opposition, as a fellow Alberta MP, has chosen a lane. What can we all do, as members of Parliament who have sworn an oath in this place, to defend our country, to be loyal to Canada and to provide an alternative and an effective way of ensuring that any Alberta vote is not contaminated with foreign interference?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion before us. I have been spending time listening to this today, and I cannot help but wonder who the real audience for it is.

I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources really hit the nail on the head a few moments ago when he said that the intended audience of the motion is the folks who will be assembling in Calgary this weekend. That is probably the best answer to that question that I have heard today.

The reality is that when I look at the motion, I just think to myself that it is literally everything the Conservative Party ran on last April, and it was rejected. Canadians said, “No, we are not interested in that platform. We are interested in something else, something that the Liberals are offering.” That is what we ended up with; that is where we are. We formed a government based on our platform. The Conservatives did not form a government based on their platform, which is basically what the motion today is.

The parliamentary secretary's explanation is probably the best one: that the motion is intended for an audience in Calgary later this week and weekend, when there is an opportunity for the membership of the Conservative Party to have its say as to whether or not the current Leader of the Opposition should continue in that role.

I found it really interesting. The Leader of the Opposition spoke a few moments ago, and I had the opportunity to ask him a question afterwards. I stood up, and I am sure if members go back and watch the tape they will see I was offering him an opportunity. I very plainly said to the Leader of the Opposition that the motion is basically what Conservative members ran on, and Canadians rejected it in April last year. I asked him why Conservatives were putting the motion forward and, more importantly, if could he talk about what he had learned since then and how he was going to do things differently.

This was an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to genuinely be reflective. He could have used that clip, without my question, looked at the camera and talked to Canadians about what he learned from that experience of going from a 25-point lead in the polls to getting clobbered by the current Prime Minister. He could have used the opportunity to reflect on that and say he did learn a lot, and what he would start to do differently.

Did he take that opportunity to be reflective and to genuinely put to Canadians how he will be different? No, and, as a matter of fact, he seemed to double down. He used the opportunity to make a little partisan jab toward me, and he basically said that this is what he ran on in the last election, what he still believes, and what he is still going to be suggesting to his Conservative membership that they should keep pushing toward.

If I were a card-carrying Conservative and I were heading into this—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I know. I agree. The words were even difficult coming out of my mouth.

Mr. Speaker, in any event, if I were one of the members who are going to be assembling this weekend to pass judgment on the Leader of the Opposition, I would seriously reflect on that and ask, “What has he learned? Has he learned anything? Is he going to be different? Will he do anything differently than he used to?” I gave him the opportunity to very plainly suggest what that might be, and he completely neglected to suggest even one thing that he might do differently.

This comes back to the theme of my discussion, how I started, and what I have spoken about a number of times in the House as it relates to the opposition. The Conservatives are just not understanding what they are supposed to be doing here. His Majesty's official opposition has a role to play, and that role is to challenge the government to do better, and to encourage the government to make better policy better. It is not to just block everything and to systematically, every single time, prevent anything from moving forward. Unfortunately, that is what we continue to see.

This is an opportunity for Canadians, in particular, to sit back and actually reflect on this and to think about where the Conservative Party of Canada is going and who the Conservative Party of Canada is.

Earlier the member for York—Durham talked about Sir John A. Macdonald. I will remind him that when Sir John A. Macdonald sat in the House, he was a Liberal-Conservative. It was a completely different political party. He has nothing to do with that party, and I think I could go out on a limb and say that even Sir John A. Macdonald was more progressive than the newly reformed party that we have now.

More importantly, the member for York—Durham brought up that city council has decided to remove the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald from City Park in Kingston. I want to ask the member something, because he brought it up in his debate today. Does he know that not only did 12 out of 13 city councillors vote in favour of removing the statue but, more importantly, that the Conservative candidate who ran against me in the last election, the mayor of the city, the Conservative candidate in Kingston and the Islands, voted in favour of removing the statue? If he had his way, he would be sitting next to the member right now.

Of course, the good people of Kingston and the Islands saw better than to send a Conservative here. The last time they did that was in 1984, when they sent Flora MacDonald here, a truly progressive Conservative. However, I digress. The reality of the situation is that the current Conservative Party is not the Conservative party of Sir John A. Macdonald, and it is certainly not the Conservative party of Flora MacDonald or any relatively contemporary Conservative.

I certainly got a kick out of one of the Conservative members when asking a question of the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago. Let us hark back to the days of Stephen Harper. The member said that this was the 20th anniversary of Stephen Harper and that he was so great. Meanwhile, if we try to bring up Stephen Harper in the House, we are always criticized, asked why we are bringing him up as it was so long ago, and why we are living in days gone by.

