“Our government is supporting big mining projects in Saskatchewan. I worked with the premier to help local canola and pea farmers. Will the member admit that the federal and provincial governments did good work together to lower tariffs for his province?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would put Calgary Centre ahead of Regina—Lewvan in those remarks, but I do respect the way in which the member has brought his issues forward. I see a more optimistic future for the country, including for Saskatchewan. I look at BHP and the Jansen mine. I look at the work that we are doing to support the Foran mine. On a personal level, I am proud of the work that I did alongside his premier, Scott Moe, in working to support prairie farmers and Saskatchewan farmers of canola and peas. Notwithstanding that I know it is the job of the hon. member to hold the government to account and to highlight what he sees as flaws, would the member at least recognize on the floor of the House of Commons that it was some good work at a federal and provincial level to resolve tariffs and to reduce tariffs that matter for farmers and for the folks in his province?”

“The Canada Infrastructure Bank has spent billions of dollars on projects that help people across the country. I want the Conservatives to say if they support these approved projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Conservatives do not see the larger picture. They make reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which they have been soundly in opposition to for years now, yet Canadians in every region of the country have benefited from this program. Provinces, municipalities and the private sector have actually been engaged. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, close to $30 billion. The Conservatives say it has not done anything. Duh. If they would just do a simple Google search, they would see the projects that have been approved. Do the Conservatives support the projects that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has approved?”

