Business of Supply

A Conservative opposition day motion calling on the government to cancel a proposed $25-billion sovereign wealth fund, arguing that real wealth funds are built on surpluses and resource revenues while Canada runs deficits, so the money would have to be borrowed, driving up debt costs and benefiting favoured corporations. Conservatives said the government should instead cut taxes and red tape to encourage private investment, and questioned who would run the fund. Bloc Québécois members agreed the fund is not a true sovereign wealth fund because it would be debt-financed and lacked details. Liberals defended the fund as a way to invest in a stronger economy, noting other countries have such funds and that it could benefit all regions. Some time was also taken up with a procedural notice dividing Conservative speaking slots and exchanges about pipelines.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

86 statements

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“My government built pipelines to the ocean and supported major energy projects, not the Conservatives. The Conservatives just attack people instead of working on good policy.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 35 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about Hansard is that all we have to do is look at what I said. The member just reinforced that. The pipeline the member is talking about does not go to tidewater, and that is what I said. Not one inch of it goes to tidewater. Let us contrast that to TMX. That goes to tidewater. That was not Conservative. It was Liberal. The biggest private-public investment was in LNG between the NDP government in B.C. and the Liberal government here in Ottawa. It had nothing to do with Harper or the Conservatives. The Conservatives talk a lot. Often they are very disrespectful because they focus so much attention on character assassination as opposed to good public policy.

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Lac-Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois
“Both the Liberals and Conservatives ignore climate change by building more pipelines. Now the government is using tax money from Quebec to build projects in the Prairies that will make the climate crisis worse.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I always love hearing the Liberals and Conservatives argue over which of them has built the most pipelines. As they see it, the climate crisis is over. Climate change does not exist for either party. Incidentally, my colleague opposite said during his speech that he was really pleased that the Major Projects Office is located in the Prairies, because that is where the major projects are going to be. He is confirming that the government is going to use that money to accelerate the climate crisis, with no benefit to Quebec, but using the money of Quebeckers. Is that his vision of a strong Canada?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“What the member said is false. We are building major projects all across Canada, not just in Alberta. We are funding projects in Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Alberta, British Columbia, and Manitoba.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 89 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the member knows what he just said is false”.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is just false, and the member knows what he just said is false. The major projects include the expansion of the port of Montreal. I will give the member a tip. Montreal is in Quebec. At the end of the day, there are major projects in all areas of Canada. The office has to be located somewhere. I am very proud of the fact that it happens to be in Alberta. Having said that, let us look at the major projects. As I referenced, there is the expansion of the port of Montreal and a nuclear project in the province of Ontario. We can talk about energy transmission lines in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about pipelines in Alberta. We can talk about copper mines and LNG in B.C. We can talk about the potential for the port of Churchill in Manitoba.

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP
“Norway's sovereign wealth fund is independent and used only for the public good. Canada's fund should be the same. It should not be used for political projects, like a pipeline that businesses and First Nations do not support. Does my colleague agree?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we hear the Prime Minister and my colleague compare the sovereign wealth fund to the Norwegian fund. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is independent, and it is only for public good. It is not used for political interests or what the Liberals call nation-building projects, which could end up funnelling money to Danielle Smith’s dream pipeline through the north coast, billions of dollars for a pipeline that the private sector does not even have support for, never mind support from coastal first nations that are opposed to it. Does my colleague agree that the sovereign wealth fund should be independent and only for public good, not for supporting private projects that are not economically viable?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“I trust the Major Projects Office to make good decisions. The sovereign wealth fund can help all regions of Canada, not just pipelines. I want the NDP to support it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 43 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the Major Projects Office being able to make recommendations and decisions on projects. The sovereign wealth fund has potential. The member referred to pipelines. It goes far beyond those types of projects. I am hopeful that we will see funds ultimately flow to all the different regions of the country, recognizing that all regions have a great deal to contribute to the wealth and future of Canada, as they do. I would encourage the NDP to support it. I am not too sure what the New Democrats’ position is on it, but I hope they will support it.