I will end with this. The reality of the situation is that this particular motion is just in line with everything else we have seen from the Conservatives, everything I have become accustomed to seeing over my 10-plus years in the House, which is theatre. The motion is intended to drive donations. It is intended to help the leader, supposedly, with his position as he goes into his judgment convention this weekend. This is nothing more than theatre. I would really encourage and ask the Conservatives to actually come here with something meaningful, to bring forward some solutions and propose some ideas that can genuinely change the lives of Canadians.

I heard the member for York—Durham give his speech earlier. He was trying to answer questions by asking what we are doing and what we are putting forward. The Conservatives offer nothing in terms of solutions; all they do is criticize. The member got up and started to go on about how people on this side of the House are not focused on the issues of the day and not living in reality. Then I had to listen to 10 minutes of his talking about Sir John A. Macdonald.

It is time for the Conservatives to wake up, realize what their job is in the House and start to actually do things that are meaningful for Canadians, not just fundraise off the clips they make in the House and prime themselves for the conventions that are coming up later this week.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member is talking about John A. Macdonald in the House. However, I think it is shameful that he represents our former founding father's home yet has refused to take a position on whether the city council should put his statue back up in City Park. I will give him the opportunity today: Does he believe that John A. Macdonald's statue should be returned to its rightful place in City Park?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will totally leave it to city council to decide what to do with a statue that belongs to city council. I will leave it in the very capable hands of the individual who still serves as the mayor there, whom I am extremely grateful for, to make that decision, the same individual who ran for the Conservatives in the last election.

While Conservatives focus on days gone by and whether or not we need a statue to celebrate people, I think it is much more beneficial for us to focus on the legacy of the individual and use it to determine how we can do things differently. What are we doing differently now to help address some of the problems that have been raised with respect to Sir John A. Macdonald's contributions—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that the European Union adopted a carbon border adjustment mechanism in 2023, which took effect on January 1 of this year. The United Kingdom has passed similar legislation that will apply as of January 1, 2027.

The concern here is that, if Canada were to eliminate its carbon pricing, Canadian exports to Europe would be subject to tariffs to compensate for the fact that Canada backtracked on its carbon pricing system. This would hurt Quebec's exports because, even though Quebec has its own system, it is part of a country that would have scrapped its system.

What does my hon. colleague think of his government's backtracking, particularly when it comes to the fight to protect the environment and consumer carbon pricing?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for starters, the policy that he is referring to in terms of Quebec's pricing of carbon existed long before the federal government ever got involved in it. As a matter of fact, Quebec and Ontario signed deals with California and a number of other states back in the early 2000s to make sure that pricing carbon was done properly.

The reality is that we spend time here arguing with Conservatives all day long about whether or not climate change is real and what the contributions are. There are other parts of the world, including in Europe, including in Asia, that are actively doing something to change the environmental impact that the world is having right now. We can get caught up in these discussions all day long, but eventually we get to a tipping point where it really does not matter what the west does or in particular what we are doing in North America, because the rest of the world is pushing forward. I only wish that we could have been completely on the front end of this, rather than fighting with Conservatives all day long on whether or not climate change is real.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend and colleague from Kingston for his passionate speech and for talking about the importance of having meaningful dialogue in the House. He spoke about opportunities. British Columbians in Richmond and people from across the country want to know what opportunities we are working on right now.

Could he shed some light on real, meaningful things that are happening for Canada and what our Prime Minister is doing for this country, with a focus on what really matters? Like the legendary artist DJ Quik said, “If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense”.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Prime Minister, as Canadians have witnessed, has realized and recognized the fact that the world has changed in terms of where our primary trading partners are and where our economic strength is from. He has been spending a lot of time looking at other opportunities and creating new opportunities throughout the world. That is what he is doing in terms of our economic perspective and what we are doing about our economy to strengthen it and diversify it.

One of the initiatives that I am extremely proud of that the government has worked on is the national school food program. While Conservatives voted against, shouted down and called the national school food program names, Canada was the last of the G7 countries to officially adopt one. There have been meaningful impacts that I have seen in the school my children attend. I know the impact it has on kids, in particular making sure that kids have food when they start school.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our pages for all the great work they do to keep us on the straight and narrow.

Before I start, I would like to mention that I am splitting my time with the wonderful, esteemed member for Northumberland—Clarke, who has a new riding name. I am sure his speech will be absolutely excellent.

It is important that we are here today at this moment to discuss areas in which the government may find collaboration and co-operation opportunities with members of His Majesty's loyal opposition. There is a list of what I will call wish-list items that Conservatives have put forward that Liberals would have support from Conservatives in moving ahead, but I would also mention that this is about creating an environment in Canada where we make more things more quickly. When Canadians make more things, we also make and receive bigger paycheques for our people and our standard of living increases.

As members know, our standard of living has been on the decline. In fact, if we measure it by GDP per capita, our standard of living today is worse than it was in 2019, so the Conservatives are willing to work with the government. We are suggesting ways we can do this, but generally speaking, we are proposing to drastically reduce and reform regulatory systems to help spur development.

We recommend cutting taxes on investments when companies and individuals reinvest those proceeds in Canada. I will give an example. If an individual sells a building or somebody sells an investment and those proceeds are reinvested within Canada, within our borders or in a Canadian company, we are proposing that the government can either defer the capital gains tax or eliminate it completely. That would absolutely have the immediate effect of spurring investment in this country.

We should be rewarding provinces that take down trade barriers between other provinces. I remember that the government said, very famously, that by Canada Day we would have free trade in Canada. It is well past Canada Day and we do not have free trade in this country. Provinces will likely only respond to financial incentives to make the right decision, so the government should provide provinces with that monetary incentive and basically say that if they remove their trade barriers, the federal government would provide to them, in greater transfers, a share of the revenue that comes from the increased business activity that happens.

Finally, it is a long-standing recommendation of Conservatives, and in fact even of parliamentary committees in previous Parliaments, that intellectual property created in Canada and funded by Canadian taxpayers has to remain in Canada. We are encouraging the government, through the industry minister, to find ways to make that happen, but here is an easy example: With the scientific research and development credits, when a company that has received that tax preference and has gotten very generous tax deductions for making investments in scientific research and development creates Canadian IP using taxpayer subsidies to do so, and that company or intellectual property is sold to anyone outside of this country, why not ask or require that company to repay the federal government and taxpayers the money that it received or the subsidies that it benefited from when it developed that IP?

If that IP stays in Canada, they would not have to pay it back, but when it leaves, we have to require that the subsidy be repaid. That is just the most appropriate thing to do. In fact, some countries actually make those companies repay a multiple of the subsidy that they received when that intellectual property is transferred out of the country. We would support the industry minister going in that direction.

The Prime Minister has told the world and this country that he has embarked on an ambitious agenda, but he has to start putting some wins on the board. Signing a few agreements and making agreements to agree is not putting shovels in the ground.

In fact, the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office, which the Liberals will tout as a serious accomplishment, is yet another layer of bureaucracy on an already unmanageable bureaucratic regulatory system to get things done. It is a complete admission that the existing regulatory system does not work when the government has to put itself in a position to create a new system in order to fast-track projects. Also, 90% of the projects that have been listed or referred to the Major Projects Office are already nearing completion. These are not net new projects.

We need net new development and investment in our natural resource sector to get our resources to market. We need to support the business community to do that, but not by forcing everyone to come to the government, hat in hand, begging to be put on the major projects list. If the last 10 years have taught us anything, it is that for Liberal ministers, or those they appoint to choose favour, the temptation is too great and they often end up currying favour to their friends. We need to not give ministers this additional power. We need to allow the system to work better by drastically reforming it and removing government, not by putting more government on top.

This leads me to one of the other areas we have recommended to work with the government on, which is the electric vehicle mandate. Do members know why the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, desperately wants us to allow its Chinese vehicles into Canada? It is monetary. There may be some non-monetary issues, but the average profit on a car is about $3,000 to $5,000. Every electric vehicle that is sold by a Chinese company in Canada will immediately be eligible to receive a $20,000 purchase of credits by an automaker in Canada.

What does that mean? It means that $980 million will go from Canadian automakers that have footprints and manufacturing here to a Chinese automaker. That is four times the profit margin on that car already. The CCP wants access to the Canadian market because of the regulatory system the government has set up, which makes absolutely no sense. We would be willing to work with the government on that basis.

The Prime Minister also is developing a bit of a credibility deficit. He was for increasing carbon taxes and then he abandoned them. He was against pipelines and now he might be for them. He said he would spend less and invest more, but his deficits are bigger than former prime minister Justin Trudeau's. He said he would deliver a closer economic and defence security partnership with the U.S., and now he says we need a new world order. The Prime Minister said that when middle nations negotiate with larger powers bilaterally, they are in a worse position. That was just days after signing a bilateral deal with the CCP. He said that China is the largest security threat to Canada and now inks a deal with it.

Perhaps the most devastating is that after the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands voted for the budget and the MOU was signed with the Alberta government, she said that the Prime Minister intentionally misled her in those negotiations. We should take those accusations by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands very seriously. She has developed a very good reputation in the House. When she says that she was misled by the Prime Minister, I believe that he is growing a credibility deficit.

These are the opportunities that we are offering to the government. We will work with the Prime Minister's government in this trying time to help him put some wins on the board. Hopefully the Liberals will take these comments into consideration, and I welcome their questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let us be really clear. What we have before us today is nothing more than the Conservative election platform from last year. Canadians made a decision back then that the Conservative platform would not build a stronger, healthier Canada. We have a Prime Minister who has taken a number of initiatives, along with the government, to build the country and build Canada strong.

The member made reference to trade. We have two pieces of trade legislation before the House today, numerous agreements in the making and a Prime Minister who is bringing hundreds of millions in investments into Canada.

Would the member not recognize that the greatest asset to and ambassador for Canada in increasing exports and bringing in investments is a Prime Minister who—