“Our government is starting a $25-billion wealth fund to invest in major projects and grow the economy. Canadians can invest in it too. The Conservatives are wrong to say this spending hurts the country. Canada has a strong economy and low debt compared to our partners. We are also funding skilled trades, building up our military, and updating farm rules to approve safe products faster.”

“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.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “On this side of the House we are focused on delivering affordability for Canadians.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →

“I respect the member and did not make light of the Humboldt Broncos. My point was that Conservatives kept asking the exact same question instead of talking about local priorities. Also, our government will keep making investments.”

“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.”

“The member only focuses on one issue. Our government is investing in major natural resource and renewable energy projects all across the country, including in Quebec.”

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 36 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The opposition keeps attacking good programs. Building a national wealth fund takes a long time. I want the member to say which projects in his area could benefit from that fund.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to make a brief comment on this opposition day motion, which is part of a pattern of opposition day motions that seem intended to tear down or attack things that are working to support the most vulnerable in our society, like the interim federal health program for refugees or now, with this motion, to tear down something that we are in the process of building. We know that sovereign wealth funds take generations and years to build up and to provide benefits. I want to ask my friend from Kings—Hants, what are the projects in his riding and his region that he thinks could ultimately benefit from that investment, from this fund?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 27 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“Atlantic Canada has huge opportunities for offshore wind energy. We could use a national fund to invest in these big clean energy projects so all Canadians benefit. The opposition needs to share real ideas instead of just criticizing everything.”

“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.”

“I want Canada to have a national wealth fund. It would invest public money to own shares in big Canadian projects. This would make money for taxpayers and help bring in private business funding.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I agree that our government must keep fighting climate change. But energy projects are complex. We need more thoughtful debate instead of politicians trying to trap witnesses with simple yes-or-no questions.”

“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.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We have the right to release a spring economic update. I am ready to work with the opposition and listen to their ideas.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are always open to collaboration here. Of course, it is our prerogative to introduce and table a spring economic update. As the parliamentary secretary, I am absolutely open to suggestions from my hon. colleague and my other colleagues on the opposition side.”

“I do not understand why the member opposes the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The bank funds important projects like ports, power lines, and clean energy. I want to know if he opposes those specific projects, because I think they are worth investing in.”

“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?”

“Our government is supporting big mining projects in Saskatchewan. I worked with the premier to help local canola and pea farmers. Will the member admit that the federal and provincial governments did good work together to lower tariffs for his province?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would put Calgary Centre ahead of Regina—Lewvan in those remarks, but I do respect the way in which the member has brought his issues forward. I see a more optimistic future for the country, including for Saskatchewan. I look at BHP and the Jansen mine. I look at the work that we are doing to support the Foran mine. On a personal level, I am proud of the work that I did alongside his premier, Scott Moe, in working to support prairie farmers and Saskatchewan farmers of canola and peas. Notwithstanding that I know it is the job of the hon. member to hold the government to account and to highlight what he sees as flaws, would the member at least recognize on the floor of the House of Commons that it was some good work at a federal and provincial level to resolve tariffs and to reduce tariffs that matter for farmers and for the folks in his province?”

“The Canada Infrastructure Bank has spent billions of dollars on projects that help people across the country. I want the Conservatives to say if they support these approved projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Conservatives do not see the larger picture. They make reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which they have been soundly in opposition to for years now, yet Canadians in every region of the country have benefited from this program. Provinces, municipalities and the private sector have actually been engaged. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, close to $30 billion. The Conservatives say it has not done anything. Duh. If they would just do a simple Google search, they would see the projects that have been approved. Do the Conservatives support the projects that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has approved?”

“Canada's finances are strong, and our debt is manageable. Global crises like the pandemic, foreign wars, and U.S. tariffs forced us to spend money to protect our economy. Cutting spending now would cause a recession. Instead, we must invest in our economy, trade with other countries, and create a public investment fund. I am voting against the Conservative motion.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to, if I may— An hon. member: No. Carlos Leitão: No? Okay, democracy in action, I see. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today’s debate. In budget 2025, we outlined our plan to build Canada strong. Since then, we have moved fast to build major infrastructure, homes and industries that grow the Canadian economy and create lasting prosperity; empower Canadians with better careers and a more affordable life; and protect our communities, our borders and our way of life. We delivered concrete savings for Canadians while supporting key national priorities and keeping investments focused on results. We are maintaining a strong fiscal position with the spring economic update 2026, showing that projected deficits are lower than the fiscal horizon and we are on track to meet our fiscal anchors. Allow me to talk a bit about our fiscal stability and strength, which is something that our colleagues from the other side do not seem to believe. They keep saying that over the last 10 years or so, it has been deficit after deficit and that Canada is something resembling a basket case: everything is broken, nothing works and Canadian cities are war zones. Think about it. If that is the case, how come Canada still has a AAA credit rating? How come bondholders from many different countries are perfectly willing to buy Canadian debt? In fact, the 10-year yield on a Canadian government bond is now, I believe, about 3.5%. The comparable bond yield in the U.S. treasury is almost one full percentage point higher, so Canadian debt is much better received in financial markets than U.S. debt and that of many other G7 countries. Germany still has a AAA credit rating, but so does Canada. The current deficit, which turned out to be $11 billion less than what we had estimated back in November, is $67 billion. Yes, that is 2.1% of GDP, hardly an unmanageable level. Again, going back to the United States, which seems to be in the ideal situation, because our colleagues keep referring to business in the United States and saying that we should get out of the way and lower taxes and that business knows what to do, the U.S. deficit is approaching 10% of GDP. That is a real problem. U.S. net debt is 100% of GDP. Canadian federal net debt is 10% of GDP, which is one zero less than in the United States. All this to say, Canada’s fiscal position is sustainable and strong. Yes, there have been deficits over the last 10 years, but let us take a look at what has happened during those years. We have had shock after shock. The economy was doing reasonably well in 2018-19. Economic growth was rebounding strongly and unemployment was very low at the national level and in most provinces, including the province of Quebec, where we had 5% unemployment, which was unheard of. Things were going in the right way and federal deficits were declining rapidly. In some provinces, as was the case in Quebec, there was a budget surplus in 2018. Things were going well. Then what happened? We had a major shock. The pandemic made it so that governments, not just the Liberal government but governments around the world, particularly in the G7, were forced to intervene massively in the economy. Basically, governments shut down the economy. We did not know how to handle the pandemic at the time, so we shut down the economy and governments intervened with massive assistance. In France, for example, the motto of the government and President Macron at the time was “quoi qu’il en coûte”, that whatever it takes, he needs to support the economy as the government was shut down. In the case of Canada, for example, we will remember that, when former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Poloz, was questioned about the actions of the central bank in those days, he said we would never think of blaming a fireman for using too much water when fighting a fire. That was what had to be done, and that is what was done. After that, yes, there was a strong pickup in inflation because the supply chains were interrupted due to a lot of pent-up demand that was released all at the same time around 2022. Then, when we were beginning to get that under control, we had another major shock, which was the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the interruption in the production and sale of grains, of which Ukraine was a major exporter. Of course, Russian oil and natural gas exports were also interrupted, which led to a food and energy price shock after the pandemic shock. There were more deficits in governments across the G7. We have to remember that Canada is not an island. We exist on a planet with neighbours. Then, as we were recovering from that, finally getting the economy on a much stronger footing and inflation back under control, we had the tariff war with the United States, the imposition of unjustified and totally counterproductive tariffs on Canada, which caused major diversions and interruptions to international trade. The United States was and still is Canada’s largest market and partner. Suddenly, that partner was no longer reliable, which provoked a huge shock to the economy. A lot of private investment was put on hold because many Canadian companies, as well as companies abroad, were uncertain as to what the investment climate was, given the total uncertainty from the United States. That put a lot of investment projects on hold. Then, as if that was not enough, when we thought we were back to a more even keel, there was the war in the Middle East, and the price of crude oil has now doubled. If we think about it, in two months, from the end of February until now, crude oil prices have gone from about $60 a barrel to $120 a barrel. That has some impact on prices, on inflation, on energy prices and on gasoline prices. Another big risk is that this may trigger another inflationary spiral. According to the Bank of Canada yesterday, there is no evidence of that yet. It left its policy rate unchanged because, for the moment at least, the risks seem to be well balanced, but of course, the central bank will remain very vigilant on that. Unfortunately, if need be, there might be an increase in the policy rate. That is not on the horizon for the time being, but it is always a possibility. We live, as the director of the IMF has put it, in a state of profound uncertainty. The fog of uncertainty is, indeed, extremely dense at this time, which has an impact on the economy, on prospects going forward and on government policy. This is where there is a major difference in the way we view things and the way the Conservatives view things. The Conservatives view the world as if none of this has happened, as if these shocks did not really exist and anything that has happened is all the fault of the Liberals. Of course, it is the Liberals who went on and bombed Iran. It is the Liberals who closed the Strait of Hormuz. It is the Liberals who caused COVID. Hey, why not? The big difference is that we think this is the time when governments must be ready and willing to intervene, ready and willing to support the economy. The worst thing that could be done at this time, the worst thing that could be done in 2026, in public policy, economic policy and fiscal policy, would be to run an austerity budget, to cut $30 billion to $40 billion out of the Canadian budget at this time. This would be the worst thing that we could do. This would be the perfect recipe to trigger a recession. This is the time to intervene. The world has changed, and this is the time that action is required. This is the time we are intervening. This is the time that the government is putting forward different policies, different ways to support the economy and to reshape the Canadian economy to make sure we find new partners and new markets for our products to lessen our dependency on the United States. This is another big difference between our view of the world and the Conservatives’ view of the world. The Conservatives’ view of the world and of what is going on in the United States is that what is going on in the United States right now is not very nice, but not to worry, because Mr. Trump will not be there forever and things will go back to normal. Well, we say that no, things will not go back to normal. Protectionism in the United States will remain a strong force. If we have learned anything from all this, it is that that partner is not reliable. That partner will always be our neighbour. It will always be there. We cannot change geography, but we can no longer afford to be totally reliant on that one partner. We have to diversify our markets, diversify our exports and look toward other partners that share our values of having a predictable and rules-based world, which is something the current U.S. administration does not appear to favour very much. Those partners are in Europe, in the European Union. They are in the Asia-Pacific area, particularly in Japan and South Korea. They are also in South America, with Mexico and with things such as Mercosur. Yes, we are working hard to diversify our markets, form new alliances and form new partnerships with other partners. Just this morning, before coming here, I was attending a seminar with folks from the Arctic Economic Council, which is based in Norway, where we shared many stories on development in the north and on ways to develop the north, particularly on ways to collaborate with our partners, be it Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark with Greenland. Those relationships are deepening. It is the same thing when we go to Europe and we talk to our European partners. They are very much interested in doing business with Canada, with investing in Canada. Canada has what the world needs at this point. We have critical minerals and more traditional minerals that are usually important these days, such as copper and nickel. We also have energy, both renewable and non-renewable energy, and a developed high-tech sector. We are among the global leaders in artificial intelligence. We have many things that the world wants, things that we will continue to supply the world and things that will lessen our dependency on this one neighbour. I think I made the point that the time to invest and the time to use the Canadian fiscal capacity that we have is now, not five years from now. Five years from now will be too late. That is what we are doing. My other point, which is another part of the discussion we are having here today, concerns the sovereign wealth fund that we put in place. That is actually the purpose or theme of the Conservative motion. This will not be a surprise to any member, but we are going to vote against such a motion. Why is that? Many things have been said about this sovereign wealth fund we are creating. I would now like to address the House in French. I would like to talk about the best example out there with respect to the sovereign wealth fund, which we announced yesterday and which has not yet been created. We have been accused of having all kinds of ulterior motives, but we will begin the consultation and dialogue process with lots of stakeholders from across the Canadian economy to set this fund up properly. I think that one of the best examples is that of two Quebec-based funds. Anyone listening who is from Quebec surely knows what I am talking about. The first is the generations fund, which the Government of Quebec created nearly two decades ago. The second is the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the CDPQ. When the Government of Quebec created the generations fund, it did not have a surplus either. The government was running a deficit. It is not exactly the same thing, but it was created and it is a huge success. As for the CDPQ, it is important to bear in mind that it currently has a portfolio of approximately $90 billion in shares in Quebec companies. That is the model that we are going to use for the fund that we are setting up here today. That fund will enable us to invest directly in Canadian companies that will participate in developing projects of national interest. The government will be a partner and part owner in these projects. That is how we are going to create wealth and prosperity for all Canadians in the very long term.”

“I was talking about Canada's net debt, not its total debt. If we count what the provinces owe, we must also count what they own. Canada's debt is still low compared to other wealthy countries.”

“Mr. Speaker, I did point out that was on net federal debt. I was not talking about the total debt, but if we want to include total debt, including the provinces, then we also have to look at the assets. There are many financial assets that the provinces also own, but if we want to look at debt, excluding the CPP, then the total Canadian federal debt is still around 40% of GDP, which is still one of the lowest in the OECD.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The federal government and the provinces have an agreed formula for healthcare funding, and the amounts go up automatically. We will talk about it in upcoming meetings. The formula can and should be changed over time.”

“Mr. Speaker, concerning the Canada health transfer, a formula has been negotiated by the federal and provincial governments, and the amounts are indexed. What I can say is that negotiations and discussions will take place during upcoming federal-provincial meetings, and I am sure that this transfer formula will be updated during negotiations held in the years to come. The formula is not set in stone. It can and should be adapted.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Parliamentary Budget Officer said today that Canada's economy is doing better than expected. Can the member share his thoughts on sovereign wealth funds from Quebec's perspective?”

“Mr. Speaker, I always find my colleague’s comments very informed and knowledgeable, and I do feel that they elevate the quality of the debate in this House, so I thank him for that. This morning I was at a meeting with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and she spoke about the spring update. She described Canada’s economy as being resilient, and she also spoke about how a number of economic indicators had surpassed what had been forecasted. I just wanted to add those comments in support of those that were made by my colleagues. Could my colleague expand on his knowledge and experience of the sovereign wealth fund from a Quebec perspective?”

“Our economy grew in 2025 despite hard times. We are creating a wealth fund so the government can invest directly in big, long-term projects. This will let Canadians own a piece of these projects and share in the wealth they create.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, the Canadian economy is very resilient. Despite all the shocks that I mentioned, 2025 was actually a year of significant economic growth. We have been able so far to resist that fog of uncertainty. Going back to the sovereign wealth fund, the purpose of the sovereign wealth fund, as we define it here and as has been done in the case of Quebec, is to allow the state, the government, to be an equity partner in major projects. We want the Canadian public to be able to benefit from investing in those projects. We know that those projects will take 10, 20 or 30 years, but they will be very important for Canadian wealth. If Canadians can own a portion of those projects, that would be a major bonus. That is why we are setting up a sovereign wealth fund.”

“The finance committee works well together and we agree on things. Other committees should follow our example.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for the finance committee, as I am a member. So far, we have been able to talk, we have been able to discuss and we have been able to reach consensus in that committee. If we can be an example to the other committees, so much the better, but things function and can function.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The formula we use to increase health care funding to the provinces is not permanent. It can be changed and updated over time if both the federal and provincial governments want to.”

“Mr. Speaker, what I meant to say, and what I did say, is that this formula, which determines the Canada health transfer escalator, is not permanent. It is a formula that is adjusted over time. I was present for the negotiations that led to the establishment of the formula at the time. This formula can always be adjusted; it can always be updated. If that is the intention of the federal and provincial governments in the years to come, so much the better. It can be done. We are not locked into a framework that cannot change; the framework can change.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Our government has worked for over a year to make the economy stronger and help Canadians. I want the member to recognize all the different things we have done to build a better country.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating that it has been just over a year now since this government was elected. Virtually from day one, there has been a focus on building a strong Canada, a Canada that is strong for all. Part of that means looking at major projects. Today the opposition has chosen to talk about a wealth fund. These types of initiatives that the government has brought forward are meant to build a stronger and healthier economy. I wonder if my colleague could provide more of a holistic view on the fact that, over the last year, the government has taken many initiatives to support Canadians in many different ways, because our focus has been to build a stronger and healthier country.”

“We are working to speed up major projects and helping Canadian businesses hurt by tariffs on steel, aluminum, cars, and copper. We are also supporting Canadian families with social programs.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have moved along several parallel tracks. We are trying to speed up major projects; this is very important. We have also put in place different programs to support Canadian businesses and companies affected directly by tariffs in the steel, aluminum, auto and copper industries, with direct assistance to those companies. We are also working, keeping in mind that Canadian families need assistance, need help, and we have put in place several social—”