Anthony Housefather, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience

Liberal
“Canada compares well to other G7 countries on many measures. The opposition ignores these numbers when they are good, but uses them when they are bad. I want the member to explain this contradiction.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his passionate 20-minute speech. I— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Anthony Housefather: I also thank the member for Lakeland for having the best laugh in the House. Mr. Speaker, it is funny that there are so many statistics related to Canada’s performance within the G7 that are so favourable to Canada, and yet some in the opposition basically say, “Well, it doesn’t matter. We’re only comparing ourselves to ourselves, so what does it matter what the debt ratio is in France or in England?” Then with other statistics that they say are negative, they spout the same G7 statistics. Does the member find that to be a contradiction?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Compared to other wealthy countries, Canada usually ranks in the top two or three for overall performance. I am happy with how our country is doing compared to the rest of the world.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, many years ago, I took a course dealing with stats and how stats could ultimately be twisted and so forth. The bottom line is, I believe if we do a relative comparison between Canada and the G20 countries or the G7 countries, more often than not, we will find Canada in the top three and often the top two in terms of overall performance. I am very comfortable with where we are compared to other nations, in particular within the G20.

Warren Steinley, Regina—Lewvan

Conservative
“The government fails every time it tries to invest public money, just like it did with its infrastructure bank. Its policies print money and cause inflation. I do not trust this government to invest our money properly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this sovereign debt fund is nothing new. The Liberal government has had funds like this before. One is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is supposed to disburse its $35‑billion capital envelope by 2027-28, but on July 10, the PBO reported it had disbursed only $14.9 billion and it was $21 billion short of its target. These Liberals fail every time they try to attract investment. There is nothing but failure that has followed this Prime Minister everywhere he has gone, whether it be the Bank of England or the Bank of Canada. He has printed money and caused inflation everywhere. People from Saskatchewan have seen this movie before where the government thinks it can invest their money better than they can, and it has ended in a complete failure and out-migration. I am scared to see the same thing happen to Canada, which I love. How can people trust this unethical, corrupt government to actually invest money properly?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The member is spreading false information to make people think Canada is broken and a failure. No one believes him. Canada is still the best country in the world.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 92 of 100

    Of this reply, 93% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to sell the Canadian public literally false information to try to give the impression that Canada is broken and that everything is an absolute failure. No one believes him. At the end of the day, I would ultimately argue, as I have in the past, that Canada is, and will continue to be, the best country—

Warren Steinley, Regina—Lewvan

Conservative
“The member said I made a false statement. I want him to tell me what I said that was false.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member said I made a false statement. I would like him to clarify what statement was false.

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Lac-Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois
“Canada's new investment fund is not independent, so the government should stop comparing it to Norway's fund. They only share the same name.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada’s new sovereign wealth fund is neither sovereign nor independent, and yet my colleague continues to compare it to Norway’s sovereign wealth fund. The only thing these two funds have in common—because they do indeed have one thing in common—is the name. My question is very specific, and I would like my colleague to answer it. If the government buys a cat and tells everyone it is a horse, does he think people will call it a horse or a cat?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal

Linked statement

“I want the House to support Canada's new national wealth fund. Other countries have them. This fund will bring in investments, create thousands of jobs, and help our economy grow.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians as a whole are very smart. They understand that there are dozens of other countries around the world that have some form of sovereign wealth fund. The Canada Strong fund that is being created as a national sovereign wealth fund here in Canada is a positive thing. I can understand the Bloc does not want to see it. I am disappointed that the Conservatives are opposing it, but at the end of the day, this fund will generate significant investments. It will provide thousands of jobs, I would ultimately argue, into the future. It will provide an economic boost. It will provide improvements in the overall GDP. I believe we should be supporting it.

