“Canada's new investment fund is not like Norway's. The Liberals claim the fund is independent, but the Prime Minister will choose which projects get money. I want them to explain how they can say it is truly independent.”

“Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is astounding. In response to a question my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asked earlier, the hon. member opposite had the nerve to say that Canada’s new sovereign wealth fund is similar to Norway’s, when, as my colleague explained so well, the two are nothing alike. There is something else that is a little unusual about the Liberals’ argument regarding this new sovereign wealth fund. They claim that this fund is sovereign and independent. However everyone knows perfectly well that these projects will be funded through the Major Projects Office and that they will be the direct result of the Prime Minister’s decisions. The Liberals themselves have said so. When they say that this fund is independent, how can they justify that in a clear, transparent and honest way?”

“I oppose the new Canada Strong fund. The government is borrowing 25 billion dollars for it instead of using a surplus. It adds more debt, hides spending from Parliament, and takes on all the risk for private companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. What is the point of the Canada Strong fund? Initially, we were told that it is a sovereign wealth fund. When I hear the word “sovereign” I think it must be autonomous, independent, somewhat proud, a fund that makes decisions on its own. We are told, however, that it is the government that chooses the projects. It is sovereign, but regulated. It is independent, but monitored. It is free, but with permission. It is a bit like a teenager being told that they are free, as long as they get home by 9 o’clock, do their homework and do what they are told. I wonder, what is the point of a sovereign wealth fund if it is not sovereign? Then the government says that it is not an expense. What a joke. It is costing $25 billion dollars, yet it is not an expense. Imagine that scenario in real life. Someone’s girlfriend shows up and says she bought a cottage, but it is not an expense. It is an off-budget transaction backed by an asset. What is more, she says that she has borrowed to pay for it, but that it does not count. We are talking about $25 billion that somehow does not count. I would love to have a credit card that works like that. I could spend and spend, but it does not show up anywhere. That is the “Canada Strong” dream. The media are saying that the government is taking on less debt than expected because the economy has performed slightly better than expected; there have been fewer natural disasters than expected; fewer batteries are being built than expected; and they have not seen the $25 billion. It makes me wonder. A fund that costs $25 billion but that does not count: What is the point? Let me get this straight. The government is borrowing $25 billion to invest where the private sector does not want to invest, because it is too risky and unlikely to pay off. In other words, Ottawa does not have any money so it is going to borrow it. Meanwhile, interest on the debt is going up, from $54 billion today to $81 billion in a few years. We are talking about $81 billion in interest alone, which is far more than the amount spent on health care. It is like someone paying a mortgage on a house their whole life—a house that is never theirs but that they paying into anyway because of the Canada Strong fund. I have to wonder, what is the point of a fund that increases the debt? Let us compare that to the situation in Norway. If Norway has a surplus, it invests abroad in foreign currencies to counter Dutch disease and to better withstand economic shocks. Its fund is worth $3 trillion. Meanwhile, we are running a deficit and borrowing. What is more, the fund selects the projects chosen by the Prime Minister, but, of course, it is still sovereign. We are not even in the same league. Norway is playing in the NHL, while we are playing ball hockey in a church basement, and the government is telling us that it is the same thing. That is like me saying that I have a bank account just like Bill Gates. Yes, we may both have bank accounts, but we do not have the same amount of money in them. I will come back to my question. What is the point of having a fund like Norway’s that is nothing like Norway’s fund? Countries around the world have funds generated from surpluses, and each of those countries has a clear goal. China’s funds are used to buy strategic infrastructure around the world, like ports in Africa or Europe. The Persian Gulf countries use their funds to set money aside to facilitate their transition when their reserves run out. Quebec’s generations fund is used to reduce debt for future generations. However, here we have a debt fund and we do not even know yet what it will be used for. We are talking about a $25-billion debt fund that will independently decide what the Prime Minister tells it to decide. The economic update says what it will be used for. I would encourage members to brace themselves and take a seat. On page 55, the Minister of Finance wrote, “The Canada Strong Fund will focus on building Canada.” Well, that answers that question. We should have thought of that. It is certainly true. We sure know what the point is now. It gets even better. The fund will pay for projects without going through Parliament. How convenient. It is convenient because Parliament asks questions and debates things and stirs up trouble. Here we have an agency. If things do not work out, it is not the government’s fault; it is the agency’s. Who created it? The government. Who controls it? Not the government; it is independent. It is independent except when it comes to selecting projects. The government does that. This is like someone saying they are not driving, they are just holding the wheel. What is the point of a fund that is not accountable to Parliament? Never mind the rest of it. Agencies, structures, layers of bureaucracy; they keep adding more and more. When something does not work, they do not make it better, they pile more on top. This is like putting coats of paint on a cracked wall. The paint gets thicker and thicker, but the wall does not get any stronger. We already have an infrastructure bank, funds and tools, and yet another one is being created. The government already created the Canada Infrastructure Bank to fund infrastructure development. Its purpose, like the sovereign wealth fund, is to attract the private sector and have it fund infrastructure projects. Other funds also exist, like the Canada growth fund. Instead of changing the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s mandate to include direct project participation through share purchases, for example, the government is choosing to create another structure with another undoubtedly well-paid director. It will certainly require another president, another office and other salaries, for a big, strong, beautiful, and most of all well-organized Canada. What is the point of another fund to do what was already being done? What I like most is the part where we are told that the private sector is going to invest. Why would the private sector suddenly want to invest in projects that no one wants to fund? It is because the government is on board. That is reassuring, not to mention that the government may even guarantee their capital. It is a dream come true. If it works, the private sector wins. If it does not work, the public sector pays. It is capitalism at its finest. It is the great ongoing history of the Dominion continuing to unfold. What is the point of a fund if the risks are public and the profits are private? Meanwhile, businesses and workers are suffering because of the 25% tariff on steel, aluminum and copper. The forestry sector and entire regions are affected. There is almost nothing for those sectors and yet, Ottawa has a fund. It has a big, fat fund that does not appear in the budget, only in the debt, and is not reflected in the results. Imagine if my house were on fire, but I think everything is fine because I bought myself a nice, big stainless steel barbecue. This is really astounding. I therefore had to ask the question, not to criticize the government or to complain, but to really understand: What exactly is the point of the Canada Strong fund? It is basically a fund that is not sovereign, that is financed by debt, operating outside the budget and controlled by the government. It is not accountable to Parliament, but will invest in risky projects and hope for the best. It certainly looks and sounds good, and instills a lot of hope. I like hope. I used to be hopeful. However, it usually cost me less than $25 billion.”

