MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Sandra Cobena

Follow by RSS

Cobena presses the government on the federal books and affordability — challenging $94 billion in operating expenses relabelled as investments, debt hidden in Crown corporations and the $733-billion borrowing plan — and argues that young Canadians cannot land a first job or a home, backing the blue seal program and youth advisory councils while sponsoring Bill C-270, which adds self-defence presumptions to the Criminal Code. She argues with household and business analogies — calling the relabelled spending “like calling a grocery bill an investment” — and leans on constituents’ stories, often prefacing a point with “the reality is”.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
87 / 100 over 81 statements
Signal 77 / 100
Relevance 80 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 94 / 100
Loses points more than most for Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.1.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.9 Loses points less than most for A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 81 of 86 statements graded so far.

Statements 86

Oral Questions ·

Government Priorities

“The Prime Minister spent $195,000 of taxpayers' money on fancy meals during three trips. I want him to stop spending so much money on expensive food so Canadians can afford to buy their own food.”
  • A repeated line

    “More debt and more on the national credit card.”

    Said 12 times by 11 members since May 4.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were billed $195,000 for inflight catering for the Prime Minister for three trips: Scottish salmon fillet, sautéed beef with world-famous creamy sauce and, for dessert, luxury Normandy butter cups. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends on his elite palate was first taken from a hard-working Canadian. This Prime Minister means more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card. Will he cut out his fine dining and rein in his inflationary spending, so Canadians can afford to eat?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want the minister to tell me the exact cost of the bureaucracy for this.”
Official Hansard

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.

“I want to know the exact amount Canadians will pay in interest on the $25 billion of debt for this fund.”
Official Hansard

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.

“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.”
Official Hansard

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?

“Canadians are struggling to afford food while government executives make millions. How much will the minister pay the bosses of this new fund?”
Official Hansard

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?

“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?”
Official Hansard

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?

“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?”
Official Hansard

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?

“Other countries have very successful national wealth funds. The minister is doing the opposite instead of copying them. I want to know why.”
Official Hansard

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 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.”
Official Hansard

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?

“The minister says this will be independent. I want to know who will choose the independent board members.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the minister assures Canadians that it will be independent. Who will appoint these independent board members?

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“The minister claims politicians will not control this fund, but he also says the government will choose which projects get money. Why did he call it a sovereign wealth fund when politicians will control it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, on the one hand, the minister is saying it will not have political influence, but then, in the same sentence, he says “we” will ensure that it will be in the national interest, and “we” will decide which projects those will be. The reality is that Norway has zero political influence, and here the fund will have tons. My question to the minister is this. If the fund does not follow any of the traditional pillars of a traditional sovereign wealth fund, why did the minister tell Canadians that in fact it is one?

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“The minister did not answer my question about investing in other countries instead of only in Canada. Norway's fund is independent from politicians. How can this Canadian fund be independent if politicians decide what it invests in?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, my question was about diversifying investments. I did not receive an answer. Norway does not, in fact, invest the funds domestically. The minister is proposing exactly the opposite, to invest only in Canada. My next question is this: Norway, which is the best-in-class example, ensures that the fund is free from political interference, so how can the fund be independent if it is prioritizing public interests selected by politicians like himself?

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“The minister did not answer my question. We are borrowing 25 billion dollars for this fund, while Norway uses extra cash. Norway also invests all around the world. How will our fund get the best returns without doing that?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the minister did not answer the question. They will be borrowed funds, $25 billion in borrowed funds, whereas Norway funds it by surpluses. My next question is this: Norway also ensures diversified global investments, so how is this fund expecting the best-in-class returns without global diversification?

“Where will Canada get the 25 billion dollars to start its wealth fund? Norway pays for its fund with oil money and extra budget money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary East. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is considered the gold standard, and its success is driven by reinvested budget surpluses and oil and gas revenue. Where is the $25-billion seed money coming from for Canada’s fund?

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The government wastes money on failed programs, debt interest, and expensive airplane food. I want it to cut all gas taxes for the rest of the year.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we can follow the money and we will know what the Liberal government really cares about. It has wasted $750 million on a failed gun grab, $300 million on the PrescribeIT scandal, $80 billion on interest payments for bankers and bondholders and over half a million dollars on the Prime Minister’s catering on flights. What was he having, gold flakes on his cappuccinos? Why will the Liberals not cut all taxes on gas for the rest of the year? Is it because they care more about Liberal insiders than everyday Canadians?

“Canada now pays more on debt interest than the government spends on health care. I want to know why the Liberals will not adopt our plan to cut all gas taxes for the rest of the year.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister’s $1-trillion debt means more taxes, more costs and more of the same. After 11 years of Liberals, Canadians are now paying more on interest on our national debt than the government collects on GST and spends on health care. Why will the Liberals not follow our Conservative plan to cut all gas taxes for the rest of the year? Is it because they have lost control of their spending, or is it because they simply do not care?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Pat Kelly

“A committee studied the Canada Infrastructure Bank and recommended shutting it down. It took seven years just to make enough money to cover its own costs.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the comparison to the Canada Infrastructure Bank is interesting. There was an entire study done on the Canada Infrastructure Bank at a committee, and it was recommended that it be closed down. We see by the statistics that it took seven years to be able to generate sufficient funds to even cover its operating costs—

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“This new fund will not work. The government is using borrowed money to start it instead of extra savings. It also gives the prime minister too much control to pick projects himself.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we do not have a lot of details on the fund, yet we know that it will resort to borrowed money to fund the seed capital at first. We know that this makes no sense, because sovereign wealth funds function under an environment where they draw on real surpluses, where there is fiscal responsibility and where they are independent of political influence. Here, we would have the power concentrated on the prime minister because he would hand-pick the projects. There is no clear mandate on these projects. There is no fiscal transparency or discipline in the government. The fund will not work.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Canadian permits take too long. A business owner in my riding got permits and money in the U.S. in days, but could not get an answer here. Slow rules are driving business out of Canada, and we need to fix them.”
  • 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 analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 26 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not rely on theory. I rely on the examples that entrepreneurs tell me about. Here is just one. An entrepreneur in my riding applied for a permit to expand operations. He had a contract in hand. The permit took so long that he was at risk of losing the contract. He decided to fly down to the U.S. Within days, he got permits and grants. He walked across the street and got financing. He came back, and he still did not have an update on his Canadian permit. That is what is driving investments out of our country. We do not need announcements. We do not need a forum. We do not need thousands of trips around the world. We need to fix the fundamentals.

“The government wants to borrow $25 billion to start an investment fund. We cannot create wealth by adding more debt. Other countries build wealth funds with extra cash from selling resources. Canada should cut red tape, approve resource projects quickly, and stop creating new government agencies.”
  • A repeated line

    “The highest housing costs and the second-highest unemployment in the G7.”

    Said 15 times by 12 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

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