Melissa Lantsman, Thornhill

Conservative
“The government wants to create a 25-billion-dollar wealth fund using borrowed money. Canada does not have extra money to save because we are running a huge deficit. Real wealth funds are built on savings, not debt. Businesses are not building in Canada because taxes and rules are too high, not because there is no government money. The government should stop borrowing money for this fund, cut taxes, and remove red tape so businesses can invest on their own.”
  • A repeated line

    “We have seen this movie before.”

    Said 6 times by 6 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is an old joke about a man who racks up an enormous credit card debt, takes a second mortgage, opens a savings account and tells his wife it did not cost them anything. That joke is a pretty accurate description of the government’s economic policy, and we are all the wife. The Prime Minister has announced a $25-billion so-called sovereign wealth fund, and Canadians deserve a serious accounting of what has actually been put in front of them. Let us begin with the most fundamental question: What precisely is a sovereign wealth fund? A real one would be built on genuine surpluses. We heard in the House today about Norway. Norway’s government pension fund, the model the Prime Minister so eagerly name-drops, was capitalized by petroleum revenues. It has $1 trillion of assets because Norway saved when times were good. Canada is not Norway. Norway has oil money and Canada has vibes and a $25-billion credit card statement. We are running an almost $70-billion deficit in the current fiscal year alone, double the last guy’s, so we do not have surpluses to invest. We have deficits to finance, and $25-billion seed money in this fund is not savings. It is actually borrowed money any way we look at it. It is debt finance, like every other federal expenditure that exceeds our revenues. The Prime Minister is not building a wealth fund. He is building a debt fund, and he should be honest with Canadians about it. Let us be clear about what it means for every Canadian household. The government is borrowing at roughly 3.5% or 4% on 10-year bonds and betting that a bureaucratic Crown corporation run by political appointees will outperform the cost of that capital. It is leveraged speculation with taxpayer collateral, and not the nation building that the Prime Minister is suggesting it is. I have heard Liberal government members say that this fund will be different, that it will be more transparent, more accountable and better governed. I would feel more confident about that claim if they could tell us who is going to govern it, how the projects would be selected, when it would be operational and what relationship any of this would have to the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the Canada Growth Fund. They cannot answer any of those questions today, and we will see that throughout the day. I am certainly not alone in asking them. This announcement landed with a giant thud. The sovereign wealth fund proposal was met with near-universal skepticism, disbelief and, frankly, pure ridicule. The Globe and Mail, not exactly a Conservative voice in Canada, observed this week that the pension funds that presumably partner with this vehicle, including the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, were not even consulted before this announcement was made. The CPP Investment Board, to its credit, said that the key to long-term success for any public investment institution is “a clear commercial mandate, strong governance, and operational independence.” That is a politely worded way of saying that it has concerns. We should have concerns, because the question cuts to the heart of this whole exercise. The fund’s mandate is politically directed toward domestic infrastructure such as ports, mines and trade corridors, with diversification explicitly not a priority. It is then not truly an investment fund at all. In the Globe’s words, it is an “off-balance sheet vehicle for fiscal policy.” That is a government wealth fund in a costume. It is actually just another government program. We have seen this movie before and we know how it ends. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which members might remember now as the green slush fund, sent $400 million out to Liberal-backed pet projects with 186 identified conflicts of interest, zero accountability and zero measurable results. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was also endowed with $45 billion in infrastructure. It spent a fraction of that on actual construction while handing out $8 million in bonuses since 2024. The Prime Minister himself made these comparisons earlier this week. With respect, I do not think it is the endorsement he thinks it is. Here is a deeper problem. The reason that major projects are not getting built in Canada is not a lack of government capital, and that is the point here. There is not a lack of capital in Canada. They can ask anybody. If an infrastructure project is not moving forward, it is almost certainly because the private sector stakeholders have determined that it is not economically viable or because of the absurd regulatory environment. They have told us this. One does not solve an onerous regulatory environment by creating a new Crown corporation to fund projects the private sector stakeholders already said no to. One solves it by fixing the actual regulatory environment. Even industry leaders are telling the Financial Times, not a Conservative blog but the Financial Times of London, saying that the government’s red-tape cutting efforts are already floundering, costing more in lost trade than Trump’s tariffs ever did. Forestry executives are frustrated. People in the oil and gas sector are frustrated. Auto executives are frustrated. What do we do? We create another bypass around the dysfunction, instead of fixing the dysfunction itself. The Liberals have created an $18-billion-a-year regulatory burden. They have interprovincial trade barriers in place that knock $200 billion off our GDP. They are married to Bill C-69, the tanker ban, the policy uncertainty that has chased a trillion dollars out of this economy over the 10 years. Capital did not flee Canada because there was no government bank to subsidize it. It fled because it was simply unprofitable to do business here. A $25-billion Band-Aid applied over a gaping wound does not close the wound. It just becomes a really expensive Band-Aid that Canadians will end up paying for. There are real alternatives to this. We could genuinely cut taxes so that families have more in their pockets every single month and business owners have a reason to stay here or to open up their business here in the first place. We can eliminate red tape and trade barriers that cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic activity every year. I just do not understand how that is never the solution that they go to. We could fast-track approvals and start building things rather than funding another Ottawa office to study the feasibility of someday perhaps getting something built. We could scrap the bad laws, including Bill C-69, the tanker ban and the industrial carbon tax. They are actively preventing pipelines, mines and LNG terminals from being constructed. That is not this side of the House saying that. That is the industry representatives themselves. None of this would require borrowing $25 billion of new money. All of it would create much more wealth than the government ever could. That is how to build a country, not on borrowed money funnelled through a Crown corporation whose governance, mandate and accountability mechanisms have yet to be designed but were announced first and with details to follow. Canadians get to pay the bill. This House is owed answers that the government has not provided. Who runs the fund? How much in terms of management fees did they get? On what criteria are projects approved? What prevents them from being another vehicle for the same Liberal patronage networks that have embarrassed the government repeatedly? We will keep asking those questions. We will keep being the voice of every single Canadian who can see clearly what this is. When this was announced, I could not find a whole lot of people who were excited about it, except for the members on the other side of the House. They keep telling Canadians that Canadians do not understand the potential of this and this is based on hope, but everything this would do is the opposite of what the government says it is going to do. It is going to spend borrowed money, pick winners and losers, mostly losers, in our own economy and distort the market. Canada’s federal deficit sits at 2.1% of GDP. It is higher than it was last year. That is not lower. That is going in the wrong direction. Interest on the debt is heading past $80 billion annually, double what it was just four years ago. I will close with a sincere request for the government. Put down the $25-billion chequebook, step away from the podium at the Canada Science and Technology Museum and try something truly novel the government could not do in over a decade. Get out of the way, so that private capital and private business could be put to work here once and for all.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Conservatives always say the government should just get out of the way. I want to know if they believe the government should ever do anything to support the economy, like funding big projects.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    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 have had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions already today. There is a theme coming out of the Conservative Party. I recognize that and it is a very simple one, which is just to get out of the way. It is something that the Conservatives have said, not only in regard to this policy but in regard to a litany of virtually all policies that the Conservative Party seems to want to favour. Do members of today’s new Conservative Party believe there are circumstances and actions that the government can take that would support the economy, that would involve things such as sovereign wealth funds or an infrastructure bank? Does she have any— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Thornhill.

Melissa Lantsman, Thornhill

Conservative
“I oppose the government's plan for a wealth fund. It will not work because it interferes with the market instead of investing outside the country. The Liberals keep adding rules and subsidies that push business away, which has already caused one trillion dollars to leave Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 88 of 100

    Of this reply, 92% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are discussing the sovereign wealth fund today, but this is not what the government is proposing. In fact, the Liberals cannot even talk about it in their questions. The sovereign wealth fund, or the sovereign debt fund, that they are proposing is the exact opposite of one that would actually work. It would work in an economy where we have surpluses and resource revenue, and it would invest outside the country and not distort the market within the country by picking the very projects that make it unprofitable in the first place for businesses to invest. This is the problem with the Liberals’ government. Every single time, their solution is to come in and distort the market, regulate the market and subsidize the market so nobody can build here. That is evidenced by the $1 trillion of capital that has fled this country.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères

Bloc Québécois
“The government says this investment fund is independent. But the Prime Minister's Office gets to pick the projects first. I want to know if my colleague finds that reassuring.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. At times, we do agree with the Conservatives. When that happens, perhaps the government should listen. The government, as part of its Canada Strong fund—which it likes to describe as a sovereign wealth fund—has determined that project selection would be carried out by the Major Projects Office and that these projects would first be chosen by the Prime Minister’s Office. Does my colleague find it reassuring that a supposedly independent fund will ultimately have to select its investments from the Prime Minister’s choices?

Melissa Lantsman, Thornhill

Conservative
“The government is creating another new agency. These agencies mess with the free market. When private companies do not want to fund a project, the government steps in and pays for it anyway. That is not how a free market should work.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an interesting day here when we agree with the Bloc Québécois. This government has now put forward a 13th new bureaucracy. All of these bureaucracies have one thing in common: They are there to distort the market. Private companies chose not to invest in something, so the government comes and backfills that capital, which already exists in this country, by choosing the projects that go forward. That is the opposite of how a free market works. It is the opposite of how this country was built throughout generations. I cannot understand why the Liberal government always chooses the wrong path when it comes to building Canada’s future.

Scott Anderson, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee

Conservative
“The government's plan to save money using borrowed funds does not make sense. You cannot save for the future by taking on more debt.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, I decided to do the same thing as the Prime Minister, because he is a wise person. I decided that what I would do is take the bulk of the money out of my credit card, put it in my savings account and call it “Scott’s retirement fund”. Then I went to my accountant, who said that I would never retire. I was wondering if the member could explain to me why that is.

Melissa Lantsman, Thornhill

Conservative
“The Liberals claim they are saving money, but they are still overspending. Canadians do not need a wealth fund. The government must stop borrowing money and make life affordable so Canadians do not have to put groceries on credit cards.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 32 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is what some people call “girl math”. I call it “Liberal math.” I have been guilty of doing the same thing. I see a very expensive thing that I absolutely cannot afford, and I buy it on sale when it is 5% off. I convince myself that I got all these savings for it. That is Liberal math. That is how the math works in this place. Canadians do not need a wealth fund. They need a government that is going to handle affordability in a responsible way and stop leveraging the national credit card so Canadians have to leverage theirs for groceries.

Shannon Stubbs, Lakeland

Conservative
“The Liberals have hurt our economy with high taxes, huge deficits, and too many rules. Now they want to create a new wealth fund to pay for major projects. Other countries use surplus money for these funds, but Canada has a massive deficit. The government should cut taxes and red tape instead of creating more funds that pick winners and losers.”
  • A repeated line

    “The second-lowest productivity in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment in the G7.”

    Said 7 times by 3 members since April 30.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, I remember a time when hard work paid off in Canada, when people could start a business or a family with hope for a bright and prosperous future, and when government did not stand in the way of businesses, pick winners and losers in industry and society, or tax Canadians, businesses and entrepreneurs at every turn. That was just over a decade ago, under the last Conservative government, led by Stephen Harper. Canada had a balanced budget and a $1‑billion surplus. Canada had the strongest economy in the G7, with the largest and most prosperous middle class in the world. That is the Canada the Liberals inherited. Since then, they have imposed punitive laws that landlock and roadblock Canadians, entrepreneurs, investors and inventors with costly red tape, mixed messages and constantly shifting policies and regulations. Today, the Prime Minister sits in the same chair he advised for the last half-decade, where he pushed policies that strangled the Canadian economy and drove $1 trillion of investment out of Canada and into the United States, which probably explains why he moved Brookfield south of the border. The results speak for themselves. After 11 years of this same Liberal government and a year of this Prime Minister with all the same key players, Canada now has the highest household debt, the most unaffordable housing, the lowest investment per worker, the second-worst productivity and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. The Prime Minister cannot blame global factors. Other countries face the same pressures and have responded with real action and secure trade deals, while the Liberals have responded with delay and confusion. Canadians are in this position because Liberal policies punish work and drive out investment for anti-development ideology and government control. How do the Liberals respond? Well, they set up another half-baked scheme. This week, the Prime Minister announced a so-called sovereign wealth fund or, as he calls it, “a people’s fund”. I wonder if that name came from his visit to Beijing. In this long, drawn-out, rhetorical photo op, he said that this fund would finance major projects in Canada, because nothing says free enterprise like a government fund that looks like top-down state control, does it? However, he did point out Norway and Singapore as examples. Let us look at his claims and how they compare to his plan for Canada. Norway, of course, is a unitary state, with a single centralized government. It runs consistent budget surpluses, because it develops its abundant resources, especially oil and gas, which drives its economy, creates jobs and funds strong public services without crushing taxpayers. In fact, Norway’s budget surplus is one of the largest in the world and far exceeds the OECD average. The Norwegian government then puts that extra wealth into their sovereign wealth fund. Singapore, which the Prime Minister also mentioned, is a small city-state that built a highly attractive business environment with low taxes and minimal red tape that draws investment, jobs and businesses. Singapore has low corporate tax rates, big tax exemptions, no capital gains tax, and a highly efficient, transparent and independent legal system for permitting and contract enforcement. It competes for investment; it does not chase it away. Oh, and it has a big budget surplus, too. The Singaporean government puts that wealth into their sovereign wealth fund. Now, let us look at Canada. The Prime Minister said that he would saddle Canada with a budget deficit of $66.9 billion, which is double Trudeau’s. If it requires further clarity, that is the opposite of a surplus. The Prime Minister also revealed that debt interest charges alone will be $59 billion annually, and that will rise by 50%, up to $80 billion, in 2030. Of course, it does not stop there. The Liberals’ $264‑million Major Projects Office has approved zero projects. There is no start date, deadline, start point, end point or really any clear material progress on the Prime Minister’s promised pipeline to the Pacific, and Liberal red tape still drives business out of Canada. Just this week, business leaders said that Liberal anti-development laws are worse for Canada than Trump’s tariffs. François Poirier, CEO of TC Energy, said, “Capital goes where it is welcome. And for too long, it hasn’t felt welcome here”. David Pierce, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said, “I’ve heard of resource projects that require hundreds of permits, due to federal, provincial and municipal requirements”. He tells the truth. Enbridge, North America’s top pipeline company, said, “changes in policy and regulatory environment need to happen”, not only for a new pipeline but “for producers to have confidence to increase production”. Not really an attractive business climate, is it? Under these Liberals, Canada does not have a budget surplus; caused a historic capital flight, especially to the U.S., which started in 2015 and has gotten worse every year since; and does not develop or export the full potential of Canada’s resources, either for Canadians here at home or for allies abroad. In fact, this government blocks projects, landlocks production, bans exports and then wonders why investment leaves. There really was no point at all to compare Canada’s alleged sovereign wealth fund, which is clearly a sovereign debt fund, to Norway or to Singapore, other than to make it seem like the Liberals have a good plan, but it is just an illusion. What wealth is actually going into this so-called wealth fund? It seems like the Prime Minister had an idea. One could say it is the Liberals’ old reliable. They will, of course, take Canadians’ money, just like they always do, because, when in doubt, they will just tax Canadians out: out of their homes, out of their businesses and, in the very end, all the way out of Canada. He said that if Canadians had a bit of extra money, they could give it to him, just a few bucks here or there, because he needs more of their money. He thinks he has not taken enough of it. For the Liberals, it is always “spend first, tax everyone and everything later”. Why does he want our money? What is the point of this sovereign debt fund in the first place? It seems to be so the Prime Minister will have the power to bankroll hand-picked projects while claiming it is independent. He will be able to pick winners of a few and make losers of the rest in Canada’s economy. He will make sure, once and for all, that the lucky few who tow Liberal talking points and parrot his globalist, European, neo-Marxist agenda get to rake it in, so they can hire the top consultants, line their pockets and add just a few more zeros to their big fat bonuses. As for the rest, they get shut out and drowned in anti-development laws, regulations and taxes. They get told to go wait at the back of the line, while the Prime Minister holds the door open for his big banker elite buddies, his cronies, all the guys who helped get him to where he is today. As Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said, “every other unwashed business owner [is] stuck in the old, unworkable system.” Meanwhile, food banks get 2.2 million visits per month, double from seven years ago. Canadians are forced to sacrifice basics and put food back on the shelves. More young Canadians lose hope as to whether they will ever be able to get a home, start a family or get ahead, no matter how hard they work. Another bureaucracy is not the solution to $1 trillion in lost investment. Another bureaucracy is not the solution to lost opportunities across Canada after a decade of the Liberals, but to them it appears to be. They have created the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Growth Fund, the Major Projects Office, the defence bank and the green slush fund, but Canada still has the worst investment record in the G7. Those have not worked so far. Why do the Liberals expect that another one will? We know the definition of insanity. This is more bureaucracy, another fund with no delivered results for Canadians, but words that sound good. What they have delivered are more offices funded by taxpayers and more executives who get six-figure salaries while everyone else suffers. Instead of pouring more money into a broken system, the Liberals should fix their own laws and regulations that broke it in the first place, but why would they? As long as the Liberals are in total control, with their laws, policies, taxes and red tape, they can extort private businesses and provinces to get their way and to implement their agenda so the Prime Minister can make sure that his agenda to creep more into Canadians’ lives, into provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdiction, and into Canada’s private sector will be put into place. It sounds like a certain Communist regime to me. After all, he seems much more comfortable now cozying up to Beijing, as he lets their EVs on Canadian streets, even though they spy on Canadians and interfere in Canadian elections, academia, social media, law enforcement, defence and natural resources. The whole point of a private sector, of a free economy, is supposed to be freedom from government interference, the freedom for businesses to prosper and to create jobs without being taxed to high heavens, since lower taxes actually always result in more government revenue, so that Canadians can build good lives without the need to survive on government programs. That is necessary, also, to ensure that supports for vulnerable Canadians who really need a safety net can be sustainable. That is why Conservatives will fight every day for affordable and abundant Canadian energy and exports, low inflation and low taxes by cutting the cost of government, free market competition, and a self-reliant, sovereign and secure Canada. Life does not have to be this way. In a country as rich in natural and human resources as Canada, no business should be driven out and no family should have to choose between heating their home and feeding their kids. The beauty of Canada, its resilience, is the diversity of regions, resources and people who work, live and co-operate free of government micromanagement, who build a nation on hard work and share in opportunity and prosperity to pass on something stronger and better to the next generation, not controlled by Ottawa, not held back by red tape, but driven by hard work, innovation and pride in what Canadians can build ourselves and in who we are. That is what Conservatives will fight for every day.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 114

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 86 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 29 statements
  3. Oral Questions Finance 12 statements
  4. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 15 statements
  6. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Finance 11 statements
  8. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 19 statements
  10. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  12. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Air Transportation 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Mental Health and Addictions 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  17. Government Orders Business of Supply 53 statements
  18. Private Members' Business National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act 13 statements
  19. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  20. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  21. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements