Eric Lefebvre · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-04-30

“The other party is spending and borrowing too much. That program wasted a lot of money. I want you to tell me your limit.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-04-30

“The government is adding more layers and structures. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I want the government to use existing tools instead of adding more bureaucracy and spending.”

“I'm not rich like the Prime Minister. My money is my own business. We say Canadians should have freedom to choose. So let them decide what to do with their own money.”

“I don't trust this government with money. The Liberals spend too much. They doubled the debt! Canadians' money is not safe with them.”

“I don't like this fund. It's risky. Taxpayers will pay for losses. We should use the money better. Help families. Fix infrastructure. Don't make a new fund. I am against this fund.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before becoming Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister had another life and was involved in similar initiatives in the United Kingdom. The idea in that case was also to use public funds to stimulate strategic investments, but the British experience revealed certain limitations, including results that were slower than expected, investments that were concentrated in certain sectors, and lingering questions about real profitability. This reveals something critical. Setting up a fund does not guarantee financial success, and it is not the size of a fund that creates prosperity. It is fiscal discipline and the quality of decisions that create prosperity. The opportunity cost is what could have been done instead. When we talk about $25 billion, we also have to consider the opportunity costs, because even borrowed money could be put to other uses. The government could have decided to ease the tax burden on families, who are currently being squeezed. It could have invested directly in critical infrastructure, supporting municipalities that are desperately underfunded. Instead, the government is choosing to invest that money in an uncertain financial vehicle, and that is a risky choice. This decision will have consequences for decades to come. Financial markets are unpredictable. Even the best investors suffer losses. Imagine a simple scenario: a global recession, a market crash, investments losing value. What will happen? The government will have to inject more money into the fund or absorb major losses. Once again, taxpayers will be left holding the bag. This fund does not eliminate risks. It transfers them directly to the public using Canadians' credit card. Conservatives believe in a different approach. We believe in fiscal discipline, financial responsibility, using existing tools efficiently, and, above all, reducing government waste. Before creating a new fund, we should seriously evaluate the effectiveness of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We should improve what already exists, not add more costly structures. Canadians deserve better. Canadians work hard. They pay their taxes and budget carefully. They know they do not want to live on credit forever. They expect the same level of discipline from their government, but this sovereign wealth fund proposal gives the opposite impression. It gives the impression of a government that is willing to take on major financial risks without providing sufficient guarantees or full transparency. To conclude, I want to make something clear. This debate is not anti-investment. This debate is not anti-innovation. This debate is anti-financial recklessness. Creating a debt-financed $25-billion fund creates unnecessary duplication, increases financial risks, opens the door to political interference and imposes a heavy burden on future generations. They deserve transparent investments. That is why, in the name of fiscal responsibility and transparency, and on behalf of taxpayers, I am against the creation of this sovereign wealth fund.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like the idea of a $25 billion fund paid for by borrowing. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank for big projects. I think more bureaucracy is a bad idea. I want to know who will be responsible for deciding how to spend this money. I am afraid politicians will use it to reward their friends. I think the government should stop spending so much of other people's money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Liberal government's announcement concerning the creation of a so-called sovereign wealth fund amounting to $25 billion. We are not talking about $25 million or $2.5 billion, but $25 billion, charged to the national credit card. As a Conservative member, I want to be clear. We believe in strategic investment, but we do not believe in writing a blank cheque using the country's credit card. In the end, the government will not be the one footing the bill. Canadian families, workers, small businesses, our children, our grandchildren and future generations will be the ones paying for it. A fund built on credit is a risky bet. The first critical problem with this sovereign wealth fund is the source of the funds. It is not funded through surpluses. It is not funded through surplus revenues, such as proceeds from natural resource development. The other countries mentioned by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for comparison purposes are all countries involved in developing their natural resources. They have budget surpluses, extra funds, which they use to create their sovereign wealth fund. Ours will be funded through debt. In other words, the government is proposing to charge $25 billion to the credit card at a time when inflation is hitting households hard, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and federal debt is reaching historic levels. The government is choosing to add another layer of financial risk. A debt-financed sovereign wealth fund is a gamble with other people's money. When markets fluctuate, as they always do, it is taxpayers who absorb the losses. This is an unnecessary duplication of tools that already exist. There is another fundamental question. Why create a fund when we already have existing tools? Canada already has the Canada Infrastructure Bank, an institution created specifically to finance transformative projects, attract private investment, support the development of strategic infrastructure, and share financial risks. It was supposed to be the central tool for investing in the country's economic future. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has $35 billion in capital. It has currently committed only $18.1 billion of that amount. The remaining $16.9 billion is awaiting allocation by the government. This government is not even able to make the most of the existing bureaucracy. If the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already doing the job, why create another vehicle? Creating a new fund means multiplying bureaucratic structures. The Liberals are experts in that. They are the champions of bureaucracy, the champions of structures and the list goes on. Creating a new fund also means watering down responsibilities, complicating accountability and increasing administrative costs. Instead of improving what already exists, the government is choosing to reinvent the wheel—and at great expense. Another major danger of this fund is the risk of political interference. When a government controls a $25-billion fund, there is always a risk that investment decisions will be influenced by political considerations, election priorities or partisan regional interests. A sovereign wealth fund—a true sovereign wealth fund—must be independent, transparent and rigorously managed. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is worth $2 trillion and is considered the best-performing sovereign wealth fund in the world, is not allowed to invest in the domestic market in order to ensure it stays independent. History shows us that when governments directly manage billions of dollars, the risks of favouritism increase. We have to ask ourselves some serious questions. Who will decide on the investments? What will the criteria be? How much transparency will there actually be? Who will bear the losses if investments fail? All of these questions remain unanswered. There will be losses. That is inevitable in any investment portfolio. Once again, taxpayers are the ones who are going to pay, with a governance that is still unclear and that does not provide answers to our questions. Another concerning point is the lack of clarity regarding the governance of the fund. We have heard some big announcements, but not a lot of details. How will the fund be structured and managed? What accountability mechanisms, investment limits and loss protection mechanisms will there be? A $25‑billion fund cannot be based solely on vague promises. It must be based on strict rules, robust mechanisms and absolute transparency. Right now, all we are getting is slogans. There are no guarantees. It is also important to look at what is being done elsewhere. Before becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney was involved in similar initiatives—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-04-29

“The big spending increase the Liberals just announced is not a cut. They say it is but that's not true. Quebec did not even know about this program until yesterday. The Liberals are being reckless and dishonest by saying more spending is actually a cut. They are racking up huge debt that our children will have to pay back someday. It's wrong for the government to spend so much when regular Canadians are having a hard time paying their own bills.”

“The Prime Minister is wrong. A real sovereign wealth fund comes from budget surpluses and natural resources. Charging $25 billion to Canadians' credit card is not a sovereign wealth fund. The Liberals ran up the biggest deficit outside of COVID-19. They can't manage public funds well. The Liberals are shamelessly using the credit card of future generations.”

Oral Questions

Seniors

2026-04-27

“Many seniors in Quebec are worried about money when they retire. The government's solution to everything is more debt, higher costs and more taxes. Seniors deserve better. Will the government stop burying seniors in debt?”