TranslatePolitics.ca

Hon. Kody Blois

Liberal 3:15 p.m.

“I want to cheer for our spending programs. I love talking about them. The opposition says our spending is bad, but I think it creates a great future. Our plan is to put up public money to attract more private investment. Then government can be an equity stakeholder and grow the fund with returns from the projects. Opposition members should ask about things that actually matter in their riding. Conservatives say our spending is reckless, but it's an investment in the country. They never mention that Canada has the best fiscal position in the G7.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to be able to join this afternoon's debate to talk about the opposition day motion. Those who know me know that, over my seven years of serving as a member of Parliament, I love opposition day motions because it is an opportunity for members on the government side of the House to critique the text and the policy ideas that are being put forward by the opposition members. Of course, today is no exception to that. I want to start by giving an opportunity to Canadians at home to understand what the government announced this week, because it is a core element of what the opposition has put forward. In its view, what we have put forward is not a good policy idea. I think the role of Canadian parliamentarians is to explain the policy positions and the ways in which we would handle government, and let Canadians decide who they think is best able to handle the current circumstances. This week, the Prime Minister announced the Canada Strong fund. This is Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund. It is an initial allocation of $25 billion from the government. Canadians at home might ask what a sovereign wealth fund means and what is the intention of the government in trying to move forward with this policy initiative. First, I think it is important to understand that the government has an intention of catalyzing a trillion dollars' worth of investment spending in this country over the next five years. I will repeat that: The government has an intention of spending and catalyzing private sector investment to $1 trillion. That is a large amount. I dare not doubt that for many people, parliamentarians in this House or Canadians at home, it is hard to understand the quantum of what that is, but that is a large investment in Canada's future. Of course, we have seen that reflected in the government's work to help establish the Major Projects Office, to look at identifying major projects of national interest and look at the work we can do to remove some of the regulatory barriers to be able to streamline processes, get shovels in the ground, draw in global investment and make that happen. I have observed, and I am on the record in my time as a member of Parliament since 2019, that as the government looks to incentivize the private sector to come and spend in the country, as we are putting public money on the table, Canadian parliamentarians on all sides of this House have identified that there is an important mechanism about public interest return. We can become equity stakeholders, and by “we”, I mean the government, as in Canadians. The beneficial economic derivatives of these projects can be used to support social programs and to support the types of national interest projects that we may wish to advance as a country in the days ahead. Of course, when we invest in projects, for example if we build what Enbridge is committing to do in British Columbia, a $4.4-billion natural gas pipeline, that comes with intrinsic benefits in terms of wages, which would support Canadian households. There is taxation on that, which would then support social programs that the government puts on. We could look at the construction jobs. We could look at the economic imports or perhaps royalties in terms of natural resources that are being developed in Canada. That is a broad macroeconomic benefit that would support the country. However, if the Canadian government were to invest or be an equity partner in these types of projects that return important revenues and economic benefits, not only for private stakeholders but for the government, there would be an opportunity to grow the wealth that the country has overall. Many Canadians would point to Norway as a prime example, the way Norway has been able to use its natural resource endowments to create a fund that is larger than $1 trillion. I do not have the exact figure, but I know it is north of $1 trillion. That is because the Norwegian government, back in the 1980s, decided that it would be an equity stakeholder in projects of national interest in its country. Now Norwegians, as a country and as a society, have a sovereign wealth fund that is over $1 trillion. We believe that the government here in Canada can do the same thing. We believe that we can draw in investments. We believe this Canada sovereign wealth fund can be a mechanism to take small but meaningful equity shares in projects that are going to matter to the country, that are going to create an economic return, and that Canadians themselves can participate in. Canadians can essentially be bondholders. They can take out an equity stake and invest in the Canada sovereign wealth fund themselves. That way, Canadians across this country, from coast to coast, can help build a country that they are proud of. If they have some additional disposable income, they can put it into the sovereign wealth fund. Of course, as the parameters are established, the fund would allow for Canadians, if they were to pull out their investment from the sovereign wealth fund, to have an interest-bearing benefit in terms of that time. As the sovereign wealth fund grows and the projects bring back economic revenues, this fund that Canadians could draw upon to invest in ourselves and our people is something we could move forward on. It has been interesting to hear the Conservatives take such a narrow and negative view of the benefits of what this type of fund could create. For example, the text of the motion says, “sovereign wealth funds must have wealth that comes from budget surpluses and resource revenues.” We certainly have resource revenues in this country. I point to the examples of perhaps some of the most successful wealth funds in the world: in Norway, the United Arab Emirates or some of the gulf countries. Every single one of those sovereign wealth funds started with the same principles as the Government of Canada is using today. They allocated and put in an initial ability to put money up front, and then they built out their fund as they continued to invest in economic projects around the world. We have a tremendous opportunity to do the same. Canadians watch what the government is seeking to accomplish. We have had the one-year anniversary since the mandate of our new Prime Minister in his seat. We are focused on delivering for Canadians, but it must be said with pride, regardless, so to speak, of the colour of jersey we wear in the House, that Canada has what the world wants. I have had the opportunity, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, and as all parliamentarians have, to engage with diplomatic leaders from other countries, including ambassadors and high commissioners who are in Ottawa representing their country. Across the board, when we sit down with diplomatic representatives such as high commissioners or ambassadors, they say that they want more of what Canada has. We can look at what is happening right now in the Middle East, with all the uncertainty created by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Countries want what Canada has from an energy perspective. We are focused on building out Canada's energy sector and being able to get product to international markets. That is one way in which Canada can continue to fuel the world. We talk about agriculture. I represent Kings—Hants in the Annapolis Valley, the largest agricultural riding in Atlantic Canada, though we may be small potatoes, so to speak, compared to the larger, sometimes prairie-heavy ridings, where we know a lot of the export focus in this country happens. I have enjoyed the working relationship I have with the Premier of Saskatchewan and have spent a lot of time in Western Canada. I believe in what prairie farmers mean to our Canadian economy and identity, and in what they do to feed the world every single day. We are proud of that. We also think about critical minerals. Again, whether seen through a lens of defence or one of clean energy, Canada's critical minerals are going to be what help shape the economy of today and tomorrow. That is what the government is focused on. The Canada Strong fund will allow Canada to take those equity positions I am talking about, help advance major projects across this country and create long-term benefit for Canadian people. The Prime Minister said that this “will be [the] people's fund.” This is an opportunity to invest in Canadians individually and our country and society as a whole. Of course, the Canada Strong fund is one of the many measures that the government introduced in the spring economic update. I would be remiss if I did not take some time to highlight the connectivity between the Canada Strong fund and the other initiatives we are putting on the table to help make our economy more resilient in the days ahead. First I will give some facts, because we can look at the text of the opposition day motion. The House leader, in question period earlier today, highlighted that essentially there were 33 questions of the exact same ilk from the opposition benches. There was no deviation from the type of questions. Let me take a moment to say as a parliamentarian, taking my parliamentary secretary hat off for a moment, that I think this is troubling. Yes, there should be a national line of questioning from opposition members. Perhaps the first two or three rounds ought to be about the macroeconomic issues of the day and holding the government to account, of course. However, when do individual members of Parliament from His Majesty's loyal opposition stand up to talk about the issues that might matter in their constituency? I cannot remember the last time there were actually questions on specific, directed issues that were being asked of government ministers. It is very rare or does not happen. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, I know I am getting a rise out of the opposition because they know it is true. I hope the leader of the official opposition and the empowered and enlightened members on the other side, including the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, who has a lot to say and whose questions I look forward to, should have a conversation inside their blue tent and ask if they are doing the best for the people they represent and are asking the hard questions. I think they should be doing a better job of holding the front bench to account by talking about the things that actually matter in their riding. We never hear that. Here are some facts. We have heard, even in the opposition day motion, about the idea of a credit card debt dynamic. I do not know about anyone else, but when my wife and I bought our first home in Nova Scotia, we did not have the money to buy it outright. Maybe some members of the House had that ability, had some savings and bought a house outright. We had to borrow to buy an asset that we felt was fundamental. I would argue that when many Canadians buy a home, they do not have the money to buy it outright. What do they do? They borrow the money to build a brighter future for their family, and in many cases that primary residence becomes a retirement fund. When it is time for Canadians to retire, they sell their primary residence. Over the time they have held that property, its value will usually be greater than the original investment they made. Governments are very similar. Governments are exactly the same when they have to make decisions. They consider whether they are going to take a longer-term view of making an investment that will create long-term economic prosperity. While the Conservatives will stand and talk about so-called reckless spending, and I will get to this a moment, the most important metric is our overall debt with respect to the size of the economy and our propensity to repay. What we never hear is that level of nuance. What we never hear from the opposition benches is that the International Monetary Fund has reaffirmed that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. If the Conservatives would like to say that this is no longer a proper measure for how Canada and elected officials ought to be looking at our fiscal situation and that we need to go further, then we can have that conversation. Maybe the Conservatives would like to take the test pool of countries and go wider, and that is a fair thing for them to do, but we never hear about the fact that we have the best position. We never hear that we have the best net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, the amount of debt that Canada holds as a proportion of our economy. That is fact. We do not hear the members of the Conservative Party talk about that. They can talk about the fact that they would like us to be even stronger, that we should be even better. We are of the view that we are making important investments, including in our Canadian Armed Forces, and making the investments that matter for infrastructure in our communities. At the same time, the spring economic update showed $11 billion less in the size of the deficit. That is important, because we