“I agree with my colleague. The Prime Minister is borrowing taxpayers' money to fund projects that private businesses do not want to pay for. He has not shared the details of his plan, and he is creating a new fund when the government already has a bank that does the same thing.”

“I completely agree with my colleague. The Prime Minister tells us that we are going to invest to build Canada strong, but in reality, it is the private sector that is going to invest in oil projects, ports and all that. There is money to be made. He waited a while, did some networking, travelled around the world, and then realized that no one was showing up. Then he wondered what he should do and decided that the solution was to put our money into it. However, he had already gone into debt. His deficits are twice as large as Justin Trudeau’s. He has no money left, so he is planning to borrow money to keep things going, but get the private sector involved too. How will the private sector get involved? The day before the economic update, he told us that he did not have many details to share at that time, that perhaps the money could be guaranteed, and that he would provide details during the economic update. The next day, when the economic update was tabled, we were told that the details would be provided in a few months. We are being left in the dark. The Canada Strong fund does much the same thing as the Canada Infrastructure Bank. If there were a desire to invest direct funds—borrowed money—the government could simply modify the existing structure rather than creating a new one, which is unnecessary. Clearly, the government is instead choosing to invest by borrowing taxpayers’ money for projects that are not profitable for the private sector.”

“The government is borrowing money to set up an investment fund instead of using surplus cash. They promised details and private investors, but we have neither. This is just a trick to hide $25 billion in debt off the budget.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals wanted a sovereign wealth fund too, and they decided to call it the Canada Strong fund. Sovereign wealth funds are built using surpluses, but Canada is deeply in debt, so the government decided to go even deeper into debt to set this up. What are the details? They were supposed to be part of the economic update, but when the update was presented, we were told the details would be provided in a few months. We are not really sure what the details are. We were told that several projects in Canada would create jobs and that the private sector would be involved. In the end, the private sector is not investing, so what is the government doing? As journalist Francis Vailles put it, this is just a government “gimmick”, because no one can figure out what it does. The Canada Infrastructure Bank could have been part of this, but no, the government wants to create a whole new structure. This has nothing to do with a sovereign wealth fund. It is a $25-billion debt that does not appear in the budget, artificially reducing the deficit.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canada should not create a sovereign wealth fund using borrowed money. Other countries only do this when they have extra money.”

“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary’s argument is essentially that we should have a sovereign wealth fund here because other countries also have sovereign wealth funds. However, what he is forgetting is that those other countries use surpluses instead of debt to build up their sovereign wealth funds. It is a bit like if I were to buy a house that costs three times the price I can afford. Let us say I buy a house for $10 million and I make $50,000 a year, because I wanted to be like my neighbour, who makes $300,000 a year. Does it make sense to do something I cannot afford to do simply because my neighbour did it?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  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 government's new fund is not a real sovereign wealth fund. Those funds are paid for with extra money, but the government is borrowing money to create this one. It has no clear purpose and is just a gimmick.”

“Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree with what my colleague just said. A sovereign wealth fund is funded by surpluses. The government has no surplus, so it is going into debt to make it look like it does. That is not a sovereign wealth fund at all. There is a reason most analysts in the media are wondering what the point of it is. As Francis Vailles of La Presse said, it is a gimmick. Sovereign wealth funds have a clear objective, but what is the point of this particular sovereign wealth fund? On page 55 of his economic update, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue stated, “The Canada Strong Fund will focus on building Canada.” Well, that says it all.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “That is not a sovereign wealth fund.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →

“I support the Conservative motion to cancel the new wealth fund. The government is borrowing 25 billion dollars to create it. We do not have extra money to save, so this just adds more debt and interest payments for taxpayers. It also lets the Prime Minister pick risky projects that private companies already rejected.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Conservatives’ opposition motion on the new so-called sovereign wealth fund, or the Canada Strong fund, which the Liberals announced in their economic update. In short, the Conservatives’ motion, which is a page long, argues that this fund should not exist and that the government should abandon it to limit our debt load, rather than increasing it. There is one thing that I have to point out right away to those who are here today. It is not every day that the Bloc Québécois agrees with the Conservatives. In fact, that is a rather rare occurrence. I think the fact that I am announcing my intention to vote in favour of the Conservative motion really says something, and I think most members of my party intend to do the same. That is bad news for the Liberals, but it does not matter because they have a majority. That is unfortunate, because if the government did not have this much-vaunted majority, then perhaps it would avoid making mistakes like this one. The Liberals are introducing the sovereign wealth fund as though they just reinvented sliced bread. They are saying that there are plenty of other countries in the world that have sovereign wealth funds and that by setting up such a fund, Canada will be able to get rich like those countries. If I go to the bank and borrow $200,000 because I want to buy a bigger house or do renovations at home, I am not richer the next morning, because I took on $200,000 in debt. That is exactly what the Liberals just did. They just took $25 billion and are going to issue bonds, but they are forgetting something: the interest payments. There is something else they are forgetting. There is now a sovereign wealth fund, this $25 billion, and they are going to have to do something to pay the interest. That is the Liberals’ gamble. They tell us that, since we have $25 billion, we are rich. In fact, we are not rich, we just have debt. That is on top of the already monstrous debt that Canada has accumulated over the years, particularly under the previous Liberal government, which is still in power today. This government has been around for more than 10 years. I cannot wait to see which way this is going to go over the course of the next three years, because it is starting to be alarming. Things have reached a point where the entirety of the GST is being used to pay interest on the debt. Not only that, interest on the debt is going to exceed the amount that Ottawa spends on health transfers. Soon, no one will be able to go to the hospital anymore. Actually, people will still be able to go to the hospital, but Ottawa will be too deeply in debt to keep paying its share of hospital costs. What will the government do then? It will cut transfers to the provinces. Still, it has a sovereign wealth fund. Generally speaking,what is the point of a sovereign wealth fund? A sovereign wealth fund is often set up by countries that want to put money aside when they have surpluses in order to avoid creating hyperinflation in their country or in case certain resources currently being developed are no longer available in the future. As members know, certain resources such as oil are non-renewable energy sources. Once oil wells have been depleted, that is it for oil. Some countries have been smart enough to set money aside. When the day comes that there is no more oil, they will still have money, instead of having spent it all. They will be able to continue helping their citizens. For example, they will be able to embark on an energy transition, as well as an economic transition, simply by setting money aside in all sorts of ways to continue funding the public services they want to provide to their people. In this case, we are still wondering where all the cash reserves from Canada’s oil industry went. The answer is simple. Not a single penny was set aside. All of it got squandered. Now the government is finally waking up and realizing that maybe it should have set some money aside, but it is a bit late. When we compare Canada to other countries, it is pretty clear that those countries are in a better economic situation than we are. However, this raises a question. This sovereign wealth fund will have to be paid back. At the very least, if it is not paid back, the interest on the debt will have to be paid. How will the government pay the interest on the debt? If it cannot generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the debt associated with this sovereign wealth fund, what will ultimately happen? People will continue to get even poorer. What is the government’s plan for making money to enrich Canadians? What will the sovereign wealth fund be used for? It is going to be used to invest in Canada. That is rather broad. It could mean just about anything. The government is going to invest in Canada, but now it is telling us that it is going to invest to attract private capital. I find that interesting because, usually, when one wants to attract private capital, it is because private capital will make money. Why would private capital put money into investments that it does not currently want to invest in? That is the idea behind the sovereign wealth fund: take risky projects that the private sector is avoiding and ensure that investments are made and that the projects go forward. That is the exact same mandate as the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB. Now, the government has conveniently decided to duplicate that structure with an additional $25 billion, with another bureaucratic pyramid and with more people being paid big salaries to manage it, rather than just giving the CIB the mandate to manage those additional funds. There is a lot I could say about the CIB in general, but that is not the subject of today’s debate. What is the idea behind all this? What does it all boil down to? It is a charade. The idea is to put on a show, to announce the creation of a sovereign wealth fund similar to funds that other countries with money set aside have, when we do not have a penny to spare here. That is what is happening. The government is pretending to have something that it does not have. I was saying that this debt will have to be paid back, or at least the interest will have to be paid. How will we pay the interest on projects that the private sector did not want to invest in in the first place because they were too risky and because the private sector thought it could not make money on them? What classic device is being used? Public funds are used to reduce the riskiness of projects and thus absorb the risks and losses if the projects do not work out, or at least ensure that the project is profitable for the private sector. If there is no profitability to begin with, the public would absorb the loss. How are we supposed to make money on something the private sector said it would not turn a profit and, on top of that, pay off the interest on the $25‑billion debt we just incurred? I am having a hard time understanding how the government is going to do that. I am going to need some serious explanations from the people on the other side of the House. For now, it is not very impressive. It is especially worrisome when the government gambles with taxpayers’ money. All this government is doing is using marketing tactics to sell us all sorts of pipe dreams. That worries me because, on top of everything else, the decisions around which projects will receive investment will not be made independently. The government is saying there will be an independent board of directors. How is it actually going to work? The projects to be funded by this much-touted sovereign wealth fund will be referred by the Major Projects Office. Which projects will be referred by the Major Projects Office? The Prime Minister will decide which projects get referred. What we are being told, then, is that the Prime Minister will select the projects to be referred to the Major Projects Office, which will then refer them to the sovereign wealth fund. This is surprising, because that is exactly what is happening right now with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Someone will have to explain to me who is doing what, but that is another story. How are they going to make decisions independently if the selection process is politicized right from the start? What does a politicized process mean? It means that the Prime Minister will choose projects based on what he considers to be good projects. A project that is considered good and promising is not always one that will turn a profit right away. What is even more concerning is that ordinary people are being invited to invest in this sovereign wealth fund, with the assurance that there is nothing to worry about and that their investment will potentially be guaranteed. Generally speaking, an investment is guaranteed when the return is lower. How does the government plan to attract private capital when it is guaranteeing individuals’ investments and has to pay interest on a $25‑billion debt? The reality is that it could end up using accounting practices designed to ensure the public does not fully understand what is going on. I am fascinated by this sovereign wealth fund where all the projects are chosen by the Prime Minister. The government is calling it a sovereign wealth fund, but I think it should be called “the sovereign’s wealth fund”. We know we have a Prime Minister who draws a lot of inspiration from the monarchy, and I get the impression that is the direction we are heading in, a situation where the Prime Minister, all alone in his office, has complete control over what the future will look like and what will happen with people’s money, and that is particularly worrying.”

