This was a Business of Supply debate taking place during consideration of the government’s recent economic update legislation. Conservatives pressed the Finance Minister on deficit spending, asking when the budget would be balanced, how many homes are being built, the costs of a planned sovereign wealth fund, and details of specific spending items such as a spaceport lease, while repeatedly saying the minister was not answering their questions. Liberals defended the government’s record, saying the economy is strong, the deficit is lower than expected, and housing prices and rents have come down. The Bloc Québécois asked about the exemption of American companies from the global minimum tax in Bill C-31 and about wage subsidies for workers affected by tariffs, and the NDP asked why the government is not taxing oil company excess profits or banning surveillance pricing. Some members also raised local matters such as support for regional media.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
132 statements
“The minister says this will be independent. I want to know who will choose the independent board members.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister assures Canadians that it will be independent. Who will appoint these independent board members?”
Mr. Chair, the minister assures Canadians that it will be independent. Who will appoint these independent board members?
“The government is creating a fund with borrowed money, bad investments, and political control. I want the minister to explain how they can call this a sovereign wealth fund instead of a political slush fund.”
“Mr. Chair, the reality is that the Liberal government will appoint a Liberal board. This fund will have borrowed money, no diversification and full political interference. Those are the characteristics of a political slush fund, so how can the minister call this a sovereign wealth fund?”
Mr. Chair, the reality is that the Liberal government will appoint a Liberal board. This fund will have borrowed money, no diversification and full political interference. Those are the characteristics of a political slush fund, so how can the minister call this a sovereign wealth fund?
“Other countries have very successful national wealth funds. The minister is doing the opposite instead of copying them. I want to know why.”
“Mr. Chair, there are incredibly successful sovereign wealth funds around the world. The minister is choosing not to follow the example and is, in fact, doing the opposite. That is basic research. Why is the minister choosing to do that?”
Mr. Chair, there are incredibly successful sovereign wealth funds around the world. The minister is choosing not to follow the example and is, in fact, doing the opposite. That is basic research. Why is the minister choosing to do that?
“The government created an infrastructure bank with $35 billion, but red tape has stopped it from spending that money. How can the minister claim this new fund will actually be able to spend its money?”
“Mr. Chair, we actually have an example. The Liberals established the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It was supposed to support infrastructure projects that are in the public interest, and it cannot even deploy the $35 billion it was given because of regulatory roadblocks that the government creates. How can the minister pretend that this fund will be able to deploy the funds it will be given?”
Mr. Chair, we actually have an example. The Liberals established the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It was supposed to support infrastructure projects that are in the public interest, and it cannot even deploy the $35 billion it was given because of regulatory roadblocks that the government creates. How can the minister pretend that this fund will be able to deploy the funds it will be given?
“I want an answer to my question. A committee said we should get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank because it helped Liberal friends and failed to build what we need. Why is the government still supporting this failed plan?”
“Mr. Chair, I am not talking down anything. I am actually asking very simple questions, and I am getting zero answers. The transport committee has recommended that the Canada Infrastructure Bank be abolished because it benefited Liberal-appointed insiders and, in fact, failed to fill infrastructure gaps. Why are the Liberals doubling down on a failed policy and refusing to follow the gold standard practices of other sovereign wealth funds?”
Mr. Chair, I am not talking down anything. I am actually asking very simple questions, and I am getting zero answers. The transport committee has recommended that the Canada Infrastructure Bank be abolished because it benefited Liberal-appointed insiders and, in fact, failed to fill infrastructure gaps. Why are the Liberals doubling down on a failed policy and refusing to follow the gold standard practices of other sovereign wealth funds?
“Canadians are struggling to afford food while government executives make millions. How much will the minister pay the bosses of this new fund?”
“Mr. Chair, Canadians are struggling to buy groceries, and the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is getting paid close to $1 million. It is not delivering. Now the Prime Minister and the minister want to recreate this whole scenario with yet another bureaucracy and another set of executives who will get paid millions of dollars as well. Let us be transparent. How much will the minister pay the new CEO and board of this sovereign wealth fund?”
Mr. Chair, Canadians are struggling to buy groceries, and the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is getting paid close to $1 million. It is not delivering. Now the Prime Minister and the minister want to recreate this whole scenario with yet another bureaucracy and another set of executives who will get paid millions of dollars as well. Let us be transparent. How much will the minister pay the new CEO and board of this sovereign wealth fund?
“The government has not told us how much this sovereign wealth fund will cost. Other officials do not know either. I want the minister to tell Canadians how much it will cost over the next five years.”
“Mr. Chair, if the member was following the golden class example of Norway, with budget surpluses, diversification and no political interference, then yes, it would be a good thing, but here, in fact, it is the opposite, which is why I am asking the questions. He is failing to answer them. Here is another question. We have received zero information in terms of the cost of the fund. I asked the PBO. She did not have it. The Bank of Canada governor referred me to the finance minister’s officials. Neither of them had it. I will ask the minister again. How much will the sovereign wealth fund cost Canadians over the next five years?”
Mr. Chair, if the member was following the golden class example of Norway, with budget surpluses, diversification and no political interference, then yes, it would be a good thing, but here, in fact, it is the opposite, which is why I am asking the questions. He is failing to answer them. Here is another question. We have received zero information in terms of the cost of the fund. I asked the PBO. She did not have it. The Bank of Canada governor referred me to the finance minister’s officials. Neither of them had it. I will ask the minister again. How much will the sovereign wealth fund cost Canadians over the next five years?
“I want to know the exact amount Canadians will pay in interest on the $25 billion of debt for this fund.”
