Business of Supply

A Conservative opposition day motion calling on the government to cancel its planned $25-billion investment fund, arguing that sovereign wealth funds should be built from budget surpluses and resource revenues, which the government does not have. Conservatives said the government is borrowing at a time of large deficits, that taxpayers would bear the risk, that the fund’s governance and decision-making are unclear, and that the Canada Infrastructure Bank fell far short of its disbursement targets. Liberal members defended the fund as a way to invest in major projects, including energy and offshore wind, generate returns for taxpayers and attract private capital, and pointed to Canada’s comparatively strong economy; some Bloc members questioned using public money for oil and gas projects and raised federal debt costs and health transfers. Some time also went to exchanges about committee operations and members’ regional priorities.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

53 statements

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

Liberal
“Our government has worked for over a year to make the economy stronger and help Canadians. I want the member to recognize all the different things we have done to build a better country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating that it has been just over a year now since this government was elected. Virtually from day one, there has been a focus on building a strong Canada, a Canada that is strong for all. Part of that means looking at major projects. Today the opposition has chosen to talk about a wealth fund. These types of initiatives that the government has brought forward are meant to build a stronger and healthier economy. I wonder if my colleague could provide more of a holistic view on the fact that, over the last year, the government has taken many initiatives to support Canadians in many different ways, because our focus has been to build a stronger and healthier country.

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“We are working to speed up major projects and helping Canadian businesses hurt by tariffs on steel, aluminum, cars, and copper. We are also supporting Canadian families with social programs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have moved along several parallel tracks. We are trying to speed up major projects; this is very important. We have also put in place different programs to support Canadian businesses and companies affected directly by tariffs in the steel, aluminum, auto and copper industries, with direct assistance to those companies. We are also working, keeping in mind that Canadian families need assistance, need help, and we have put in place several social—

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“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.

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

Liberal
“Our government is bringing in billions of dollars in investments and helping Canada sell more goods to other countries. This will make our economy stronger. Conservatives just want the government to get out of the way. I want to know which country actually succeeds with their plan.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada is open. A year ago, Canadians voted in a new Prime Minister and a new government that have been aggressively pursuing investments and increased exportation. We have now put in a fund that will draw in literally billions of additional dollars. We are going to see a stronger and healthier economy, because we have a government and a Prime Minister who understand the economy and the types of things we need to do in order to grow the economy into the future. The Conservatives consistently stand up and say, “Just get out of the way.” Is there a country that the member opposite believes is doing a good job of following her model?

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“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.

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“I am asking my colleague about the cost of the sovereign wealth fund. The Bloc Québécois is worried about the lack of transparency. How much public money will go toward paying interest on the $25 billion and paying for the tax credits? What does she think about using public money for oil projects?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw on my colleague’s expertise in the field of finance. We in the Bloc Québécois are concerned about this sovereign wealth fund. First, public funds are being invested in a framework whose lack of transparency is concerning to us. Has my colleague been able to estimate the total cost of the public funds that will need to be invested in the sovereign wealth fund, particularly to pay the interest on the $25 billion, but also to pay for all the tax credits that could be offered to encourage investment in this fund? Also, what does she think of the notion that public funds will be invested in infrastructure projects, particularly oil-related ones?

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“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.

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“Experts told our committee that the Canada Infrastructure Bank failed, and that this new fund will fail too. The bank promised to bring in five private dollars for every public dollar, but it only brought in about 60 cents. I want the member to explain how this new fund will not be the same kind of failure.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on comparisons that have been made between this new fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We were told by expert witnesses at committee on Monday that the Infrastructure Bank was failed industrial policy and that the fund would be just more of the same. We have heard defence of the Infrastructure Bank. In fact, one of the Liberal members claimed that it was leveraging private sector money. It was promised to do five dollars for every one dollar of public funds. We were also told at the finance committee that there would be about 60¢ of private investment for every dollar. Could the member comment on the failures of the Infrastructure Bank and how they correlate to this new future boondoggle?

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“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—

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative

Linked statement

“I want the government to cancel its new investment fund. The government is borrowing twenty-five billion dollars to pay for it instead of using extra money it saved. This adds more debt for Canadians and lets politicians give money to their friends. The government should cut taxes and spending instead.”
  • A repeated line

    “That is not a sovereign wealth fund.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since April 30.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Liberals’ new fund they have announced should never be called a “sovereign wealth fund”. A sovereign wealth fund is a fund that takes surplus government revenue, usually from resource export revenue, and invests that surplus internationally. That is what a sovereign wealth fund, by any normal understanding of the term, means. The government in fact even explicitly compared its new fund to actual sovereign wealth funds, like those found in Norway and Saudi Arabia, but the government has no surplus. It will borrow 100% of the funds to seed its fund, so it is not a sovereign wealth fund at all. It will become a Liberal slush fund that will inevitably become a plaything for the Prime Minister and his Liberal insiders, bought on national credit. The government’s own announcement said, “the government will provide $25 billion over 3 years, on a cash basis, to seed the [fund].” Well, the Liberals just tabled an economic statement with a $67-billion deficit, without counting the $8.3 billion the government will need to seed the fund initially, which is in the cash flow statement and does not show up as a balance sheet entry. The Liberals enter this new debt with an offsetting asset that produces nothing, but Canadians will still have to pay the debt borrowed to seed the new fund. The fund is created by new debt to be repaid by Canadians, not created by surpluses invested on behalf of Canadians for their future. This is going to be a $25-billion hit on the national credit card. There is simply no denying this. The government’s own announcements and fiscal update confirm it. The government announced, “The Fund will invest in strategic Canadian projects and companies alongside other investors—with a clear objective to achieve commercial returns to build the wealth of Canada.” Well, that sounds wonderful, does it not? Who could be against Canadian projects and investing in companies that deliver commercial returns for the wealth of all Canadians? However, the skilful announcement cannot hide what this really is. The problem is that borrowing money and handing it to politicians and their hand-picked cronies to invest in companies that are chasing preferential regulatory treatment, subsidies and self-enrichment, all done on the nation’s credit card, is absolutely the worst possible way to go about building Canada and the wealth of Canadians. The best way to build Canada and the wealth of Canadians is to repeal the laws that the Liberals passed over the last 10 years that have resulted in capital flight from Canada and in economic stagnation. In 2015, the government inherited a balanced budget from the previous government. The New York Times, hardly a Conservative media organ, declared that Canada then had the most prosperous middle class in the world. Homes were affordable for most people. Food was affordable. A pipeline to the west coast was approved. Kinder Morgan was preparing to invest billions of dollars to expand the Trans Mountain west coast pipeline. The TransCanada pipeline project, as it was then called, was doing the preliminary work for an application to build an east coast pipeline. This was what was on the table in 2015. Then the Liberals formed their government in November 2015, and their election promise was to run three years of modest deficits to fund unprecedented investments in national infrastructure, resulting in economic growth that would lead the budget to balance itself. However, the very first thing they did was cancel the existing pipeline approval for the west coast. They did it by a ministerial order before Parliament even met in November 2015. If they had not done that, the west coast pipeline would already be built. Half a million barrels of Canadian oil would be on world markets today. At today’s price, that is $50 million a day in Canadian energy exports. That is nearly $20 billion a year at today’s prices. Now the Liberals are having a sort of out-of-body experience, wondering why we cannot supply our allies and the world market with energy. Before anyone says, “Wait a minute, Trudeau’s gone. All the leave-it-in-the-ground Liberals have been shuffled off to the back row and off to the sides or given cushy diplomatic appointments,” let us not forget, let no one in the House forget that, in 2021, the now Prime Minister appeared at the industry committee and was questioned by the opposition leader. He was asked about that decision to cancel the west coast pipeline, and he said then that it was “the right decision.” These Liberals have been wrong about everything for the past 10 years. Their deficits were not a transformational investment into productivity-enhancing infrastructure construction that allowed the budget to balance itself. Their deficits quickly became structural and have now spiralled ever upward since. It did actually come to a head in the late 2024 session. Does anybody remember what was happening in December 2024? That was when a projected $30-billion deficit for this year was so bad that Chrystia Freeland refused to sign off on it. Do members remember that? Remember when $30 billion was enough for her to resign as the finance minister? Remember the wave of resignations and retirement announcements? Remember when fiscal management finally became the focused issue and finally forced Trudeau out? The man then who was supposed to be this serious, experienced, credentialed, technocratic adult in the room who would restore the health of Canada’s finances after nine years of neglect is now doubling down on the state-led, rent-seeking, crony capitalism of the Trudeau years and has doubled that deficit, which was such a crisis for how huge it was at the time. Consider now the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Nine years ago, the government said that this new thing it gleefully announced would transform Canada. Its members said that it would leverage private sector investment and unlock hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment. It was all nonsense. Their press release said that there would be four private dollars invested for every public dollar. Do members remember Bill Morneau? He went even beyond his own announcement and said that it would be $5 to every one dollar, in his speech, where he announced it. Here we are nine years later, with billions of dollars still not invested, no projects done and the real number of leveraged private sector investment is 66¢ on the dollar. Now the current Prime Minister wants to do the same thing with this new fund. I do not have time to explain all the things that are wrong with the Infrastructure Bank. This is the same industrial policy that failed with the Infrastructure Bank. With this system, the government makes rules that kill investment, then sets up an office staffed by the Prime Minister’s appointees, cherry-picks which projects it does not want the existing laws of Canada to apply to and then leaves itself free to create whatever future rules or subsidies to force the taxpayer to guarantee the success of whatever project it has chosen. This is what the Prime Minister has more or less admitted himself. All the government needs to do to undo the damage of the past 10 years is to repeal its anti-development laws, rein in its deficits and lower or repeal its taxes and investment will flow. It will flow to its logical conclusion of projects built, jobs created, taxes collected, public services funded, taxes lowered and people free to live in comfort, plenty and freedom. That is why we call on the government to cancel this Liberal slush fund that is being charged to the national credit card. Its approach is not free enterprise; it is state control. It is the approach that always leads to decline, poverty and, eventually, it follows all the way to its logical conclusion: loss of liberty. I call on the government to not proceed with yet another Liberal slush fund.

Caroline Desrochers, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure

Liberal
“The Conservatives waste their debate time using slogans and attacking everything the government does instead of having real discussions. Today they argued about the name of our wealth fund instead of talking about how it will help Canadians. They do not have a plan of their own.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, what I find really unfortunate is that the official opposition has about 15 days a year to bring intelligent debate to the House. On top of that, they have about 45 minutes a day to hold the government to account. However, instead of engaging in real debates and real discussions, they spend their time reciting slogans and criticizing everything the government does. Today, we spent the day arguing about the name of a sovereign wealth fund when, in fact, the purpose of this fund is to build Canada strong, and that is what Canadians need right now. On this side of the House, we are responsible, we are ambitious and we continue to deliver for Canadians. We are capable of imagining the future and we are not afraid to make the necessary decisions. Do the Conservatives have a plan or an alternative? I have not heard them talk about that.

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“The government should not tell the opposition what topics we can debate or what questions we can ask. It is our job to oppose bad policies and suggest better ideas.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a shame, because she must not have listened to my speech. I was very clear about the approach the Liberals should take and the approach they should not take. It takes a staggering amount of arrogance to judge and presume what is important to the opposition, and to say that we should not use an opposition day to oppose a terrible policy being proposed by the government and to propose alternatives. That is what opposition days are for. In question period, we ask important questions that need to be answered. We do not need to be told by the government what questions we should ask or which of its policies we should oppose or propose alternatives to.

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

Liberal
“I want the House to agree to move to private members' business early.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin private members’ hour.

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