TranslatePolitics.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 ↗

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.”

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 ↗

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.”

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 ↗

Warren Steinley

Conservative 4:00 p.m.

“This Liberal government is just as bad with money as the old NDP government in Saskatchewan. They both lose hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on bad investments. The government always thinks it knows how to invest better than the private sector, but it never does. Now they want a sovereign debt fund to put more of our money at risk. They're even worse with conflicts of interest – this will just be a slush fund for the Prime Minister's corporate buddies. Meanwhile, regular Canadians are struggling to make ends meet.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in debate today on our opposition day motion on the sovereign debt fund. The motion reads: That, given that, (i) sovereign wealth funds must have wealth that comes from budget surpluses and resource revenues, (ii) this government has run no surpluses, only deficits for the last 11 years and has no funds to invest, (iii) the Prime Minister is proposing to put his 25-billion-dollar fund on the national credit card, which will cause further inflationary pressure, (iv) the Prime Minister has already created 12 new Crown corporations, agencies and bureaucracies, (v) when government directs capital, it always goes to the politically powerful and not the deserving, (vi) there is over 1 trillion dollars in pension fund money that Liberals have pushed out of Canada that we could bring back with faster permits, lower taxes and free enterprise, (vii) the rising cost of fuel and food is already burdening hard working Canadians who cannot afford to pay more for handouts to Liberal insiders and corporate elites, therefore, the House call on the government to abandon this sovereign debt fund. This is what we are talking about today. I find it so ironic. I come from the province of Saskatchewan, with hard-working and good people in agriculture, mining, oil and gas, manufacturing, small business and entrepreneurship. We have been through this before. We have seen this movie before in Saskatchewan, where the government thinks it knows how to invest money better than the private sector. It was called “16 years of nothing under an NDP government”. There is someone in the House who was part of that NDP government, from northern Saskatchewan, and they were a disaster in government in Saskatchewan. Actually, the old joke in Saskatchewan when the NDP was in government was that the last one to cross the Alberta border turned out the lights. That is how dim it became in Saskatchewan under the NDP. I see this same movie replaying itself nationally with the Liberal government, the tired 11‑year Liberal government. It looks very similar to the NDP government that was in Saskatchewan. I would like to look back and talk about some of the investments a tired old NDP government made in Saskatchewan. There were failed investments, and it lost hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars. This was back in the mid- to late 1990s and early 2000s. It lost $15 million in Channel Lake. It lost $72 million in Navigata. One of the biggest boondoggles in Saskatchewan was $35 million with Spudco, a failed potato company. All these just bring back memories. When I hear the Liberals talk about the sovereign debt fund, it reminds me of all the money we lost in Saskatchewan under an NDP government that thought it knew how to invest money better than the private sector. The actual total loss in Saskatchewan over those years was 283.5 million tax dollars in failed investments by the government. That was in 1995 dollars to 2000 dollars, which would be over $1 billion now. That really looks like what we are talking about today. The government never does better than the private sector. That is why we continue to talk about why we need better investments. If the government wants to attract more investment in this country, it should start with getting rid of red tape. It should start with getting rid of Bill C-69 and the shipping ban on the west coast of Vancouver. There are so many things the government could do that would not put more tax dollars at risk, which is what it is doing today with the sovereign wealth fund. Lots of these Liberal members want to be compared to Norway, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. They want to be compared to all the other wealth funds that were set up. There is one huge difference, and Canadians need to realize this. The biggest difference between those funds and this one is that their government did it with surplus dollars. Surplus budgets went into a sovereign fund to be used to make sure the next generations had money. They did not put it on a credit card. If the government of the day wants to start something like this, the first thing it has to do is get its budget in order. It needs to get to a point where there is enough investment in the country to have surplus budgets to then invest dollars. Another huge difference between what this Prime Minister wants to do and what was done in Norway is that the money was not invested in Norway; it was invested outside of Norway. Those are huge terms of reference that are very different from what the government is doing here today. I really appreciate the comments by the previous speaker, my friend from Calgary Centre. He is very knowledgeable about the financial sector. He said that this fund is just like all the other funds the government has set up, such as the failed Canada Infrastructure Bank, which made a pipeline in China and did not build one in Canada. We do not realize that this fund is very similar to the green slush fund. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, that was the Asian infrastructure bank that they put money into. I will correct the record because, unlike some other members, I like to be as factual as possible and not misleading. I remember that right before the last election, this Parliament was seized with another slush fund, the green slush fund. Actually, a Liberal Speaker approved a question of privilege where we could not go past the debate about the green slush fund, and $300 million to $400 million of taxpayer money was given to Liberal insider friends and elites. There were 186 conflicts of interest in that $300-million slush fund. Can members imagine, once the banker buddy of the Prime Minister gets appointed as CEO and all of his Laurentian elite friends become board members, how many conflicts of interest are going to be in the sovereign debt fund by the time the Liberals are done giving out $25 billion to some of their best friends and insiders? That is what we are talking about right now as being a political economy. The average hard-working Canadian is $200 away from being bankrupt at the end of the month. There is always more month left than there are dollars in their bank account. However, politically connected insiders with the Liberals have never had it so good. I cannot go on without talking about the fiscal update. This spring fiscal update is fantastic for bankers and bondholders. They have never had it so good. The fastest-increasing budget item is $60 billion in deficit spending, putting that money to the debt. Debt financing is higher than health transfers to provinces, and that is shameful. Seeing how much money is going to corporate insiders is why we believe this sovereign debt fund is such a terrible idea. The Liberals are awful money managers, much like the NDP in Saskatchewan in the 2000s. They are terrible at managing people's money. They will lose it, and that is why we are so concerned about what this sovereign debt fund would look like. I would end on the fact that we do not have any confidence in the current government to manage the money without having more conflicts of interest. This is the most ethically problematic government we have had in our country. There were more ethics violations and conflicts of interest in the government in the last 10 years than in all Canadian governments combined. Justin Trudeau was found violating ethics twice when he was prime minister, for the first time ever. Now, this Prime Minister has a blind trust and does not think that he is going to be found in a conflict of interest with all of his dealings. I think he believes that PM stands for “portfolio manager”, not “prime minister”. He is in it for Brookfield and himself, not for the people of Canada. That is why this sovereign wealth fund, or sovereign debt fund, would just be another vehicle for him to make his corporate buddies richer. The Canadian taxpayers would be left paying at the end of the day. It would make Canadians poorer, but the Prime Minister and his buddies on the champagne cocktail circuit would be richer.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Warren Steinley