“Canada's finances are strong, and our debt is manageable. Global crises like the pandemic, foreign wars, and U.S. tariffs forced us to spend money to protect our economy. Cutting spending now would cause a recession. Instead, we must invest in our economy, trade with other countries, and create a public investment fund. I am voting against the Conservative motion.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to, if I may— An hon. member: No. Carlos Leitão: No? Okay, democracy in action, I see. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today’s debate. In budget 2025, we outlined our plan to build Canada strong. Since then, we have moved fast to build major infrastructure, homes and industries that grow the Canadian economy and create lasting prosperity; empower Canadians with better careers and a more affordable life; and protect our communities, our borders and our way of life. We delivered concrete savings for Canadians while supporting key national priorities and keeping investments focused on results. We are maintaining a strong fiscal position with the spring economic update 2026, showing that projected deficits are lower than the fiscal horizon and we are on track to meet our fiscal anchors. Allow me to talk a bit about our fiscal stability and strength, which is something that our colleagues from the other side do not seem to believe. They keep saying that over the last 10 years or so, it has been deficit after deficit and that Canada is something resembling a basket case: everything is broken, nothing works and Canadian cities are war zones. Think about it. If that is the case, how come Canada still has a AAA credit rating? How come bondholders from many different countries are perfectly willing to buy Canadian debt? In fact, the 10-year yield on a Canadian government bond is now, I believe, about 3.5%. The comparable bond yield in the U.S. treasury is almost one full percentage point higher, so Canadian debt is much better received in financial markets than U.S. debt and that of many other G7 countries. Germany still has a AAA credit rating, but so does Canada. The current deficit, which turned out to be $11 billion less than what we had estimated back in November, is $67 billion. Yes, that is 2.1% of GDP, hardly an unmanageable level. Again, going back to the United States, which seems to be in the ideal situation, because our colleagues keep referring to business in the United States and saying that we should get out of the way and lower taxes and that business knows what to do, the U.S. deficit is approaching 10% of GDP. That is a real problem. U.S. net debt is 100% of GDP. Canadian federal net debt is 10% of GDP, which is one zero less than in the United States. All this to say, Canada’s fiscal position is sustainable and strong. Yes, there have been deficits over the last 10 years, but let us take a look at what has happened during those years. We have had shock after shock. The economy was doing reasonably well in 2018-19. Economic growth was rebounding strongly and unemployment was very low at the national level and in most provinces, including the province of Quebec, where we had 5% unemployment, which was unheard of. Things were going in the right way and federal deficits were declining rapidly. In some provinces, as was the case in Quebec, there was a budget surplus in 2018. Things were going well. Then what happened? We had a major shock. The pandemic made it so that governments, not just the Liberal government but governments around the world, particularly in the G7, were forced to intervene massively in the economy. Basically, governments shut down the economy. We did not know how to handle the pandemic at the time, so we shut down the economy and governments intervened with massive assistance. In France, for example, the motto of the government and President Macron at the time was “quoi qu’il en coûte”, that whatever it takes, he needs to support the economy as the government was shut down. In the case of Canada, for example, we will remember that, when former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Poloz, was questioned about the actions of the central bank in those days, he said we would never think of blaming a fireman for using too much water when fighting a fire. That was what had to be done, and that is what was done. After that, yes, there was a strong pickup in inflation because the supply chains were interrupted due to a lot of pent-up demand that was released all at the same time around 2022. Then, when we were beginning to get that under control, we had another major shock, which was the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the interruption in the production and sale of grains, of which Ukraine was a major exporter. Of course, Russian oil and natural gas exports were also interrupted, which led to a food and energy price shock after the pandemic shock. There were more deficits in governments across the G7. We have to remember that Canada is not an island. We exist on a planet with neighbours. Then, as we were recovering from that, finally getting the economy on a much stronger footing and inflation back under control, we had the tariff war with the United States, the imposition of unjustified and totally counterproductive tariffs on Canada, which caused major diversions and interruptions to international trade. The United States was and still is Canada’s largest market and partner. Suddenly, that partner was no longer reliable, which provoked a huge shock to the economy. A lot of private investment was put on hold because many Canadian companies, as well as companies abroad, were uncertain as to what the investment climate was, given the total uncertainty from the United States. That put a lot of investment projects on hold. Then, as if that was not enough, when we thought we were back to a more even keel, there was the war in the Middle East, and the price of crude oil has now doubled. If we think about it, in two months, from the end of February until now, crude oil prices have gone from about $60 a barrel to $120 a barrel. That has some impact on prices, on inflation, on energy prices and on gasoline prices. Another big risk is that this may trigger another inflationary spiral. According to the Bank of Canada yesterday, there is no evidence of that yet. It left its policy rate unchanged because, for the moment at least, the risks seem to be well balanced, but of course, the central bank will remain very vigilant on that. Unfortunately, if need be, there might be an increase in the policy rate. That is not on the horizon for the time being, but it is always a possibility. We live, as the director of the IMF has put it, in a state of profound uncertainty. The fog of uncertainty is, indeed, extremely dense at this time, which has an impact on the economy, on prospects going forward and on government policy. This is where there is a major difference in the way we view things and the way the Conservatives view things. The Conservatives view the world as if none of this has happened, as if these shocks did not really exist and anything that has happened is all the fault of the Liberals. Of course, it is the Liberals who went on and bombed Iran. It is the Liberals who closed the Strait of Hormuz. It is the Liberals who caused COVID. Hey, why not? The big difference is that we think this is the time when governments must be ready and willing to intervene, ready and willing to support the economy. The worst thing that could be done at this time, the worst thing that could be done in 2026, in public policy, economic policy and fiscal policy, would be to run an austerity budget, to cut $30 billion to $40 billion out of the Canadian budget at this time. This would be the worst thing that we could do. This would be the perfect recipe to trigger a recession. This is the time to intervene. The world has changed, and this is the time that action is required. This is the time we are intervening. This is the time that the government is putting forward different policies, different ways to support the economy and to reshape the Canadian economy to make sure we find new partners and new markets for our products to lessen our dependency on the United States. This is another big difference between our view of the world and the Conservatives’ view of the world. The Conservatives’ view of the world and of what is going on in the United States is that what is going on in the United States right now is not very nice, but not to worry, because Mr. Trump will not be there forever and things will go back to normal. Well, we say that no, things will not go back to normal. Protectionism in the United States will remain a strong force. If we have learned anything from all this, it is that that partner is not reliable. That partner will always be our neighbour. It will always be there. We cannot change geography, but we can no longer afford to be totally reliant on that one partner. We have to diversify our markets, diversify our exports and look toward other partners that share our values of having a predictable and rules-based world, which is something the current U.S. administration does not appear to favour very much. Those partners are in Europe, in the European Union. They are in the Asia-Pacific area, particularly in Japan and South Korea. They are also in South America, with Mexico and with things such as Mercosur. Yes, we are working hard to diversify our markets, form new alliances and form new partnerships with other partners. Just this morning, before coming here, I was attending a seminar with folks from the Arctic Economic Council, which is based in Norway, where we shared many stories on development in the north and on ways to develop the north, particularly on ways to collaborate with our partners, be it Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark with Greenland. Those relationships are deepening. It is the same thing when we go to Europe and we talk to our European partners. They are very much interested in doing business with Canada, with investing in Canada. Canada has what the world needs at this point. We have critical minerals and more traditional minerals that are usually important these days, such as copper and nickel. We also have energy, both renewable and non-renewable energy, and a developed high-tech sector. We are among the global leaders in artificial intelligence. We have many things that the world wants, things that we will continue to supply the world and things that will lessen our dependency on this one neighbour. I think I made the point that the time to invest and the time to use the Canadian fiscal capacity that we have is now, not five years from now. Five years from now will be too late. That is what we are doing. My other point, which is another part of the discussion we are having here today, concerns the sovereign wealth fund that we put in place. That is actually the purpose or theme of the Conservative motion. This will not be a surprise to any member, but we are going to vote against such a motion. Why is that? Many things have been said about this sovereign wealth fund we are creating. I would now like to address the House in French. I would like to talk about the best example out there with respect to the sovereign wealth fund, which we announced yesterday and which has not yet been created. We have been accused of having all kinds of ulterior motives, but we will begin the consultation and dialogue process with lots of stakeholders from across the Canadian economy to set this fund up properly. I think that one of the best examples is that of two Quebec-based funds. Anyone listening who is from Quebec surely knows what I am talking about. The first is the generations fund, which the Government of Quebec created nearly two decades ago. The second is the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the CDPQ. When the Government of Quebec created the generations fund, it did not have a surplus either. The government was running a deficit. It is not exactly the same thing, but it was created and it is a huge success. As for the CDPQ, it is important to bear in mind that it currently has a portfolio of approximately $90 billion in shares in Quebec companies. That is the model that we are going to use for the fund that we are setting up here today. That fund will enable us to invest directly in Canadian companies that will participate in developing projects of national interest. The government will be a partner and part owner in these projects. That is how we are going to create wealth and prosperity for all Canadians in the very long term.”

“I was talking about Canada's net debt, not its total debt. If we count what the provinces owe, we must also count what they own. Canada's debt is still low compared to other wealthy countries.”

“Mr. Speaker, I did point out that was on net federal debt. I was not talking about the total debt, but if we want to include total debt, including the provinces, then we also have to look at the assets. There are many financial assets that the provinces also own, but if we want to look at debt, excluding the CPP, then the total Canadian federal debt is still around 40% of GDP, which is still one of the lowest in the OECD.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The federal government and the provinces have an agreed formula for healthcare funding, and the amounts go up automatically. We will talk about it in upcoming meetings. The formula can and should be changed over time.”

“Mr. Speaker, concerning the Canada health transfer, a formula has been negotiated by the federal and provincial governments, and the amounts are indexed. What I can say is that negotiations and discussions will take place during upcoming federal-provincial meetings, and I am sure that this transfer formula will be updated during negotiations held in the years to come. The formula is not set in stone. It can and should be adapted.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Parliamentary Budget Officer said today that Canada's economy is doing better than expected. Can the member share his thoughts on sovereign wealth funds from Quebec's perspective?”

“Mr. Speaker, I always find my colleague’s comments very informed and knowledgeable, and I do feel that they elevate the quality of the debate in this House, so I thank him for that. This morning I was at a meeting with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and she spoke about the spring update. She described Canada’s economy as being resilient, and she also spoke about how a number of economic indicators had surpassed what had been forecasted. I just wanted to add those comments in support of those that were made by my colleagues. Could my colleague expand on his knowledge and experience of the sovereign wealth fund from a Quebec perspective?”

“Our economy grew in 2025 despite hard times. We are creating a wealth fund so the government can invest directly in big, long-term projects. This will let Canadians own a piece of these projects and share in the wealth they create.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, the Canadian economy is very resilient. Despite all the shocks that I mentioned, 2025 was actually a year of significant economic growth. We have been able so far to resist that fog of uncertainty. Going back to the sovereign wealth fund, the purpose of the sovereign wealth fund, as we define it here and as has been done in the case of Quebec, is to allow the state, the government, to be an equity partner in major projects. We want the Canadian public to be able to benefit from investing in those projects. We know that those projects will take 10, 20 or 30 years, but they will be very important for Canadian wealth. If Canadians can own a portion of those projects, that would be a major bonus. That is why we are setting up a sovereign wealth fund.”

“The finance committee works well together and we agree on things. Other committees should follow our example.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for the finance committee, as I am a member. So far, we have been able to talk, we have been able to discuss and we have been able to reach consensus in that committee. If we can be an example to the other committees, so much the better, but things function and can function.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The formula we use to increase health care funding to the provinces is not permanent. It can be changed and updated over time if both the federal and provincial governments want to.”

“Mr. Speaker, what I meant to say, and what I did say, is that this formula, which determines the Canada health transfer escalator, is not permanent. It is a formula that is adjusted over time. I was present for the negotiations that led to the establishment of the formula at the time. This formula can always be adjusted; it can always be updated. If that is the intention of the federal and provincial governments in the years to come, so much the better. It can be done. We are not locked into a framework that cannot change; the framework can change.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →