House of Commons Hansard #114 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debt.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act First reading of Bill S-209. The bill proposes to restrict the access of young people to online pornographic material, aiming to enhance the protection of children and youth in online environments. 100 words.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth Fund Members debate the government’s proposed Canada Strong fund, a $25-billion sovereign wealth fund that the Liberal government argues will catalyze nation-building projects and drive long-term prosperity. Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois criticize the initiative, characterizing it as a "debt fund" financed by borrowing rather than surpluses, and warn of political interference in investment decisions. They also argue it unnecessarily duplicates the mandate of the existing Canada Infrastructure Bank and risks squandering taxpayer money on politically motivated projects. 34100 words, 4 hours.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives condemn the government’s inflationary spending and "credit card budgeting," arguing that rising debt interest now outpaces healthcare funding. They highlight surging food insecurity and high housing costs across Canada. Additionally, they criticize selling public assets to fund programs and the admission of a former Iranian official into the country.
The Liberals highlight Canada’s strong fiscal position and investments in skilled trades. They promote the groceries and essentials benefit, affordable housing, and environmental strategies. Furthermore, they discuss managing U.S. tariffs, supporting small craft harbours, and the inadmissibility of Iranian officials to protect the safety of Canadians.
The Bloc condemns massive oil subsidies while SMEs face tariffs and the media struggles. They criticize fossil fuel tax credits and demand a public inquiry into Cúram's failures affecting seniors' pensions.
The NDP criticizes the government's corporate-focused spending and cuts to addiction programs while toxic drug deaths rise in Winnipeg.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth Funds Members debate a proposed $25-billion national sovereign wealth fund announced to catalyze private investment. The Liberal government defends the initiative as a strategic tool to secure equity in national projects and foster long-term prosperity. Conversely, the Conservative opposition criticizes the fund, characterizing it as a "sovereign debt fund" built on borrowing rather than surpluses. They argue it relies on reckless spending and political cronyism. The Bloc Québécois expresses concerns regarding the fund's lack of transparency and potential support for fossil fuels. 17000 words, 2 hours.

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act Second reading of Bill C-267. The bill, introduced by Abdelhaq Sari, aims to create a national framework regarding the durability and repairability of electronic products. While some members urge committee study, critics like Arnold Viersen argue the legislation is overly vague and broad. Additionally, some opposition members contend the proposal duplicates provincial jurisdiction and fails to address the specific needs of the agricultural sector. 7800 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Funding for B.C. housing projects Elizabeth May urges the federal government to create a targeted program for shovel-ready, non-profit housing projects in British Columbia that are imperiled by scrapped provincial funding. Jennifer McKelvie outlines broad federal housing investments and encourages applicants to utilize existing federal portals rather than creating a province-specific program.
Affordability and cost of living Grant Jackson and Jonathan Rowe critique the government's fiscal management and failure to boost food production, arguing that high spending drives inflation. Jennifer McKelvie defends the government's record, citing the spring economic update, tax relief measures like the fuel excise suspension, and the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

TreatiesRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

St. John's East Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Joanne Thompson LiberalMinister of Fisheries

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction”, adopted at New York on June 19, 2023.

Veterans AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs entitled “Suicide Prevention Among Canadian Veterans”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Veterans AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Airdrie—Cochrane, AB

Mr. Speaker, I table the Conservatives' supplemental report to the veterans affairs committee's report on suicide prevention.

Suicide among veterans is an epidemic in the country and is claiming more lives than many of the conflicts that have happened in this century. Despite all the cries of broken-hearted spouses, parents and siblings, the government is still failing to do enough about this.

Although the report is a step in the right direction, the calls for action need to be stronger and more precise. Therefore, Conservatives have outlined in our supplemental report a road map for ensuring that veterans are no longer retraumatized by their own government and that they are able to access timely care so they can find peace before it is too late. We also raise the issue of MAID being pushed on veterans who are seeking help in living their life.

To all people who serve Canada and have been lost to suicide, I say that we honour their service to Canada and we mourn their lives. Let us act now to prevent the loss of more Canadian heroes.

Veterans AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which relates to the motion adopted on April 20, 2026, regarding the creation of an independent Canadian military honours review board.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Shannon Miedema Liberal Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Federal Climate Policy at a Crossroads”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table our dissenting Conservative report, in both official languages. While the committee's report documents the failed Liberal emissions reduction plan, it then recommends more of the same. It calls for higher industrial carbon taxes or an oil and gas emissions cap that would drive investment, jobs and production out of Canada.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today in the House the supplementary report of the Bloc Québécois, which aims to build on the ambition of the main report tabled on the plan to reduce—

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

The hon. member needs to seek unanimous consent to table a supplementary report.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to table our supplementary report.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

Is it agreed?

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling this supplementary report from the Bloc Québécois in the House today to try to make the main report on the study of the 2030 emissions reduction plan more ambitious. These reports are the result of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's first study in this Parliament, a study that was proposed by the Bloc Québécois.

We proposed this study to respond to the dangerous and increasingly real risk that Canada will not meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. We proposed it because, despite what is currently happening on the international stage, the climate crisis has not gone away. It has not been put on pause because of tariff wars or armed conflicts, particularly the one in Iran. On the contrary, these tensions are happening at a time when extreme climate events are on the rise and they only serve to emphasize the urgent need to take action here and now to end our dependence on oil.

The Bloc is pleased to see that the main report recommends that the federal government update its climate action plan by the end of June to clearly demonstrate that it intends to meet the 2030 target. That is essential. Solutions exist. What is lacking is political will. The government needs to get its act together after having abandoned and even gutted many of its climate measures.

In this supplemental report, the Bloc Québécois recommends an immediate moratorium on all new oil and gas projects, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and 11 concrete measures that the government can and must implement.

Canada and Quebec have everything to gain from quickly moving away from fossil fuels—in terms of the environment, society, the economy, public health and future job creation. The transition must happen now, not in 2050.

Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative Saint John—St. Croix, NB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in relation to the motion adopted Wednesday, April 22, 2026, entitled, “Report on International Student Program Reforms, of the 2026 Spring Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

This new audit request by the public accounts committee to the Office of the Auditor General calls for a continued look at Canada's broken immigration system, particularly at screening and at fraudulent activities. Canadians want to find solutions to our immigration system and find out what steps must be taken to do just that. We have discovered that the failures identified by the Auditor General run deep and that they run deep through several departments that are not working together.

We urge the Auditor General to take up this audit and report back to Parliament as soon as possible.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill S-209. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Miville-Dechêne for her leadership to bring the bill forward. Her continued efforts in advancing this legislation reflect her strong commitment to better protecting children and young people online. I would also like to thank the member for Newmarket—Aurora for seconding the legislation.

The bill, and its previous version in the last session, has received support across party lines. It demonstrates a shared commitment among members of the House and the other place to better protect young people. I look forward to working with all colleagues in the House in advancing this important piece of legislation.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

Is it agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Battle River—Crowfoot Alberta

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition

moved:

That, given that,

(i) sovereign wealth funds must have wealth that comes from budget surpluses and resource revenues,

(ii) this government has run no surpluses, only deficits for the last 11 years and has no funds to invest,

(iii) the Prime Minister is proposing to put his 25-billion-dollar fund on the national credit card, which will cause further inflationary pressure,

(iv) the Prime Minister has already created 12 new Crown corporations, agencies and bureaucracies,

(v) when government directs capital, it always goes to the politically powerful and not the deserving,

(vi) there is over 1 trillion dollars in pension fund money that Liberals have pushed out of Canada that we could bring back with faster permits, lower taxes and free enterprise,

(vii) the rising cost of fuel and food is already burdening hard working Canadians who cannot afford to pay more for handouts to Liberal insiders and corporate elites,

therefore, the House call on the government to abandon this sovereign debt fund.

Mr. Speaker, today I am responding to the costly, gimmicky schemes of the Prime Minister, who now wants to put $25 billion on the national credit card to fund handouts for well-connected businesses, Liberal elites, and co-operative forces, all while increasing the cost of living for everyone: workers, small businesses, and seniors. We have seen that this Liberal government has already racked up 11 deficits on the national credit card. After a year of this Prime Minister, we are seeing higher costs, more debt, higher taxes, and more money on the credit card. He is just another Liberal.

To have a sovereign wealth fund, there need to be funds. There are no funds because there is no surplus, unlike in Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Norway, and so on. These countries have surpluses every year, which they set aside as savings for their countries. They have no deficits.

The Conservatives want to remove government barriers in order to attract private investment again, boost our economy and pay our bills through private production. That way, the cost of living will come down for Canadians who are already paying too much. That is how we will free up our economy and restore affordability. We will be strong at home and masters in our own house.

Imagine someone went into their doctor's office, and suddenly the doctor injected them with some strange substance. They asked what it was, and he said that it was a poison. They then asked why he had injected them with a poison. Immediately he pulled out another syringe and injected them with an antidote, and he said he did that so he could save their life with the antidote. They asked why he had done any of it in the first place, and they were told that he wanted to save their life because that is what he does. That is exactly how Liberal economics work. The Liberals do massive economic damage to our country, and then they claim to be its solution, its antidote.

The government blocks homebuilding with taxes and red tape then sets up a fourth federal housing agency to subsidize housing. The Liberal Prime Minister blocks resource projects with high taxes, 19‑year permitting delays, and bans on oil shipping off the B.C. coast, and then he creates massive new offices to get projects built, which promise carve-outs, bail-outs and handouts to favourite businesses.

The Prime Minister blocks investments with high taxes, drives $1.2 trillion of pension funds out of the country and then subsidizes investment with new corporate welfare programs. He drives up the cost of living and the cost of food with inflationary money printing, carbon taxes and red tape, then prints even more money to give people cash payments to help them with the cost of the food, which he inflated. He blocks development, taxes production, regulates investment, delays permits, drives capital away, kills projects and crushes builders.

Then, when the economy slows down, the Prime Minister shows up with a subsidy, a fund, a bank, a summit, a task force and a photo op to solve the very problem he caused. Instead of just following the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, the government does plenty of harm and then claims that it provides the cure. Like the great Ronald Reagan said, if it moves, a Liberal taxes it. If it keeps moving, he regulates it, and when it stops moving, he subsidizes it.

Why not just get out of the way and let things move? Why not let the builder build, the worker work, the investor invest, the farmer farm, the miner mine, the manufacturer manufacture and the trucker truck? It is because then there would be no role for the Liberal politician, no power, no control, no permit to authorize and no cheque to hand out.

If people could just launch a business, produce resources, grow food and build homes, the Prime Minister and the people within his castle walls would be irrelevant. Instead he forces everything to go through him. He basically creates a regulatory prison and charges a ransom for anyone who wants to build something to get out of it. If they want a place to live or food in their stomach, they have to wait for the government to send back some of their money. If they want to build a home or a pipeline, they have to kneel before the king and seek his good graces. If they want investment for their enterprise, they have to bow before the state.

State-controlled crony capitalism is how the Liberal Prime Minister enriched himself. In fact, his Brookfield investments profit off government favours that typically help a tiny group of politically powerful but unproductive takers at the expense of the great mass of productive makers.

Help is the sunny side of control. It is the illusion of action from the people who caused the problem, the illusion of investment from the people who drove the investment away and the illusion of growth from those who blocked the growth because, in this Liberal model, the economy does not belong to the people; it belongs to the politicians, bureaucrats and other authorities who control it and the powers that influence them.

The real debate in our economy today is that of a political economy versus a market economy. A political economy allocates wealth based on power. A market economy allocates wealth based on free choice. Enter the sovereign wealth fund, which has no wealth. It is another Liberal illusion.

Countries with real sovereign wealth funds, such as Singapore, Norway, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, accumulate surpluses year after year, which they then squirrel away and invest to grow bigger returns for their people. The Liberal Prime Minister has no surplus to invest. In fact, the net equity of the government is negative $1.3 trillion. If we take all the assets and deduct all the liabilities, that is what is left. We call that our national debt.

Just two days ago, the Prime Minister announced that he is running the 11th Liberal deficit, which is being put on the national credit card. There is more debt, more taxes and more costs on the credit card.

The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. In fact, he has doubled the deficit since Trudeau left office, so he has no wealth to put into the wealth fund. He has something else: debt. He wants to put $25 billion more on our national credit card to invest in politically connected companies. Who will get the money? It is those with the political power.

The Liberal Prime Minister plans to hold yet another summit, this time with multinational corporations and billionaires, to offer them access to government money and allow them to circumvent the brutal red tape and taxes he imposes on all other businesses. He will demand that these businesses, which will ultimately get permits to go ahead and get around the restrictive red tape and taxes, will give the government an ownership stake. It is almost like charging a ransom for letting them out of the regulatory prison he has created. The million or so small businesses without lobbyists will still be stuck in that regulatory prison, forced to pay taxes to subsidize their larger, more politically powerful competitors.

