MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
May presses the government to keep its climate commitments and its promises to Indigenous peoples, pushing to shut down open net-pen salmon farms by 2029 and to amend the online harms bill so directors of social media companies face jail time for failing to protect children. She often wanders into asides mid-argument, musing, “For any insomniacs watching CPAC,” before returning to the point.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Government Orders ·
“The Green Party agrees to apply the previous vote, and we are voting no.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the votes and will also be voting in the negative.”
Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the votes and will also be voting in the negative.
“The Green Party agrees to apply the vote, and we are voting against this motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.”
Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.
Oral Questions ·
“A report on missing and murdered Indigenous women gave the government 231 recommendations. How many of them has the Prime Minister completed?”
“Mr. Speaker, almost seven years ago, June 3, 2019, the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirited plus people was given to the government. Of the 231 individual calls for justice, can the Prime Minister update us as to how many have been fulfilled?”
Mr. Speaker, almost seven years ago, June 3, 2019, the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirited plus people was given to the government. Of the 231 individual calls for justice, can the Prime Minister update us as to how many have been fulfilled?
Government Orders ·
“Maple syrup is the only resource we keep in a reserve. I think we should also have reserves for wood and other natural resources. I want to know what the Bloc Québécois thinks about this idea.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois. My question is simple. There is only one product everywhere in Canada that is protected in a strategic reserve: maple syrup, of course. In my opinion, it might be a good idea to have a strategic reserve for our forestry products or for the others we share. I would like to hear the Bloc Québécois’s policies on the idea of having strategic reserves for our natural resources here in Canada.”
Question or comment in debate
Relevance 34 of 100
None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois. My question is simple. There is only one product everywhere in Canada that is protected in a strategic reserve: maple syrup, of course. In my opinion, it might be a good idea to have a strategic reserve for our forestry products or for the others we share. I would like to hear the Bloc Québécois’s policies on the idea of having strategic reserves for our natural resources here in Canada.
Government Orders ·
“I will vote against cutting off debate on this bill. Ending debate early hurts democracy, even though I support the changes the bill makes.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we are now debating not Bill C-11 itself but time allocation, I would like to remind my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence and cast his mind back to when the Liberals were the third party in the House and the Harper Conservatives used time allocation over and over again. In those days, those of us back in this corner would say frequently that we did not need time allocation, that we should properly debate and that the routine use of time allocation is anti-democratic. I hold to that view no matter who is holding the reins of power. It is anti-democratic to shut down debate early. This is why I will be voting no to time allocation. I do support pursuing Madam Justice Arbour’s recommendations, but I do not like being bulldozed.”
Mr. Speaker, as we are now debating not Bill C-11 itself but time allocation, I would like to remind my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence and cast his mind back to when the Liberals were the third party in the House and the Harper Conservatives used time allocation over and over again. In those days, those of us back in this corner would say frequently that we did not need time allocation, that we should properly debate and that the routine use of time allocation is anti-democratic. I hold to that view no matter who is holding the reins of power. It is anti-democratic to shut down debate early. This is why I will be voting no to time allocation. I do support pursuing Madam Justice Arbour’s recommendations, but I do not like being bulldozed.
Oral Questions ·
“Experts warn that key climate systems, like the Atlantic Ocean currents, are close to collapsing. The government and the Conservatives are still backing projects that hurt the climate. I want to know when the government will take action to stop this.”
“Madam Speaker, alarm bells are ringing of imminent global collapse of key climate systems, but the alarms are being drowned out by the cheering of Liberals and Conservatives for new and more climate-killing projects. Key experts say that there is a fifty-fifty chance of the collapse of the massive and complex Atlantic Ocean current system with devastating and catastrophic results. When will the government stop shutting off the alarms and try to act before we pass the tipping points?”
Madam Speaker, alarm bells are ringing of imminent global collapse of key climate systems, but the alarms are being drowned out by the cheering of Liberals and Conservatives for new and more climate-killing projects. Key experts say that there is a fifty-fifty chance of the collapse of the massive and complex Atlantic Ocean current system with devastating and catastrophic results. When will the government stop shutting off the alarms and try to act before we pass the tipping points?
Government Orders ·
“I want to know if the changes to pesticide rules will be sent to the health committee. Making it easier to register new pesticides could threaten people's health, so the finance committee should not be the only one studying it.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to specifically drill into what we can expect in an omnibus budget bill in relation to the Pest Control Products Act. The parliamentary secretary referenced that earlier. Will that section of the bill be carved out so that potential health threats through reducing the regulatory process of registering new pesticides, which I am assuming this may be about, will go to the health committee and not just the finance committee?”
Madam Speaker, I want to specifically drill into what we can expect in an omnibus budget bill in relation to the Pest Control Products Act. The parliamentary secretary referenced that earlier. Will that section of the bill be carved out so that potential health threats through reducing the regulatory process of registering new pesticides, which I am assuming this may be about, will go to the health committee and not just the finance committee?
Adjournment Proceedings ·
“I want the government to fund ready-to-build non-profit housing projects in British Columbia right now. If we do not fund them soon, we will lose the chance to build them quickly.”
“Madam Speaker, I am so sorry. That was my first interaction with the newly elected member for Ajax. I congratulate her on her appointment as the parliamentary secretary. My question in question period, and again tonight, was very specific. There is an opportunity that may disappear, specific to British Columbia and specific to projects that are ready to go. It is an opportunity for the federal government to pick up on a bespoke program, limited in time and designed to capture those projects in B.C. that are ready to roll but may fall through the cracks. While I support the national vision that the hon. parliamentary secretary just described, it does not speak at all, I am sad to say, to the issue I raised at the end of February: the opportunity that is here right now to get non-profit housing built really fast by picking up on the opportunities of ready-to-roll projects that may fall through the cracks before the federal government gets around to trying to rescue them.”
Madam Speaker, I am so sorry. That was my first interaction with the newly elected member for Ajax. I congratulate her on her appointment as the parliamentary secretary. My question in question period, and again tonight, was very specific. There is an opportunity that may disappear, specific to British Columbia and specific to projects that are ready to go. It is an opportunity for the federal government to pick up on a bespoke program, limited in time and designed to capture those projects in B.C. that are ready to roll but may fall through the cracks. While I support the national vision that the hon. parliamentary secretary just described, it does not speak at all, I am sad to say, to the issue I raised at the end of February: the opportunity that is here right now to get non-profit housing built really fast by picking up on the opportunities of ready-to-roll projects that may fall through the cracks before the federal government gets around to trying to rescue them.
“British Columbia cancelled its community housing fund. Many non-profit housing projects were ready to build, but now they do not have the money. I want the federal government to create a special fund to pay for these ready projects so they still get built.”
“Madam Speaker, I am rising today to pursue a question I asked in question period on February 27. It was right after the British Columbia government came out with its budget. I have to say that I think every British Columbia member of Parliament was shocked. The B.C. NDP government cancelled a very important program: the community housing fund. The reason I raise this in the context of our federal Parliament is that obviously the Canadian government is making many commitments to build many Canadian homes. Housing starts are up. This is discussed, of course, in the spring economic update. My concern, though, which was not properly addressed in question period, is that, yes, the federal government is providing funding to the B.C. government, but we have a real opportunity here that I hope the federal Minister of Housing will seize. The last statistic I can find since I asked the question, after the B.C. community housing fund was cancelled, is that the commitment from the federal government, out of the funds approved through Bill C-15, the budget implementation act’s commitment of $15 billion to the Build Canada Homes agency, was that $170 million was to go to B.C. This is the latest statistic I can find of what is committed from the federal government to the B.C. government. To be clear, that is the total, which includes all kinds of housing: market housing, social housing, co-op housing and so on. The opportunity here for the federal government is huge. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars that municipalities, local communities and non-profit associations have already spent in getting ready to build great housing. They have bought the land. They have hired the architects. They have cleared the studies. They have done the zoning. They are ready to roll, and suddenly, the B.C. government’s decision to pull out of the funding has left thousands of potential homes for British Columbians in peril. There are big question marks now over many projects. My plea to the government in pursuing this question tonight in Adjournment Proceedings is this: Set some clear requirements. Parties have the land. They are ready to roll. They have done their zoning. They have their permits. The plans are ready. It is just a question of a top-up from the federal government, specifically designed for non-profit housing in British Columbia. As I mentioned before in my question when I asked it in February, there are projects on Galiano Island and Mayne Island, and also in Saanich. The Prince George council member Cori Ramsay, who is the president of the Union of BC Municipalities, is saying the same thing. So many of these wonderful projects are going to fall through the cracks. We are ready to go. We are looking for the federal government to commit to creating a special funding program, designed for B.C. in this moment and designed to capture those projects that are ready to roll, shovel-ready, but that may fall through the cracks and never get built unless the Minister of Housing, who is a British Columbian, can step up and design a project that gets the money flowing to build these homes for British Columbians.”
Madam Speaker, I am rising today to pursue a question I asked in question period on February 27. It was right after the British Columbia government came out with its budget. I have to say that I think every British Columbia member of Parliament was shocked. The B.C. NDP government cancelled a very important program: the community housing fund. The reason I raise this in the context of our federal Parliament is that obviously the Canadian government is making many commitments to build many Canadian homes. Housing starts are up. This is discussed, of course, in the spring economic update. My concern, though, which was not properly addressed in question period, is that, yes, the federal government is providing funding to the B.C. government, but we have a real opportunity here that I hope the federal Minister of Housing will seize. The last statistic I can find since I asked the question, after the B.C. community housing fund was cancelled, is that the commitment from the federal government, out of the funds approved through Bill C-15, the budget implementation act’s commitment of $15 billion to the Build Canada Homes agency, was that $170 million was to go to B.C. This is the latest statistic I can find of what is committed from the federal government to the B.C. government. To be clear, that is the total, which includes all kinds of housing: market housing, social housing, co-op housing and so on. The opportunity here for the federal government is huge. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars that municipalities, local communities and non-profit associations have already spent in getting ready to build great housing. They have bought the land. They have hired the architects. They have cleared the studies. They have done the zoning. They are ready to roll, and suddenly, the B.C. government’s decision to pull out of the funding has left thousands of potential homes for British Columbians in peril. There are big question marks now over many projects. My plea to the government in pursuing this question tonight in Adjournment Proceedings is this: Set some clear requirements. Parties have the land. They are ready to roll. They have done their zoning. They have their permits. The plans are ready. It is just a question of a top-up from the federal government, specifically designed for non-profit housing in British Columbia. As I mentioned before in my question when I asked it in February, there are projects on Galiano Island and Mayne Island, and also in Saanich. The Prince George council member Cori Ramsay, who is the president of the Union of BC Municipalities, is saying the same thing. So many of these wonderful projects are going to fall through the cracks. We are ready to go. We are looking for the federal government to commit to creating a special funding program, designed for B.C. in this moment and designed to capture those projects that are ready to roll, shovel-ready, but that may fall through the cracks and never get built unless the Minister of Housing, who is a British Columbian, can step up and design a project that gets the money flowing to build these homes for British Columbians.
Private Members' Business ·
“I support this bill to make electronics and appliances last longer. Does the government support it too?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my dear colleague, the member for Bourassa. I am also proud to give my support to his important private member’s bill. My question is, does the member have the government’s support for this bill to be accepted and become law in Canada?”
Madam Speaker, I thank my dear colleague, the member for Bourassa. I am also proud to give my support to his important private member’s bill. My question is, does the member have the government’s support for this bill to be accepted and become law in Canada?
Government Orders ·
“The member for Kings—Hants should not have criticized another member for talking about climate change. The climate crisis is getting worse fast, and ocean currents could collapse and devastate Nova Scotia.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise because of the member for Kings—Hants’s response to a question from the member for Repentigny. I would like the member for Kings—Hants to reflect on whether it was appropriate to, basically, attack the member for Repentigny for continually raising the climate crisis, which is galloping now to a point where we are facing the risk of tipping points and a fifty-fifty risk of the collapse of the entire circulatory system, which includes the Gulf Stream, with devastating impacts for Nova Scotia.”
Question or comment in debate
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I rise because of the member for Kings—Hants’s response to a question from the member for Repentigny. I would like the member for Kings—Hants to reflect on whether it was appropriate to, basically, attack the member for Repentigny for continually raising the climate crisis, which is galloping now to a point where we are facing the risk of tipping points and a fifty-fifty risk of the collapse of the entire circulatory system, which includes the Gulf Stream, with devastating impacts for Nova Scotia.
In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux
“I want to talk about how the sovereign wealth fund will work. But the government has only announced another office to study it, so we do not have enough details to debate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I like to share information, and I appreciate that my colleague has noted that I do the work before I speak. I would have loved to have discussed what we knew about the sovereign wealth fund and how it is going to be set up, but all we know is that the Liberals are creating yet another office to consider and consult. If we had information, my speech could have focused on that information.”
Mr. Speaker, I like to share information, and I appreciate that my colleague has noted that I do the work before I speak. I would have loved to have discussed what we knew about the sovereign wealth fund and how it is going to be set up, but all we know is that the Liberals are creating yet another office to consider and consult. If we had information, my speech could have focused on that information.
In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe
“The government announced a new national wealth fund, but gave no details or reasons for it. We have no reason to trust this idea.”
“Mr. Speaker, the economic update document includes the following sentence: “Introducing Canada’s own sovereign wealth fund—the new Canada Strong Fund”. That is all. There is no explanation, no rationale. There is not a single reason why we should have confidence in the idea of a Canada Strong fund.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 48 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, the economic update document includes the following sentence: “Introducing Canada’s own sovereign wealth fund—the new Canada Strong Fund”. That is all. There is no explanation, no rationale. There is not a single reason why we should have confidence in the idea of a Canada Strong fund.
In response to a question from William Stevenson
“I agree with the other members. This plan looks like the Canada Infrastructure Bank, where the government put in money and made big promises. We do not have enough details, so we are debating something with no clear shape.”
“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. As my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois mentioned earlier in debate, this looks a lot like the Infrastructure Bank. Government money is put into it. It is supposed to be a bank. It is supposed to sound great. At this point, particularly since we have no details, we are debating something that is amorphous. We know what happened with the Infrastructure Bank, and it does look much the same, as my friend from Yellowhead has said.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. As my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois mentioned earlier in debate, this looks a lot like the Infrastructure Bank. Government money is put into it. It is supposed to be a bank. It is supposed to sound great. At this point, particularly since we have no details, we are debating something that is amorphous. We know what happened with the Infrastructure Bank, and it does look much the same, as my friend from Yellowhead has said.
“I support parts of the opposition motion. The government wants to borrow 25 billion dollars for a new national wealth fund, but it has no real plan for it. Instead, we should fund it by taxing the extra profits oil companies make from war. We also need to change the rules for our national pension fund. Right now, it only cares about making money, so it invests billions outside Canada and in things like deepfake artificial intelligence instead of helping our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear colleague from Mount Royal, the parliamentary secretary, for sharing his time with me. I hope he will not regret it after hearing my speech because there are several things in the opposition motion that I agree with. This might be the first time I find myself in this situation. I usually do not find myself agreeing so very much with opposition day motions from the official opposition. I am watchful, and I really am very careful, of how long it takes to study, be fair and consider what has been put before us. I will try to make a number of points that relate to the multiple paragraphs in the opposition day motion. I will start with one of the government’s announcements and my experience as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian citizen. A big announcement was made on April 27, the day before “Canada Strong for All: Spring Economic Update 2026” was tabled. The Prime Minister announced that we would soon have all the information regarding a new sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund. We were given the big announcement on April 27. There was a press conference. I do not think I got it wrong when the government announced this and that we would get all the details on April 28, the next day. We would know the details of how this sovereign wealth fund would work and how Canadians could participate in it as individuals. We were told the fund would create opportunities for Canadians to make investments and to participate in our sovereign wealth fund. We just had to wait a day for the details. When we get to the details, and this is what I find astonishing, because this seems to happen a lot, on page 56 of the spring economic update, what we are told is that yes, and it is very exciting, we were going to have a “broadly accessible [fund for] Canadians from coast to coast to coast” that was “easy and simple to purchase, hold, and transact”. It was to be the Canada Strong fund, our sovereign wealth fund, but how were we going to find out about it? The update says, “The government will establish a dedicated Canada Strong Fund Transition Office.” It will, once set up, “lead a targeted engagement with market participants and regulators, and rapidly finalise the Fund. Further details will be provided in the coming months.” I am just quoting from the statement. I do not want to be unfair with them, but it is absurd. They cannot say they are going to borrow $25 billion to create a sovereign wealth fund, which is going to have all these great attributes, but first they have to create a transition office. It did not need to be like this. We have really good models from Canada for how a sovereign wealth fund can be created. I will take us back in a time machine to a place where good ideas emerged. In 1976 Alberta, Peter Lougheed created a sovereign wealth fund for the province of Alberta. Norway actually sent experts from Norway to Alberta to learn from Alberta about how it was creating a sovereign wealth fund. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is now worth over $2 trillion U.S. Norway created the sovereign wealth fund based on the principles established by the late and, I think we would all would agree, great Canadian Peter Lougheed, who in establishing the oil sands and investing in them, said we have to look at this resource and have some rules. One of Peter Lougheed’s first rules was to think like an owner. Another thing he decided was that we do not want to live off the oil rents. We do not want the revenues from oil wealth to go into spending by government. He wanted to set it aside as what we might call a rainy day fund. Alberta created what was then called the Alberta heritage savings trust, and it was funded largely by resource revenue, which went into the fund and accumulated. It accumulated the wealth. Norway followed that example. These are the attributes of Norway’s fund. I take the points from my hon. colleague from Lakeland, who was just speaking and pointing out the differences between Norway and Canada, and they are taken as read. Let us look at what Norway established based on what Peter Lougheed put forward. Number one is that it was run by an independent board. No government could touch the principal, and withdrawals were kept by law, so no subsequent politician could do what actually happened in Alberta when Ralph Klein became the premier and took over from Peter Lougheed. I will not editorialize on the differences between Ralph Klein and Peter Lougheed, but I think everybody knows. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund was created as a sovereign wealth fund. What we have in Canada may be a sovereign wealth fund, but we are starting out with borrowing $25 billion to get it started. I do not see any suggestion here that anyone other than Canadians could invest. Would anyone invest? We do not know what it is. It is definitely a pig in a poke, but on top of that, we are told to wait while a transition office, for which we are paying a couple million dollars a year, decides to consult to figure out what it is. I think we should start with what we know works, which is to tax oil wealth and separate that. The Province of Alberta did set it up and did run it. That was in its jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can do it at this point, and I am not proposing this on the floor of the House, but let us be clear that we could do it, is if we were to nationalize that sector and said that we would set aside that wealth for future generations. That is not going to happen. I know my hon. colleague here is laughing, and I am sure they are not laughing at me, but with me. The point of what I am saying here is that, in Canada at this point, we have missed the boat on deciding to create a sovereign wealth fund based on resource revenue, unless the government puts in place what many of us, the NDP and the Greens, have been calling for for some time, which is a tax on the excess profits that big oil is experiencing, particularly as prices go through the roof due to war and not due to their careful management as managers of the resource. The prices skyrocketed when Netanyahu and Trump began bombing Iran. As the spring economic statement pointed out, this drives up the price of oil and increases profits for the private sector. We should be applying an excess profits tax on those who are basically war profiteering in the sector. Let me look at another aspect of the very thoughtful motion from the opposition. I do want to thank them. Under their sixth point, the Conservatives are pointing out something that I have been railing about in this place for some time. There is over $1 trillion in pension fund money in Canada. If we are looking for sovereign wealth, there is over $1 trillion in pension fund money that has been invested outside of Canada. How does that happen? Let us just roll back a little on that. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act was carried through Parliament by our former prime minister, and I think we all respect him enormously, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien. He is still active in public life, and he created the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act with the idea of an independent Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to decide how to take Canada’s pension money and make it work for us. The investment board is not necessarily even made up of Canadians, unfortunately and tragically. I urge all my colleagues to think about this. Let us open up the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, because it requires that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board consider only one criterion when investing our pension plan dollars, which is a return on investment. If we look at the Quebec investment board process, in Quebec they are required to consider, and it does not sound like a big threshold, the well-being of Quebec in the interest of the Quebec. This is missing for the federal monies. Our act for where our pension plan dollars go does not mention the good of Canada, and most of the money that has been invested has gone to the United States, not Canada. It has gone outside of Canada to other investments. One of them stuns me, and I think it should shake us to our core when we look at what just happened in Tumbler Ridge. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board decided it was a good investment, with good return on investment, to invest in OpenAI and Grok, the developers of deepfake AI. By the way, a member of that investment board is now our ambassador to the United States, Mark Wiseman. Two hundred million dollars of our pension plan money went into that because the board thought it was going to make money. There is no ethical screen on where our money goes. Obviously there is no climate screen on where our money goes. There is not even a question of whether it is in the interest of Canada.”
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear colleague from Mount Royal, the parliamentary secretary, for sharing his time with me. I hope he will not regret it after hearing my speech because there are several things in the opposition motion that I agree with. This might be the first time I find myself in this situation. I usually do not find myself agreeing so very much with opposition day motions from the official opposition. I am watchful, and I really am very careful, of how long it takes to study, be fair and consider what has been put before us. I will try to make a number of points that relate to the multiple paragraphs in the opposition day motion. I will start with one of the government’s announcements and my experience as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian citizen. A big announcement was made on April 27, the day before “Canada Strong for All: Spring Economic Update 2026” was tabled. The Prime Minister announced that we would soon have all the information regarding a new sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund. We were given the big announcement on April 27. There was a press conference. I do not think I got it wrong when the government announced this and that we would get all the details on April 28, the next day. We would know the details of how this sovereign wealth fund would work and how Canadians could participate in it as individuals. We were told the fund would create opportunities for Canadians to make investments and to participate in our sovereign wealth fund. We just had to wait a day for the details. When we get to the details, and this is what I find astonishing, because this seems to happen a lot, on page 56 of the spring economic update, what we are told is that yes, and it is very exciting, we were going to have a “broadly accessible [fund for] Canadians from coast to coast to coast” that was “easy and simple to purchase, hold, and transact”. It was to be the Canada Strong fund, our sovereign wealth fund, but how were we going to find out about it? The update says, “The government will establish a dedicated Canada Strong Fund Transition Office.” It will, once set up, “lead a targeted engagement with market participants and regulators, and rapidly finalise the Fund. Further details will be provided in the coming months.” I am just quoting from the statement. I do not want to be unfair with them, but it is absurd. They cannot say they are going to borrow $25 billion to create a sovereign wealth fund, which is going to have all these great attributes, but first they have to create a transition office. It did not need to be like this. We have really good models from Canada for how a sovereign wealth fund can be created. I will take us back in a time machine to a place where good ideas emerged. In 1976 Alberta, Peter Lougheed created a sovereign wealth fund for the province of Alberta. Norway actually sent experts from Norway to Alberta to learn from Alberta about how it was creating a sovereign wealth fund. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is now worth over $2 trillion U.S. Norway created the sovereign wealth fund based on the principles established by the late and, I think we would all would agree, great Canadian Peter Lougheed, who in establishing the oil sands and investing in them, said we have to look at this resource and have some rules. One of Peter Lougheed’s first rules was to think like an owner. Another thing he decided was that we do not want to live off the oil rents. We do not want the revenues from oil wealth to go into spending by government. He wanted to set it aside as what we might call a rainy day fund. Alberta created what was then called the Alberta heritage savings trust, and it was funded largely by resource revenue, which went into the fund and accumulated. It accumulated the wealth. Norway followed that example. These are the attributes of Norway’s fund. I take the points from my hon. colleague from Lakeland, who was just speaking and pointing out the differences between Norway and Canada, and they are taken as read. Let us look at what Norway established based on what Peter Lougheed put forward. Number one is that it was run by an independent board. No government could touch the principal, and withdrawals were kept by law, so no subsequent politician could do what actually happened in Alberta when Ralph Klein became the premier and took over from Peter Lougheed. I will not editorialize on the differences between Ralph Klein and Peter Lougheed, but I think everybody knows. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund was created as a sovereign wealth fund. What we have in Canada may be a sovereign wealth fund, but we are starting out with borrowing $25 billion to get it started. I do not see any suggestion here that anyone other than Canadians could invest. Would anyone invest? We do not know what it is. It is definitely a pig in a poke, but on top of that, we are told to wait while a transition office, for which we are paying a couple million dollars a year, decides to consult to figure out what it is. I think we should start with what we know works, which is to tax oil wealth and separate that. The Province of Alberta did set it up and did run it. That was in its jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can do it at this point, and I am not proposing this on the floor of the House, but let us be clear that we could do it, is if we were to nationalize that sector and said that we would set aside that wealth for future generations. That is not going to happen. I know my hon. colleague here is laughing, and I am sure they are not laughing at me, but with me. The point of what I am saying here is that, in Canada at this point, we have missed the boat on deciding to create a sovereign wealth fund based on resource revenue, unless the government puts in place what many of us, the NDP and the Greens, have been calling for for some time, which is a tax on the excess profits that big oil is experiencing, particularly as prices go through the roof due to war and not due to their careful management as managers of the resource. The prices skyrocketed when Netanyahu and Trump began bombing Iran. As the spring economic statement pointed out, this drives up the price of oil and increases profits for the private sector. We should be applying an excess profits tax on those who are basically war profiteering in the sector. Let me look at another aspect of the very thoughtful motion from the opposition. I do want to thank them. Under their sixth point, the Conservatives are pointing out something that I have been railing about in this place for some time. There is over $1 trillion in pension fund money in Canada. If we are looking for sovereign wealth, there is over $1 trillion in pension fund money that has been invested outside of Canada. How does that happen? Let us just roll back a little on that. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act was carried through Parliament by our former prime minister, and I think we all respect him enormously, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien. He is still active in public life, and he created the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act with the idea of an independent Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to decide how to take Canada’s pension money and make it work for us. The investment board is not necessarily even made up of Canadians, unfortunately and tragically. I urge all my colleagues to think about this. Let us open up the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, because it requires that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board consider only one criterion when investing our pension plan dollars, which is a return on investment. If we look at the Quebec investment board process, in Quebec they are required to consider, and it does not sound like a big threshold, the well-being of Quebec in the interest of the Quebec. This is missing for the federal monies. Our act for where our pension plan dollars go does not mention the good of Canada, and most of the money that has been invested has gone to the United States, not Canada. It has gone outside of Canada to other investments. One of them stuns me, and I think it should shake us to our core when we look at what just happened in Tumbler Ridge. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board decided it was a good investment, with good return on investment, to invest in OpenAI and Grok, the developers of deepfake AI. By the way, a member of that investment board is now our ambassador to the United States, Mark Wiseman. Two hundred million dollars of our pension plan money went into that because the board thought it was going to make money. There is no ethical screen on where our money goes. Obviously there is no climate screen on where our money goes. There is not even a question of whether it is in the interest of Canada.
Government Orders ·
In response to a question from Dave Epp
“It is normal for MPs to switch parties. But recruiting MPs just to turn a minority government into a majority is new, and it looks suspicious to voters.”
“Mr. Speaker, as far as we know, there has never been an effort to recruit MPs to shift from a minority government situation to a majority. As I mentioned, it is not unusual to see members cross the floor. Again, there is nothing particularly against our principles, but I think it does tend to, increasingly out there in the hustings, feel a bit fishy.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, as far as we know, there has never been an effort to recruit MPs to shift from a minority government situation to a majority. As I mentioned, it is not unusual to see members cross the floor. Again, there is nothing particularly against our principles, but I think it does tend to, increasingly out there in the hustings, feel a bit fishy.
In response to a question from Martin Champoux
“Members of Parliament should not just do what their party leaders tell them to do. They need to stand up for democracy and vote for what is best for our grandchildren and our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, here is my advice. If they want to make a difference for their grandchildren, then the members need to immediately reject the opinion of their party whip. They need to show moral courage for the sake of our grandchildren and our county. To make a difference, it is vital that every member is able to exercise their rights in the name of democracy, not merely for the sake of the leader’s power.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, here is my advice. If they want to make a difference for their grandchildren, then the members need to immediately reject the opinion of their party whip. They need to show moral courage for the sake of our grandchildren and our county. To make a difference, it is vital that every member is able to exercise their rights in the name of democracy, not merely for the sake of the leader’s power.
In response to a question from Gérard Deltell
“This government is not as democratic as past governments. We need rules that protect human rights and the environment instead of giving too much power to the Prime Minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true. It is almost the anniversary of the election and there are several members for whom this is their first year in the House. I very much regret that they have not had the experience I had. I worked for the Progressive Conservative government. I was not a party member, but I worked for Mr. Mulroney’s majority government. There was more democracy back then. There was more commitment to the environment and to human rights. I am disappointed. We must establish systems that work for humanity and for the planet. We must not give in to the current power of a government that has a Prime Minister who is very popular, but not very democratic.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 32 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, it is true. It is almost the anniversary of the election and there are several members for whom this is their first year in the House. I very much regret that they have not had the experience I had. I worked for the Progressive Conservative government. I was not a party member, but I worked for Mr. Mulroney’s majority government. There was more democracy back then. There was more commitment to the environment and to human rights. I am disappointed. We must establish systems that work for humanity and for the planet. We must not give in to the current power of a government that has a Prime Minister who is very popular, but not very democratic.
In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval
“The government is on the wrong track. It cut programs to fight climate change and passed laws that hurt refugees' rights. It has lost sight of key priorities that I thought we shared.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed Bloc Québécois colleague. I think he is right. To answer his question, I think that the current government is on the wrong track. The government has done away with programs aimed at addressing the climate crisis. It has passed bills that violate the rights of refugees, for example. The government has lost sight of several priorities. I used to think that the Liberal Party shared these priorities, but not anymore.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed Bloc Québécois colleague. I think he is right. To answer his question, I think that the current government is on the wrong track. The government has done away with programs aimed at addressing the climate crisis. It has passed bills that violate the rights of refugees, for example. The government has lost sight of several priorities. I used to think that the Liberal Party shared these priorities, but not anymore.
In response to a question from Harb Gill
“Every government I have seen tries to take more power for itself and its prime minister. Healthy democracies do not work this way.”
“Mr. Speaker, the purpose of every government I have witnessed is to accumulate more power for itself and generally more power for its prime minister. This is not the way of healthy democracies.”
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of every government I have witnessed is to accumulate more power for itself and generally more power for its prime minister. This is not the way of healthy democracies.