“Mr. Chair, how much will Canadians pay in interest on the $25 billion of debt that this fund will use? I want just the number.”
Mr. Chair, how much will Canadians pay in interest on the $25 billion of debt that this fund will use? I want just the number.
“I want the minister to tell me the exact cost of the bureaucracy for this.”
“Mr. Chair, how much will the bureaucracy cost? I want just the number. The minister must know the numbers. I would like just the number for how much it will cost in terms of the bureaucracy.”
Mr. Chair, how much will the bureaucracy cost? I want just the number. The minister must know the numbers. I would like just the number for how much it will cost in terms of the bureaucracy.
“Why is the finance minister using borrowed public money to fund a government investment fund?”
“Mr. Chair, why would the finance minister run a so-called sovereign wealth fund with taxpayer debt?”
Mr. Chair, why would the finance minister run a so-called sovereign wealth fund with taxpayer debt?
“I want to know who is responsible for paying for this fund.”
“Mr. Chair, who is on the hook for the consolidated fund that the minister is talking about?”
Mr. Chair, who is on the hook for the consolidated fund that the minister is talking about?
“The government has spent ten years creating offices that fail to meet their goals and lose money. Why is the minister creating another fund that uses taxpayer money to take on debt?”
“Mr. Chair, over the last 10 years, we have seen the Liberal government create many other bureaucracies that have not met any targets and have run large deficits. Why would the minister create another debt fund that is filled with taxpayer money?”
Mr. Chair, over the last 10 years, we have seen the Liberal government create many other bureaucracies that have not met any targets and have run large deficits. Why would the minister create another debt fund that is filled with taxpayer money?
“Other countries pay for wealth funds with extra cash or money from natural resources. Why is the minister using borrowed money to pay for this new fund?”
“Mr. Chair, Nordic wealth funds are run with surpluses or royalties from resource revenues. This fund that the minister is creating is going to be funded by debt. Why?”
Mr. Chair, Nordic wealth funds are run with surpluses or royalties from resource revenues. This fund that the minister is creating is going to be funded by debt. Why?
“Norway does not invest its wealth fund at home because that can cause inflation. Why is the minister doing the opposite with this debt fund?”
“Mr. Chair, in Norway, the wealth fund, through its own legislation, does not invest in projects inside of Norway, because it could be inflationary. Why is the minister doing the opposite with this debt fund?”
Mr. Chair, in Norway, the wealth fund, through its own legislation, does not invest in projects inside of Norway, because it could be inflationary. Why is the minister doing the opposite with this debt fund?
“The government created a green fund where board members gave about $59 million to their Liberal friends. Is this new program just another green slush fund?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister, under his government, created a green slush fund at one point where appointed board members gave around $59 million to their Liberal insider friends. This was a huge Liberal scandal that took place during their tenure. Is this another green slush fund?”
Mr. Chair, the minister, under his government, created a green slush fund at one point where appointed board members gave around $59 million to their Liberal insider friends. This was a huge Liberal scandal that took place during their tenure. Is this another green slush fund?
“Will the finance minister stay out of picking board members for this new debt fund?”
“Mr. Chair, can the finance minister confirm that he will not be involved in the process of appointing board members for this new debt fund?”
Mr. Chair, can the finance minister confirm that he will not be involved in the process of appointing board members for this new debt fund?
“I want to know who will choose the board members for the new debt fund. Will the finance minister be involved?”
“Mr. Chair, a board is to be appointed to the new debt fund that the finance minister has created. Who will appoint those board members, and will the finance minister be involved in that process?”
Mr. Chair, a board is to be appointed to the new debt fund that the finance minister has created. Who will appoint those board members, and will the finance minister be involved in that process?
“I want the minister to promise that he will not help choose the board members for this new fund.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister can just clearly say that, no, he will not be involved. Obviously, it is very concerning that he cannot clearly tell Canadians that he will not be involved in the appointment of these board members. Can he stand on his feet and clearly tell Canadians that he will not be involved in appointing board members to this new debt fund?”
Mr. Chair, the minister can just clearly say that, no, he will not be involved. Obviously, it is very concerning that he cannot clearly tell Canadians that he will not be involved in the appointment of these board members. Can he stand on his feet and clearly tell Canadians that he will not be involved in appointing board members to this new debt fund?
“I am sharing my speaking time with my colleague. We have asked the minister questions for almost three hours and have not received real answers. I am giving the minister another chance to answer.”
“Mr. Chair, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be speaking for 10 minutes and sharing the last five minutes with my friend, the incredible member for Montmorency—Charlevoix, who will conclude these remarks. My colleagues have been asking the minister questions for nearly three hours now, but unfortunately, we have not received any answers to our real questions. Minister, I will give you another chance. It has been three hours, so I understand that you are tired. That is just how the human body works.”
Question or comment in debate
Signal 39 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 analysisMr. Chair, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be speaking for 10 minutes and sharing the last five minutes with my friend, the incredible member for Montmorency—Charlevoix, who will conclude these remarks. My colleagues have been asking the minister questions for nearly three hours now, but unfortunately, we have not received any answers to our real questions. Minister, I will give you another chance. It has been three hours, so I understand that you are tired. That is just how the human body works.
“I want to know if the minister buys his own groceries.”
“Mr. Chair, I am sure the minister is getting a little tired, so I will start off slowly. I would like to know whether the minister does his own grocery shopping.”
Mr. Chair, I am sure the minister is getting a little tired, so I will start off slowly. I would like to know whether the minister does his own grocery shopping.