believe now is the time to invest. I have great respect for Mr. Harper. I may not have agreed with every decision he made, but he served this country as prime minister. I will remind Canadians that when Mr. Harper left office, in his last years of government, the Conservative Party had taken defence spending below 1% of GDP. I would submit to the House that for far too long, both Conservative and Liberal governments had not taken the question of defence spending in the way they ought to have. I am proud that the government has gotten to our target of 2% of GDP on defence spending, with an ambition to get up to 3.5%, according to what is being asked of our NATO partners. My question for the Conservative Party is this: Will it not recognize that part of that spending, being able to take on debt, is an investment in our men and women in uniform and an investment in our communities, and that, as part of our procurement to give the equipment needed to our men and women in uniform, those are true investments in our communities all across this country? There is no recognition of this at all, and I think it is important. Here is something else important. We will never hear this from the opposition benches, so my message to Canadians living in Conservative ridings, who will not find this in householders, on clip media or on social media, is that Canada has the strongest amount of foreign direct investment in the world on a per capita basis. That was in 2025. It is because countries want to invest in Canada. I can tell the member for Regina—Lewvan that this is absolutely the truth. I am happy to give him the statistics. He has to get beyond the social media talking points. It is an absolute fact. It is the job of the official opposition to push and to move. At the end of the day, investment is coming in, and it is a result of the conditions and culture the government is creating, saying we want investment in the country, the $1 trillion I just talked about. Connected with these major projects, connected with the sovereign wealth fund, we have to have the ability for the women and men of this country to build this country. This is why we have $6 billion committed to skilled trades. We want to help support 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal trade professionals in this country over the next five years. We are putting forward investment to support our young, new entrants into the trades. We want to encourage people to join. Again, I would ask the Conservative members to at least make sure this is being made known in their community, to share the fact that those programs are happening. As was mentioned in question period, there is almost $1 billion to support small craft harbours across this country. This is extremely important in Atlantic Canadian communities. The CPP reduction for small business employees is modest, but it is important. It reduces the amount that employees and employers have to contribute towards CPP savings, depending on their income and the amount of the deductions that would happen. Again, these are important measures that we are trying to take to support small businesses. The Conservatives ought to like this one. Bill C-273 was introduced by the member for Bow River, in Alberta. The bill is an identical mirror image of the bill I introduced three years ago. I have good news for my Conservative friends. If they have read the text of the spring economic update, and I give credit to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, they will have seen that we are going to be amending the legislative statute of the CFIA and what is now called the pesticide regulatory directorate. This is going to ensure that we have an economic lens and can make more agile regulatory decisions. In fact, the Minister of Health confirmed today, publicly, that we are going to be using trusted science from other jurisdictions to expedite the available tools for farmers. The Conservative Party ran on a platform in April 2025 with absolutely nothing for farmers, no specifics about the programs, no specifics around AgriMarketing, nothing for business risk management and certainly nothing on this type of regulatory piece. It was good to see the Conservatives steal my homework, but guess what. It is not needed, because we are actually moving forward as a government. We appreciate that the Conservatives are going to continue to support it. I expect, or really hope at least, that when these measures come back in the budget, if the Conservatives do not agree with all elements of the spring economic update, they will actually create a separate vote and support that element of what may come through. We think it is extremely important. We believe we have an ability to create a Canada sovereign wealth fund that will create benefit for Canadians in the days ahead. This will be an important way for us to be able to invest in public interest stakeholders and major national projects that will return a type of fund that can be reinvested for Canadians and generations to come. We reject the premise that this type of spending in long-term national economic and productivity-building investments is somehow going to draw and increase inflationary pressures. We would submit that the inflationary pressure we are seeing around the world as a result of global consequences, such as the Strait of Hormuz closure, the impacts of climate change, and the impacts of trade relationships that are being dislocated in a world that is increasingly pulling away from elements of free trade, is a larger driver of that inflation than anything the government is doing. We would also suggest, as I have already made the case and the Prime Minister has made clear, contrary to the idea that the fund cannot be used as a way to support everyday Canadians, everyday Canadians will be able to invest in the Canada sovereign wealth fund as a way to contribute to their country, to invest in the country they believe in and in the people who are helping build these projects. We have a positive view on what we can get done in this country, and I wish the Conservatives would join us. The last piece is around affordability, because fuel is referenced, along with food. Again, there was nothing in the Conservatives' platform, in their last election opportunity, that spoke for farmers. As it relates to affordability, we have been rolling out a series of measures to support Canadians. Whether it is the groceries and essentials rebate, the Canada child benefit, the national school food program or dental care for seniors, there is a plethora of programs we think are important for everyday Canadians. At every single turn, notwithstanding the fact that these programs benefit their own constituents, the Conservatives vote against them. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Warren Steinley

Conservative 3:35 p.m.

“I don't like what you said. Don't mislead people. The Norway fund you talk about is built on surpluses and can't invest outside Norway. Our debt fund is not like that. You should not make fun of me for asking a question that matters to my community. You should say you're sorry.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, generally, I enjoy the speeches from my colleague from Kings—Hants. We worked on the agriculture committee together. However, I think he has been listening to the member for Winnipeg North too much, because he made a lot of misleading comments toward Canadians throughout his whole speech, specifically around the sovereign debt fund. He talked about the Norway sovereign fund. It is unbelievable that he did not mention that Norway's fund was built on surpluses. That fund is not allowed to be invested in outside Norway. There is no comparison between the Canadian debt fund and the sovereign fund of Norway. The second comment I would leave with the member, something about which I am truly disappointed, is that yesterday I was able to get to my feet, because of our leadership team, and I asked a very important question about the Humboldt Broncos crash. The member made light of that, and I think he should apologize, because we are allowed to bring forward things that are important to our communities.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kody Blois

Liberal 3:35 p.m.

“I respect you. I didn't make fun of Humboldt. I want Conservatives to talk more about local issues, not just repeat questions. I didn't mean to suggest anything bad about you. On Norway, what matters is we keep investing.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will start on the way back. I have respect for my hon. colleague as well. We have done great work together. At no point in my speech did I make light of anything, as that member just said, related to the Humboldt Broncos. I absolutely respect the statement he made. In fact, I would like to hear the Conservatives make more of them. That was the point I was making in my entire remarks because, notwithstanding a few occasions, whether it was the member for Regina—Lewvan or a few others of a similar nature, we had just heard 33 straight questions in the House of Commons on the exact same comment. I would like to see more mixing in of local, regional and riding priorities. The member should not suggest at all that I am trying to disrupt what he said the other day in the House. On Norway, again, whether or not it is surplus, whether or not it is a government choosing to make the investment, that is what we are continuing to do, and that is the principle we are focused on.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Patrick Bonin

Bloc Québécois 3:40 p.m.

“I want the government to spend less money on oil and gas. I don't like the new fund. I think it's a trick to let government spend even more on oil and gas projects. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for Trans Mountain. Government should let taxpayers keep their money. Government should spend less on oil and gas, not more. That would reduce our dependence on oil and gas. Instead, government wants to spend on expensive oil and gas projects. I think that's bad.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this new fund is clearly a federal gimmick to take public money and invest it in projects such as major LNG projects. The government has already identified some projects. There is also a major pipeline project that the government wants to pursue. However, the investments would not be limited to major projects, but would also go towards all the companies and projects that have already received federal support. This means, for example, that the planned expansion of the Trans Mountain project, which has already cost us $34 billion, could be financed by this fund. I would like to know what my colleague from Nova Scotia thinks, as his region is being hit by rising sea levels due to climate change. Is he concerned that Canada is giving itself a way to take taxpayers' money and invest even more of it in oil and gas, while cutting funding for public transit and other measures that would actually enable us to reduce our dependence on oil and gas?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kody Blois

Liberal 3:40 p.m.

“I don't want to answer your question. I want to talk about how I think you aren't bringing a broad enough spectrum of issues. I want to talk about how the natural resource sector is good for Quebec. I want to talk about renewable projects, too.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have seen this member for one year now sitting in the House of Commons, and I do not think there has been one single issue other than the issue that he continues to raise, on which he is trying to get the government in these gotcha positions, about investing in our natural resource sector. Why does he not look at the way the government is investing in Quebec on grand projects like Contrecoeur? Why do we not talk about Nouveau Monde Graphite and the projects and natural resources that are available in Quebec? We are going to invest in a variety of different projects across the country, including in Quebec. He has one focus. I have to assume the people in Repentigny would like to see a member of Parliament actually bring a broader spectrum of representations to this House and would encourage the types of investments that governments can do to support projects all across this country, including in Quebec, to drive our natural resource sector but also to drive renewable projects that we are going to need, because we are going to need all of it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Karim Bardeesy

Liberal 3:40 p.m.

“I want to say the other party's motions are mean and just try to tear down things that are good. I want to ask you to imagine how a wealth fund might bring good things to your riding instead.”

Hon. Kody Blois

Liberal 3:40 p.m.

“I want to talk about the wind power opportunities in Atlantic Canada. I want the government to spend money through a sovereign wealth fund. Then the government can own part of this big project. The other party should come up with ideas like this instead of just criticizing.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have a whole host of opportunities in Atlantic Canada related to energy. Obviously, the one that the Premier of Nova Scotia has talked about is Wind West and the idea that we have one of the best capacity factors in the world in terms of offshore wind opportunities. This is an opportunity for Nova Scotia. This is a national opportunity, though, because we have an opportunity to bring clean electricity into our grid across Canada, five gigawatts of opportunity. There is an industrial ability to either work with a partner like Hydro Québec or work across the Atlantic region. This type of sovereign wealth fund is a way that Canada could have an actual public interest equity stake in a major project, such that Nova Scotians and Canadians in the days ahead could benefit from this type of economic thinking. That is but one example. I would agree with the way my colleague framed this. The opposition needs to start coming up with ideas to challenge the government, as opposed to just trying to tear everything down and not really offering a whole lot of original thought about how to move forward.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Kelly DeRidder

Conservative 3:40 p.m.

“The government is misleading people. The Norwegian wealth fund built up savings for citizens over many years. The Canadian debt fund just goes deeper into debt. I want the government to admit they are being misleading.”

Hon. Kody Blois

Liberal 3:40 p.m.

“The government just wants to take on more debt to buy pieces of companies for Ottawa to control. We say it's in the public interest, but it's really just the government spending and borrowing more money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will try to help my hon. colleague here. The principles are exactly the same. Whether it is taking royalty revenue and putting it into a sovereign wealth fund, taking a national surplus and choosing to put it into a national fund or debt financing being put into a national fund, the entire objective here is taking equity positions in major national projects. In Norway's case, it is around the world. In our view, we want to focus on Canada. The idea here is that the fund would be used to create equity positions in major national projects or resource projects in this country, such that there will be a long-term benefit in the public interest to Canadian taxpayers and to Canadian citizens. Canadian individuals can invest in the sovereign wealth fund and get a return, and this money would be used to help catalyze private sector funding. The position is very similar. It is taking equity positions to create long-term public interest. That is about as simple as I can make it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Elizabeth May

Green 3:45 p.m.

“I want the member to feel bad for arguing with someone who mentioned climate change. Climate change is very bad. I'm sad and scared about it.”

Hon. Kody Blois

Liberal 3:45 p.m.

“I didn't deny climate change. But the member was playing gotcha, not letting the CEO give a thoughtful answer about low-carbon natural gas or electric vehicles. I want politics to be more thoughtful.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in my interventions today did I deny that the government has work to do, that we have to continue to support the reduction of emissions and that we understand the impacts of climate change. I sit with the member for Repentigny on the build Canada committee, and I observed him trying to get a yes-or-no answer from the CEO of the Major Projects Office when he asked whether or not a major national project that involves some type of fossil fuel could create an environmental benefit. Of course, Dawn Farrell went down a pathway of trying to explain, whether it was low-carbon natural gas, or bitumen, perhaps, going into vehicles that ultimately would become electric vehicles that reduce transportation. He did not want any of it. It was yes or no, a gotcha type of politics. We have to be more thoughtful than this. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is quite thoughtful at times. We may not always agree. That is the type of politics I want to see in this place.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Bloc Québécois 3:45 p.m.

“You didn't consult us on the sovereign wealth fund. It's a big deal and we might have had ideas. But this government promised to work with others. Especially since it barely won its majority.”

Hon. Kody Blois

Liberal 3:45 p.m.

“We didn't have to consult you. The government gets to table its own update. But sure, I'm open to your suggestions now that it's already done.”

Greg McLean

Conservative 3:45 p.m.

“I don't like that. I don't like that at all. The government shouldn't borrow more to make another fund. It's too much debt already. They can't even manage the funds they have. Don't make a new fund until we stop losing money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time today with my hon. colleague from Regina—Lewvan. I first heard the announcement on Monday morning that the government was starting a sovereign wealth fund. The first thing I thought, I have to admit, was that the government was putting up a big smokescreen because it was going to have a miserable day the next day with the budget announcements. Yes, the budget is still at a $67 billion deficit for this year. It is still the highest budget, and double what Justin Trudeau, the previous prime minister, indicated we would have at this point in time. The government sees no reason not to continue the fiscal expansion and to continue debt upon debt for Canadians, and this, as I have come to realize over the last few days, is something the Liberals are actually somewhat serious about, but the seriousness of it has to be questioned, as far as Parliament is concerned. That is why we are here today: to ask what they are talking about and how they actually mean to structure this and to give them some background on this. As I am sure members know, I used to manage funds. Hopefully, we can understand the basics of funds here. I do not mean this to be a tutorial for my colleagues across the way, but there are a whole bunch of gaps in what they are talking about here. There is this whole notion of “announce-ology” that the Liberal government seems to continue to go through, where they are going to do big things. Well, what do the details of those things look like? There are a lot of great sovereign wealth funds around the world, across a whole bunch of jurisdictions, including Norway, which we have talked about here a lot, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and other gulf states that are amassing money from surpluses. Those surpluses are often resource-based surpluses. Why do we not have that in Canada? It is because we have been held back on our resource development by a narrow-minded, prejudiced government. It does not like hydrocarbons. It has made that very clear several times in the House of Commons. Now, that is a problem. We take a look at what is happening in the gulf region, and the gulf is full of money. It is buying the patrimony of Europe, buying all kinds of assets in Asia and buying all kinds of assets in Canada. Where is the Canadian wealth? It is going offshore because it does not see the opportunities in Canada. Let us get back to the basics here of what we are talking about. What are the definitions of actually getting a sovereign wealth fund in Canada? It is nice to have, if we actually had some money to buy it, but this government thinks, “Don't worry. We'll just borrow the money.” Did anybody notice any borrowing for this in the budget? Well, it actually was there. It is actually in the cash flow statement at the end. People think Canada has $1.4 trillion in debt, which is an embarrassing number considering where we were a decade ago. We have more than doubled the number over the last decade. It is a shame that, on that side of the House, the government would risk Canadians' money so much that it doubled the debt, and it is continuing on that path. Recently, in March of this year, the Liberals came back and added more space for borrowing for the government, from $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion, and so $2.5 trillion is the space it has. Canadians think the government is $1.4 trillion in debt, but its borrowings are actually almost $2 trillion right now. What is the difference between $1.4 trillion and $2 trillion? It is all the money the Liberals are plowing into the Crown corporations, such as the Bank of Canada. Nobody sees the deficit and the debt incurred by the Bank of Canada because it continues to float. It has assets and liabilities, and who knows what it is worth until one actually writes it off? Well, it is actually almost $900 million in debt, or almost $1 billion. Members can think about that. It is nowhere on the government's balance sheet, except in the cash flow statement, the amount of money it is borrowing from foreign institutions, which we have to pay Canadian taxpayers' money to in order to get that money to float the way government operates. It is embarrassing. We have to make sure we understand exactly how broke this government is making Canada and how dependent we are on foreign wealth already. Doubling down, as the Liberals continue to do, there is this $25 billion extra they are talking about, which is going to add to that balance sheet, but members will notice, again, that it did not show up in the budget, except for the $6 million they were going to spend to stand up the office, to hire a bunch of people to go through the effort of what this looks like along the way. It is an embarrassing amount of money to have to spend to establish a fund. We can ask any fund manager why, if they got a captive $25 billion, it would take them $6 million to stand up that fund. It effectively means structure. Most of those structures are pretty well known. It should cost almost nothing. If it costs $1 million, they have drastically overspent; $6 million is an embarrassment. I know where that money is going to go because the government over there has a lot of pockets it needs to fill, and that is part of the problem of why we are in such a debt predicament in this country. Let us go into definitions, because of the definition of a sovereign wealth fund, which we have already heard from many people along the way here. We invest surplus funds in other places. We do not want to invest in our own economy, because we would create what is called Dutch disease. I know my colleagues across the way would not know about this, but Holland, in the Netherlands, actually had a problem where it had too much revenue coming in and being cycled through one sector of its economy, and that starved the rest of its economy. It is called Dutch disease for a reason. Every country uses that example now and makes sure they do not double down on one sector in any economy and make it too prevalent in their total economy. However, step one in setting up a sovereign wealth fund is to get a surplus, not a $67-billion deficit like this year's. We actually have to get back to balance and start creating a surplus and then probably pay off our Canadian government debt before we start sinking a surplus into new spending vehicles. The best wealth is when we do not lose money. The number one rule for making money is to not lose money. If someone is a fund manager, they should not lose money, but be cautious and prudent with other people's money. It is one of the first things we learn in finance. Funds start with one thing, and that is fiscal discipline. The government does not have any fiscal discipline. We have seen that in so many ways, and we will have more egregious examples to show in the next few weeks in Parliament of how the government will be spending willy-nilly. It has been spending willy-nilly and unaccountably, and making sure it gets all its fish fed. I know that is a funny way to put it, but that is the way Liberals actually say it. It is time to feed the fishes. All the little people who support the Liberals with all their narratives along the way give them money, and those little people get the narrative back. It is a circular economy, as they call it. We already have a lot of funds in Canada. I brought a list of them here. I know I am not going to get midway through my speech, because I have a lot to say here, but let us look at all the funds the government already has. There are a bunch of them. I think when the government put this one forward, all it did was cut and paste from a bunch of the other funds it had put together, where it is wasting Canadians' money. There is the Canada Development Investment Corporation, CDEV. Who do they think put the money into the Trans Mountain pipeline? It came through CDEV. The Trans Mountain pipeline cost $35 billion. There are a whole bunch of other investments in CDEV. I think about how big that fund is and why we need another fund now for the benefit of Canadians. It is a wealth fund. It is not a wealth fund; it is a way to tap into a whole bunch more debt and make money less relevant for Canadians. Next is the Canada Growth Fund. What a joke. It is a way of financial manipulation, but again, it is billions upon billions of dollars. The government allocates another silo of Canadians' money that it is trying to take and actually borrow against. We talked about that balance sheet to borrow and pay money on, because the government wants to pick certain things in the economy that are going to move its people forward. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is an example. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was set up. It is a joke, frankly. It was set up and there were a whole bunch of infrastructure funds in Canada that wanted to invest in Canada. I think about our investment deficit at this point in time. A whole bunch of funds were set up to invest in infrastructure in Canada and then suddenly the government put together a fund and all those funds had to pay their investors back or invest outside Canada, because the government does not know what it is doing on infrastructure. The government does not know what it is doing on debt. It was terrible. I am only going to get partway through this list, because it is a long list. We have the Export Development Canada. We have Canada account by EDC, which is another account. There are two accounts in one organization. We have FinDev Canada, which has billions of dollars to invest. We have the Business Development Bank of Canada, with over $55 billion. We have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has billions of dollars that it invests on behalf of Canadians. There is Farm Credit Canada. The Canada Strong fund is a new one. They cut and paste, as I say. It is a wonderful way to do something without any principles whatsoever. There are a bunch of other ones like the strategic investment fund, another replication the Liberals are going to have to go through here. There was the sustainable development technology fund. I remember the $400-million boondoggle where the government was caught shovelling a whole bunch of money into the pockets of its friends. This is another boondoggle. I know I am going to run out of time here very quickly, and I want to get to the conclusion of my speech, because I am not going to get to too much else. I had a lot to say, so if anyone wants to hear from me again, they can just let me know. The fact is that setting up this fund is one of the worst things the government can do. The government is borrowing tens of billions of dollars to create another state-directed investment vehicle. Parliament must first answer the very question that frames today's debate: Is this truly the most responsible path forward for Canadians?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Karim Bardeesy

Liberal 3:55 p.m.

“You have economic credibility. Do you really oppose the Canada Infrastructure Bank? Do you really oppose its projects? The bank should control these big projects. That is good.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Calgary Centre, who has a lot of economic credibility and expertise, which is why I am a bit confused by his critique of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Presumably, if there is a critique of the bank, then there is a critique of the projects in which the bank is investing. I am curious about whether the member is supportive of, or opposed to, the CIB's investment in the port of Montreal's Contrecœur terminal, the Peace Hills Trust, the Mersey River wind project or the north coast transmission line early works project. Are these not the kinds of projects that we should be investing in through a vehicle like the Canada Infrastructure Bank?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Greg McLean

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“The Canada Infrastructure Bank isn't needed. It's wasting money. Its first mandate was useless. Now it's stepping on other funds. It should not exist. Government is spending too much on these projects. We could do it cheaper. Look at my questions about their bad investments.”

Patrick Bonin

Bloc Québécois 4:00 p.m.

“The government wants to spend $25 billion of your money on oil and gas projects. I think that's bad because of climate change. The other guy didn't answer me. Do you think that's okay?”

Greg McLean

Conservative 4:00 p.m.

“I don't want the government to spend your money on other people's projects. Canada has too many rules. We need rules that work for everyone.”

Jeremy Patzer

Conservative 4:00 p.m.

“The government spends $66 billion more than it has. You can't invest when you're deep in debt. Trying to invest sounds as dumb as putting a kid's college fund on a credit card when you're already broke. Tell us more about how badly you're managing our money.”

Greg McLean

Conservative 4:00 p.m.

“The more the government borrows, the more it costs us all. Debt isn't just a little problem; the costs grow exponentially. And who benefits from all this government debt? The people lending the money. Canadians are stuck holding the bag. If the government keeps borrowing to finance things the market rejects, Canadians will pay the price. Stop with the borrowing and deficits! Change the regulations so people can get things done without the government.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for that, because there is a part of my speech I did not get to: the cost of debt. The more that is borrowed, the higher the cost of debt goes up. It is not just linear but actually exponential. He will know that because he is a good financier as well. The issue, of course, is that the more the government piles on, the more it is borrowing money. It wants to borrow more money. The beneficiaries are the people who are lending the money. There is no risk in lending Canada money. Those rates are going to go up. The people at risk are the people who are actually bearing the equity investment, and that is going to be shovelled onto the backs of Canadians in this exercise. That risk is going to be borne exponentially, as the cost of capital goes up and as the risk that the government puts on these projects goes up. The government wants to finance a whole bunch of things that the market does not want to finance. That is the problem. Here is the solution: Change the regulations, and we will get things done in this country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Business of Supply

Hon. Kody Blois

Warren Steinley

Hon. Kody Blois

Patrick Bonin

Hon. Kody Blois

Karim Bardeesy

Hon. Kody Blois

Kelly DeRidder

Hon. Kody Blois

Elizabeth May

Hon. Kody Blois

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Hon. Kody Blois

Greg McLean

Karim Bardeesy

Greg McLean

Patrick Bonin

Greg McLean

Jeremy Patzer

Greg McLean