Conservative 4:10 p.m.

“Nutrien had to build in the US because this government's bureaucracy and red tape stopped them building here. That's on you.”

Pat Kelly

Conservative 4:10 p.m.

“The other side's speeches today were full of nonsense. I want to give the member more time to explain why.”

Warren Steinley

Conservative 4:15 p.m.

“I don't want to put more debt on our kids' credit cards. I want the liberals to stop spending so much money now.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment and the opportunity. I will walk them through it the way my wife and I would walk through budgeting at home. We have three kids, and we want to make sure that money is put away for their education. There is only so much money at the end of the day, when groceries are getting higher and the kids are getting bigger and eating more. If we want to put money away to make sure that they get an education, we have to look at cutting spending in other areas. Then we would have a surplus, extra money to put away for our kids' education. This is not being done with the sovereign debt fund. The Liberals are piling debt upon debt. If we did that in my household, instead of actually finding the money to put away for my kids' education, I would put it on my credit card, and my kids would be left with a student loan and then a credit card bill at the end. That is what taxpayers are going to be left with.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Warren Steinley

Conservative 4:15 p.m.

“I agree with the Bloc. I want you to know there is no transparency. I don't trust this fund to pick investments. I want the free market to decide instead. I think taxpayers will lose money.”

Warren Steinley

Conservative 4:15 p.m.

“You're immature. You cheerlead failed projects. Your bank delivered less than it promised. I will use this to campaign against you.”

Pat Kelly

Conservative 4:35 p.m.

“I say the real debt number is higher. He's comparing a misleading number to make our debt look small. I think his number hides the real size of Canada's debt.”

Ellis Ross

Conservative 4:40 p.m.

“I'm frustrated that the government has stacked committees in their favor and is blocking real debate. I don't like being told to just agree with their sovereign wealth fund idea without being able to discuss and scrutinize it properly first. How are we supposed to collaborate when they've rigged the process?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that speech covered a lot of area, I must admit. A number of the member's colleagues have gotten up and talked about how the Conservatives should get on board, work with them and just agree with the sovereign wealth fund, because it is good for the country. Actually, that is not how this model is set up. The Westminster model is set up with the official opposition, and normally we would go to committee, but committee has been stacked to the point now where we really cannot get debate without the government's votes stacked in its favour. On top of that, most of our committees are now going in camera, so we cannot even discuss what is being discussed in committees. Does the member have any opinions on how we can actually collaborate, outside of the committees, which have been hamstrung by the new appointments?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sandra Cobena

Conservative 4:45 p.m.

“I'm saying the Liberal government's plan to create a sovereign wealth fund with borrowed money is actually a sovereign debt fund. Canada has the talent, resources, and people to create wealth, but the government needs to get out of the way. We need lower barriers, faster approvals, and a system that rewards hard work. When the government stops holding us back, Canada will grow, build, and lead.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we cannot build wealth by going further into debt. A sovereign wealth fund requires one thing above everything else, wealth, and yet, after 11 years, the Liberal government wants to create a sovereign wealth fund using $25 billion of borrowed money on top of the $1.3 trillion of national debt. Let us call it what it is. This is not a sovereign wealth fund. This is a sovereign debt fund, and Canadians are the ones being handed the bill. Ask Canadians how wealthy they feel. Ask the 2.2 million Canadians relying on food banks. Ask the young families who have quietly given up on home ownership. Ask the parents who are trying to stretch every dollar to put food on the kitchen table. This is not what wealth feels like. Let us look at the record: $1.3 trillion in debt, the worst housing affordability in the G7, the lowest investment per worker, food prices rising faster than anywhere else and, now, interest payments climbing to nearly $81 billion a year by 2030. That is over $3,400 per household just to service debt. This is not a foundation for wealth. Canada should be the wealthiest country in the world, but it starts with honesty. It starts with discipline. It starts with calling things by the proper name. This is not wealth, and Canadians deserve better. This plan reminds me of something. It is like someone maxing out their credit card and then calling their bank and saying that they did not spend it; they invested it in themselves. That does not work with one's bank and it certainly does not work for our economy. Sovereign wealth funds like those in Norway or Saudi Arabia are built on surpluses. They unlock the resources. They generate wealth. They then invest it. In Canada, the Liberal government has been blocking our resources and delaying projects. We are losing investment. The Liberals then borrow money and they are trying to call it wealth. Canadians understand something simple, that we cannot tax and spend our way to affordability. They also understand that a government that cannot live within its means will never make life affordable for those who must live within theirs. They also understand something hopeful, that when Canada builds, Canada wins. We win when we say yes to projects, yes to energy and yes to innovation. When a government gets out of the way, opportunity, investment and prosperity follow. We do not need more illusions. We do not need more bureaucracies or layers of complication. We need a country that believes in itself again. When we do, there is no limit to what Canadians can build. We have seen this movie before, and Canadians know how it ends. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Canada Growth Fund and the green slush fund or Sustainable Development Technology Canada, all have different names but the same promise, to trust them and they will unlock investment. After all that, Canada now has the worst investment record in the G7. Nearly $1 trillion has left our country since 2015, as per RBC. Let us consider the Canada Infrastructure Bank, for example. It was supposed to deploy $35 billion, but it is billions of dollars behind. After years in operation, it could not even cover its own operating costs for the first seven years. It is a bank that cannot sustain itself, but I will talk about what did deliver: $8 million in bonuses to executives in one year. Canadians are lining up at food banks, and insiders are lining up for bonuses. That is not investment. That is misaligned priorities. We can do better than this. Canada does not need more experiments. It does not need more bureaucracies, Crown corporations or transition offices. We need to get back to the basics. When we do, confidence in investment will come back. Here is a simple question: If a project is good enough to be supported, why not just approve it? Instead, the Liberal government wants another Crown corporation, another transition office and another layer where companies must seek political approval. This time it is even more centralized, because there is no truly independent investment board. Everything flows back to the prime minister. That is not how we attract investment. That is how we discourage it, because investors do not want more politics. They want certainty. They want clear rules. They want a fair process and equal opportunity. This is the bigger issue. Instead of unlocking Canada's potential, the Prime Minister has created 13 new government entities in just one year. That is more bureaucracy, more layers and more distance between Canadians and opportunity. Canadians are not asking for more government. They are asking for a government that unlocks our resources and unlocks our people. The best economy is not one where a few are chosen. It is one where everyone has a chance, not just the people who are politically connected, not the friends of the politicians and not the individuals or corporations that are hand-picked by the government at the time. Success should be earned, not granted or hand-picked. Canada works best when it is open, when it is fair and when it is free. When that happens, Canadians do not just compete; Canadians lead. We have seen it before. Canada does not have a funding problem. It has a confidence problem. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business calls it the “entrepreneurial drought”, because for six quarters in a row now, more businesses have been closing than opening. Only 18% say that it is a good time to start a business. That should concern every one of us, because when entrepreneurs stop believing, growth stops, momentum stops and jobs leave. Here is some good news: Canada has everything it needs. It has talent, resources, ideas and people. However, what it needs is for the Liberal government to just get out of the way. That means lower barriers, faster approvals, a system that rewards hard work, and a country where investment flows, not because it is forced but because it makes sense. Canada is not a country in decline. It is a country being held back by the Liberal government. The moment we remove the barriers I have spoken about, and the moment we restore confidence, this country will grow, will build and will lead. Let us start by building wealth, because Canada has everything it needs to create it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sandra Cobena

Conservative 4:55 p.m.

“I don't like it when government makes businesses wait. I know a business that couldn't grow here but found it easy in the U.S. Government taking too long to give out permits drives investment away. We need less talk and more action on making it easier to grow a business here.”

Sandra Cobena

Conservative 5:00 p.m.

“We know this fund will be seeded with borrowed money and controlled by the prime minister. That's not how sovereign wealth funds are supposed to work. There isn't even a clear mandate. It makes no sense.”

Pat Kelly

Conservative 5:00 p.m.

“I dislike the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We were told it would bring in five dollars for every taxpayer dollar, but it's actually only bringing in 60 cents. Expert witnesses say it's a failed industrial policy. This new fund will be a boondoggle just like that. Can my friend affirm that? I want [him/her] to criticize the Infrastructure Bank more and say the new fund will fail the same way.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on comparisons that have been made between this new fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We were told by expert witnesses at committee on Monday that the Infrastructure Bank was failed industrial policy and that the fund would be just more of the same. We have heard defence of the Infrastructure Bank. In fact, one of the Liberal members claimed that it was leveraging private sector money. It was promised to do five dollars for every one dollar of public funds. We were also told at the finance committee that there would be about 60¢ of private investment for every dollar. Could the member comment on the failures of the Infrastructure Bank and how they correlate to this new future boondoggle?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sandra Cobena

Conservative 5:00 p.m.

“The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a proven failure. It burned money for seven years just to cover its own costs. If that's your idea of success, I want nothing to do with it.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Business of Supply

Warren Steinley

Kelly DeRidder

Greg McLean

Greg McLean

Greg McLean

Jeremy Patzer

Greg McLean

Warren Steinley

Warren Steinley

Pat Kelly

Warren Steinley

Warren Steinley

Warren Steinley

Pat Kelly

Ellis Ross

Sandra Cobena

Sandra Cobena

Sandra Cobena

Pat Kelly

Sandra Cobena