“The government should not create a new wealth fund. We already have several public banks and funds to pay for projects. The government is just repeating what already exists for show.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s question is a good one because it gives me an opportunity to address some points I did not have a chance to discuss in my speech. The government is introducing a new gimmick, the sovereign wealth fund, even though we already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, on which I serve, did indeed recommend abolishing the bank because it became clear that it was a political gimmick the Liberal government was using as a revolving door. Michael Sabia went from the Department of Finance to the Prime Minister’s Office to chair of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. There are also plenty of ties to consulting firms that are close to the government, such as BlackRock. I am actually not sure it is BlackRock. Anyway, the point is that we should be asking ourselves if we really have to duplicate what already exists. Besides, there are other institutions already, such as the Canada growth fund, the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada. There are already several entities that can finance projects. The government is just adding new ones for marketing purposes.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government has not clearly explained how its new wealth fund works. It has almost the same goals as the infrastructure bank, but it will be even more political. The Prime Minister's Office will directly choose its projects instead of keeping them independent.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s question is very interesting. He is saying that I do not know the difference between the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB, and the sovereign wealth fund the government is proposing. It is difficult to really know the difference because the government itself does not know. It has not yet fully explained what the sovereign wealth fund will be used for or how it will work. However, according to the government announcement, their objectives are more or less the same. The difference lies in how the two mechanisms operate. One has $35 billion, and the other has $25 billion. What is happening with the CIB’s $35 billion? The investment objectives are based on policies issued by the government. There are guidelines regarding the investments the CIB should make. In the case of the sovereign wealth fund, the investments will be dictated entirely by the government because they will be decided by the Major Projects Office, which is administered by the Prime Minister’s Office. This is making things even less independent and more political. That is the reality.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government should not pick which businesses to fund. That puts risk on taxpayers instead of private companies. The government should focus on good services and let businesses take their own risks.”

“Mr. Speaker, what worries me the most is that the economy is looking more and more like a command economy, where the government picks which economic projects it will invest in. I would argue that the role of government is to create conditions conducive to business and deliver government services to the people. I find this very troubling, because the government is going to take on the risks associated with investments and projects, when those risks would normally be on the private sector. Lastly, this is being done with the money of ordinary people, who need that money to get public services and who hope they will not have to pay for their grandchildren.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →