An opposition motion debated during Business of Supply criticizing the government’s proposed $25-billion Canada Strong Fund, a national sovereign wealth fund to be financed by borrowing and used to invest in major projects. Government members said the fund would attract private investment, follows models used in countries like Norway and Singapore, and supports a long-term economic plan. Conservative, Bloc Québécois, and Green members opposed or questioned the plan, saying real wealth funds are built from surpluses rather than debt, that few details or governance rules have been provided, that project choices could be politically influenced, and that the money would be better spent on cost-of-living relief or raised by taxing oil company profits. Some members also raised the government’s handling of the trade war and its budget deficit during the discussion.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
“I want the House to vote for this motion and stop this massive spending. It is a bad idea and a waste of tax money.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a character in Greek mythology named Cassandra, somebody who is doomed to know the future but nobody believes them. I feel like right now all the speeches that are happening are like Cassandra’s speeches: this is going to fail, this is a bad idea, this is not the right decision. This is why the opposition is saying we cannot support this massive expenditure in the form that it is right now. It is crazy, especially given, as my colleague said, the government’s poor track record in this regard. I do not want to be watching a clip of this speech years from now saying that I was right and nobody listened on that side of the House. The government would be better served to say that this is a bad use of tax funds and that there are other things Canadians could benefit from. The government should pump the brakes on this, realize it is not a great idea and vote for this motion today, which supports those principles.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, there is a character in Greek mythology named Cassandra, somebody who is doomed to know the future but nobody believes them. I feel like right now all the speeches that are happening are like Cassandra’s speeches: this is going to fail, this is a bad idea, this is not the right decision. This is why the opposition is saying we cannot support this massive expenditure in the form that it is right now. It is crazy, especially given, as my colleague said, the government’s poor track record in this regard. I do not want to be watching a clip of this speech years from now saying that I was right and nobody listened on that side of the House. The government would be better served to say that this is a bad use of tax funds and that there are other things Canadians could benefit from. The government should pump the brakes on this, realize it is not a great idea and vote for this motion today, which supports those principles.
“I oppose the government's plan to borrow $25 billion to create a sovereign wealth fund. Other countries build these funds with extra money, not debt. We already have an infrastructure bank that has not spent all of its money. Creating a new fund will add wasteful bureaucracy and risk taxpayers' money if the investments fail.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Liberal government’s announcement concerning the creation of a so-called sovereign wealth fund amounting to $25 billion. We are not talking about $25 million or $2.5 billion, but $25 billion, charged to the national credit card. As a Conservative member, I want to be clear. We believe in strategic investment, but we do not believe in writing a blank cheque using the country’s credit card. In the end, the government will not be the one footing the bill. Canadian families, workers, small businesses, our children, our grandchildren and future generations will be the ones paying for it. A fund built on credit is a risky bet. The first critical problem with this sovereign wealth fund is the source of the funds. It is not funded through surpluses. It is not funded through surplus revenues, such as proceeds from natural resource development. The other countries mentioned by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for comparison purposes are all countries involved in developing their natural resources. They have budget surpluses, extra funds, which they use to create their sovereign wealth fund. Ours will be funded through debt. In other words, the government is proposing to charge $25 billion to the credit card at a time when inflation is hitting households hard, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and federal debt is reaching historic levels. The government is choosing to add another layer of financial risk. A debt-financed sovereign wealth fund is a gamble with other people’s money. When markets fluctuate, as they always do, it is taxpayers who absorb the losses. This is an unnecessary duplication of tools that already exist. There is another fundamental question. Why create a fund when we already have existing tools? Canada already has the Canada Infrastructure Bank, an institution created specifically to finance transformative projects, attract private investment, support the development of strategic infrastructure, and share financial risks. It was supposed to be the central tool for investing in the country’s economic future. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has $35 billion in capital. It has currently committed only $18.1 billion of that amount. The remaining $16.9 billion is awaiting allocation by the government. This government is not even able to make the most of the existing bureaucracy. If the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already doing the job, why create another vehicle? Creating a new fund means multiplying bureaucratic structures. The Liberals are experts in that. They are the champions of bureaucracy, the champions of structures and the list goes on. Creating a new fund also means watering down responsibilities, complicating accountability and increasing administrative costs. Instead of improving what already exists, the government is choosing to reinvent the wheel—and at great expense. Another major danger of this fund is the risk of political interference. When a government controls a $25-billion fund, there is always a risk that investment decisions will be influenced by political considerations, election priorities or partisan regional interests. A sovereign wealth fund—a true sovereign wealth fund—must be independent, transparent and rigorously managed. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is worth $2 trillion and is considered the best-performing sovereign wealth fund in the world, is not allowed to invest in the domestic market in order to ensure it stays independent. History shows us that when governments directly manage billions of dollars, the risks of favouritism increase. We have to ask ourselves some serious questions. Who will decide on the investments? What will the criteria be? How much transparency will there actually be? Who will bear the losses if investments fail? All of these questions remain unanswered. There will be losses. That is inevitable in any investment portfolio. Once again, taxpayers are the ones who are going to pay, with a governance that is still unclear and that does not provide answers to our questions. Another concerning point is the lack of clarity regarding the governance of the fund. We have heard some big announcements, but not a lot of details. How will the fund be structured and managed? What accountability mechanisms, investment limits and loss protection mechanisms will there be? A $25‑billion fund cannot be based solely on vague promises. It must be based on strict rules, robust mechanisms and absolute transparency. Right now, all we are getting is slogans. There are no guarantees. It is also important to look at what is being done elsewhere. Before becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney was involved in similar initiatives—”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Liberal government’s announcement concerning the creation of a so-called sovereign wealth fund amounting to $25 billion. We are not talking about $25 million or $2.5 billion, but $25 billion, charged to the national credit card. As a Conservative member, I want to be clear. We believe in strategic investment, but we do not believe in writing a blank cheque using the country’s credit card. In the end, the government will not be the one footing the bill. Canadian families, workers, small businesses, our children, our grandchildren and future generations will be the ones paying for it. A fund built on credit is a risky bet. The first critical problem with this sovereign wealth fund is the source of the funds. It is not funded through surpluses. It is not funded through surplus revenues, such as proceeds from natural resource development. The other countries mentioned by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for comparison purposes are all countries involved in developing their natural resources. They have budget surpluses, extra funds, which they use to create their sovereign wealth fund. Ours will be funded through debt. In other words, the government is proposing to charge $25 billion to the credit card at a time when inflation is hitting households hard, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and federal debt is reaching historic levels. The government is choosing to add another layer of financial risk. A debt-financed sovereign wealth fund is a gamble with other people’s money. When markets fluctuate, as they always do, it is taxpayers who absorb the losses. This is an unnecessary duplication of tools that already exist. There is another fundamental question. Why create a fund when we already have existing tools? Canada already has the Canada Infrastructure Bank, an institution created specifically to finance transformative projects, attract private investment, support the development of strategic infrastructure, and share financial risks. It was supposed to be the central tool for investing in the country’s economic future. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has $35 billion in capital. It has currently committed only $18.1 billion of that amount. The remaining $16.9 billion is awaiting allocation by the government. This government is not even able to make the most of the existing bureaucracy. If the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already doing the job, why create another vehicle? Creating a new fund means multiplying bureaucratic structures. The Liberals are experts in that. They are the champions of bureaucracy, the champions of structures and the list goes on. Creating a new fund also means watering down responsibilities, complicating accountability and increasing administrative costs. Instead of improving what already exists, the government is choosing to reinvent the wheel—and at great expense. Another major danger of this fund is the risk of political interference. When a government controls a $25-billion fund, there is always a risk that investment decisions will be influenced by political considerations, election priorities or partisan regional interests. A sovereign wealth fund—a true sovereign wealth fund—must be independent, transparent and rigorously managed. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is worth $2 trillion and is considered the best-performing sovereign wealth fund in the world, is not allowed to invest in the domestic market in order to ensure it stays independent. History shows us that when governments directly manage billions of dollars, the risks of favouritism increase. We have to ask ourselves some serious questions. Who will decide on the investments? What will the criteria be? How much transparency will there actually be? Who will bear the losses if investments fail? All of these questions remain unanswered. There will be losses. That is inevitable in any investment portfolio. Once again, taxpayers are the ones who are going to pay, with a governance that is still unclear and that does not provide answers to our questions. Another concerning point is the lack of clarity regarding the governance of the fund. We have heard some big announcements, but not a lot of details. How will the fund be structured and managed? What accountability mechanisms, investment limits and loss protection mechanisms will there be? A $25‑billion fund cannot be based solely on vague promises. It must be based on strict rules, robust mechanisms and absolute transparency. Right now, all we are getting is slogans. There are no guarantees. It is also important to look at what is being done elsewhere. Before becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney was involved in similar initiatives—
“I oppose creating a $25-billion investment fund with borrowed money. It is too risky for taxpayers, and the money would be better spent on lowering taxes for families or funding local infrastructure.”
“Mr. Speaker, before becoming Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister had another life and was involved in similar initiatives in the United Kingdom. The idea in that case was also to use public funds to stimulate strategic investments, but the British experience revealed certain limitations, including results that were slower than expected, investments that were concentrated in certain sectors, and lingering questions about real profitability. This reveals something critical. Setting up a fund does not guarantee financial success, and it is not the size of a fund that creates prosperity. It is fiscal discipline and the quality of decisions that create prosperity. The opportunity cost is what could have been done instead. When we talk about $25 billion, we also have to consider the opportunity costs, because even borrowed money could be put to other uses. The government could have decided to ease the tax burden on families, who are currently being squeezed. It could have invested directly in critical infrastructure, supporting municipalities that are desperately underfunded. Instead, the government is choosing to invest that money in an uncertain financial vehicle, and that is a risky choice. This decision will have consequences for decades to come. Financial markets are unpredictable. Even the best investors suffer losses. Imagine a simple scenario: a global recession, a market crash, investments losing value. What will happen? The government will have to inject more money into the fund or absorb major losses. Once again, taxpayers will be left holding the bag. This fund does not eliminate risks. It transfers them directly to the public using Canadians’ credit card. Conservatives believe in a different approach. We believe in fiscal discipline, financial responsibility, using existing tools efficiently, and, above all, reducing government waste. Before creating a new fund, we should seriously evaluate the effectiveness of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We should improve what already exists, not add more costly structures. Canadians deserve better. Canadians work hard. They pay their taxes and budget carefully. They know they do not want to live on credit forever. They expect the same level of discipline from their government, but this sovereign wealth fund proposal gives the opposite impression. It gives the impression of a government that is willing to take on major financial risks without providing sufficient guarantees or full transparency. To conclude, I want to make something clear. This debate is not anti-investment. This debate is not anti-innovation. This debate is anti-financial recklessness. Creating a debt-financed $25-billion fund creates unnecessary duplication, increases financial risks, opens the door to political interference and imposes a heavy burden on future generations. They deserve transparent investments. That is why, in the name of fiscal responsibility and transparency, and on behalf of taxpayers, I am against the creation of this sovereign wealth fund.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, before becoming Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister had another life and was involved in similar initiatives in the United Kingdom. The idea in that case was also to use public funds to stimulate strategic investments, but the British experience revealed certain limitations, including results that were slower than expected, investments that were concentrated in certain sectors, and lingering questions about real profitability. This reveals something critical. Setting up a fund does not guarantee financial success, and it is not the size of a fund that creates prosperity. It is fiscal discipline and the quality of decisions that create prosperity. The opportunity cost is what could have been done instead. When we talk about $25 billion, we also have to consider the opportunity costs, because even borrowed money could be put to other uses. The government could have decided to ease the tax burden on families, who are currently being squeezed. It could have invested directly in critical infrastructure, supporting municipalities that are desperately underfunded. Instead, the government is choosing to invest that money in an uncertain financial vehicle, and that is a risky choice. This decision will have consequences for decades to come. Financial markets are unpredictable. Even the best investors suffer losses. Imagine a simple scenario: a global recession, a market crash, investments losing value. What will happen? The government will have to inject more money into the fund or absorb major losses. Once again, taxpayers will be left holding the bag. This fund does not eliminate risks. It transfers them directly to the public using Canadians’ credit card. Conservatives believe in a different approach. We believe in fiscal discipline, financial responsibility, using existing tools efficiently, and, above all, reducing government waste. Before creating a new fund, we should seriously evaluate the effectiveness of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We should improve what already exists, not add more costly structures. Canadians deserve better. Canadians work hard. They pay their taxes and budget carefully. They know they do not want to live on credit forever. They expect the same level of discipline from their government, but this sovereign wealth fund proposal gives the opposite impression. It gives the impression of a government that is willing to take on major financial risks without providing sufficient guarantees or full transparency. To conclude, I want to make something clear. This debate is not anti-investment. This debate is not anti-innovation. This debate is anti-financial recklessness. Creating a debt-financed $25-billion fund creates unnecessary duplication, increases financial risks, opens the door to political interference and imposes a heavy burden on future generations. They deserve transparent investments. That is why, in the name of fiscal responsibility and transparency, and on behalf of taxpayers, I am against the creation of this sovereign wealth fund.
“My colleague agreed that we must invest in Canada and Quebec to grow the economy and create jobs. But he says Canada cannot do this properly under good rules. Why does he doubt that Canada can do as well as other countries?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have heard my colleague’s views. He emphasized the importance of investing in Canada and Quebec to grow our economy and create more and better jobs. He really emphasized investment and the importance of investment. However, he concluded by saying that Canada, unlike other countries around the world, would be unable to do this properly while following appropriate rules of governance. Why is he so skeptical about Canada’s ability to perform as well as other countries?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have heard my colleague’s views. He emphasized the importance of investing in Canada and Quebec to grow our economy and create more and better jobs. He really emphasized investment and the importance of investment. However, he concluded by saying that Canada, unlike other countries around the world, would be unable to do this properly while following appropriate rules of governance. Why is he so skeptical about Canada’s ability to perform as well as other countries?
“I do not trust the Liberals with public money. They have wasted Canadians' money for 11 years and doubled our debt from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not Canadians I am worried about. What I am worried about is how the Liberal government manages Canadians’ public finances. This government has been wasting Canadians’ money for 11 years now. When the Liberals came to power, the debt was $700 billion. Now, 11 years later, it is $1.4 trillion. What worries me is putting money in Liberal hands.”
Mr. Speaker, it is not Canadians I am worried about. What I am worried about is how the Liberal government manages Canadians’ public finances. This government has been wasting Canadians’ money for 11 years now. When the Liberals came to power, the debt was $700 billion. Now, 11 years later, it is $1.4 trillion. What worries me is putting money in Liberal hands.
“The government wants Canadians to put their money into a new wealth fund. But the Prime Minister will get to pick where that money is invested. I am asking my colleague if he would put his own money into projects picked by the Prime Minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, in yesterday’s economic update, the government announced that ordinary taxpayers will be able to contribute to this Canadian sovereign wealth fund that the Prime Minister wants to create. It so happens that his goal, as Prime Minister, is more or less to dictate what investments the sovereign wealth fund will cover. In fact, all of it will involve projects recommended by the Major Projects Office, and those projects will have been chosen by the Prime Minister’s Office. That means the Prime Minister is the one who will determine what investments will be made through the sovereign wealth fund. Does my colleague intend to invest his personal savings in the Prime Minister’s preferred picks?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, in yesterday’s economic update, the government announced that ordinary taxpayers will be able to contribute to this Canadian sovereign wealth fund that the Prime Minister wants to create. It so happens that his goal, as Prime Minister, is more or less to dictate what investments the sovereign wealth fund will cover. In fact, all of it will involve projects recommended by the Major Projects Office, and those projects will have been chosen by the Prime Minister’s Office. That means the Prime Minister is the one who will determine what investments will be made through the sovereign wealth fund. Does my colleague intend to invest his personal savings in the Prime Minister’s preferred picks?
“I do not make as much money as the Prime Minister, and I would not invest the way he does. Conservatives believe Canadians should be free to choose how they invest their own money.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not make the same kind of money our Prime Minister does. My investments are far more modest. However, that is certainly not the choice I would make. As for Canadians, Conservatives naturally are in favour of freedom of choice, so I will leave it to Canadians to make their own choices regarding their investments.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not make the same kind of money our Prime Minister does. My investments are far more modest. However, that is certainly not the choice I would make. As for Canadians, Conservatives naturally are in favour of freedom of choice, so I will leave it to Canadians to make their own choices regarding their investments.
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“I want a national wealth fund to help build big projects, grow the economy, and create jobs. The Conservatives do not support it, and I want to know why.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed, as I said earlier, in the Conservative Party not recognizing the value of having a national wealth fund. I think of the expansion of the port of Montreal in the province of Quebec. There is so much potential for projects across Canada, in Quebec and all regions of the country. This gives Canadians an opportunity to potentially participate. It allows for the expansion of our economy, the creation of jobs and contribution to our GDP. The Conservatives’ approach is to get out of the way. That is all they want to do. I would suggest they are not thinking about building Canada strong. They are more concerned about the Conservative Party than they are about the interests of Canadians. Why will the Conservative Party not support what many—”
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed, as I said earlier, in the Conservative Party not recognizing the value of having a national wealth fund. I think of the expansion of the port of Montreal in the province of Quebec. There is so much potential for projects across Canada, in Quebec and all regions of the country. This gives Canadians an opportunity to potentially participate. It allows for the expansion of our economy, the creation of jobs and contribution to our GDP. The Conservatives’ approach is to get out of the way. That is all they want to do. I would suggest they are not thinking about building Canada strong. They are more concerned about the Conservative Party than they are about the interests of Canadians. Why will the Conservative Party not support what many—
“The government is creating too many new groups and rules to build things. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank to do that job. The Liberals should use the tools we already have.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question because, once again, we have proof that what the Liberal government is doing is doubling and tripling the infrastructure. It is adding more layers and more structures. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is there to do the job. The Liberals should be using the tools that are in place and continuing to build Canada.”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question because, once again, we have proof that what the Liberal government is doing is doubling and tripling the infrastructure. It is adding more layers and more structures. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is there to do the job. The Liberals should be using the tools that are in place and continuing to build Canada.