It is the golden rule: Those with the gold make the rules. The small elite turns power into wealth, wealth back into more power and then more power back into more wealth. The cycle continues until they have it all. They get richer, making everyone else poorer.

In a political economy, the elite profit not by having the best product, but by having the best lobbyists. It is not how much value they create for customers. It is how much influence they have over ministers, regulators, agencies and insiders. The most important commodities in the political economy are influence and power.

In a market economy, people get ahead by serving the people. We sell a product only if someone wants to buy it. We hire a worker only if the worker freely chooses the job and the employer values the work. We attract investment only if we can prove that we can create more value tomorrow than we will consume today. That is the magic of the free market. People cannot get ahead without making someone else better off. We know that because they would not engage in the voluntary transaction if it did not make them better off.

That is why, in a free market, when one buys something and says “thank you” to the vendor, the vendor often does not say “you are welcome”. They say “thank you” back. This is because the seller values the money more than what they sold and the buyer values the product more than what they paid. If someone wants an apple and has an orange, and I want an orange and have an apple, and we trade, we still have an apple and an orange between us, but we are both richer because each of us has something worth more to us than what we had before; thus the double “thank you” when we trade.

By contrast, a state-controlled economy is based entirely on force. Everything the government does, it does by force because taxation is mandatory and not voluntary. That is why no one ever writes “thank you” on their tax form. The transaction was imposed. Even if it was a good transaction, it was not a free one. Free exchange allows work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest. It is free people making free choices and building a free country.

By contrast, a government-controlled economy works differently. As I said, it operates by coercion, and in relationships of coercion, the strongest always win and the weakest always get crushed. The Prime Minister quoted Thucydides in his Davos speech, saying that the strong do what they will and the weak do what they must. The government taxes, regulates and blocks the productive economy, then uses our own money to create programs that promise to fix the damage it caused. This is not Robin Hood. It is the sheriff of Nottingham. It takes from the workers, builders, taxpayers and investors, running their money through bureaucracy, consultants, lobbyists and insiders, and lets a few drops trickle back down to the people who paid for it in the first place.

This is state-controlled crony capitalism, a system where government concentrates money in fewer hands based on power, and where most businesses and citizens never have the political clout needed to get a meeting, win a carve-out, secure a subsidy or escape that regulatory prison. Make no mistake, regulatory prison is what it is. If someone wants to build a mine or a pipeline, they must wait. If they want to build a home, they must wait. If they want to build a port, a road, a transmission line, a factory, a terminal, a refinery or a railway, they must wait, fill out the forms, hire consultants, lobby a minister, please the regulator and win some political influence. Maybe they will then have a chance. After years of delay, they might get government support, as the Prime Minister likes to call it.

If a project is good enough to receive regulatory support, why not just approve it in the first place? Why should a company have to win over a politician to get something built? Why should a project have to give up a piece of its ownership to the state in order to escape the prison of heavy regulations? This is the model the Liberal Prime Minister believes in, and that is because it is the model that enriched him in the first place, not by doing business in the marketplace, but by using political power to get favours for his company.

We remember that the Prime Minister pushed for heat pump subsidies. Well, Brookfield sells heat pumps. We remember that he pushed for money-printing inflation. Well, the CEO of Brookfield confirmed on May 20 of last year that Brookfield profits off of inflation, saying, “many of our things are regulated, rate-based or contractual in nature, and inflation is actually a positive to the numbers, so as inflation comes in, it actually helps the revenue streams of those businesses”.

The Prime Minister said a little over a year ago that he had successfully lobbied for a more expensive form of so-called sustainable aviation fuel right before Brookfield, his company, invested a billion dollars in that same fuel, forcing Canadian passengers to pay higher airline fees for this more pricey fuel, which his company then profited from. This is not business; this is political manipulation. It raises the cost for everyone, especially those who do not have political power. That is the difference between the real economy and the protected economy.

In the real economy, inflation crushes families. It raises grocery bills. It raises rent and mortgage payments. It costs people more for gas, heat and electricity. It shuts young people out of home ownership and starting families.

In a political economy, inflation can be used as a revenue tool for elites and schemers. The government creates the rule. The rule creates the market. The insider sees the rule coming. The insider invests, and the consumer pays the politically connected profit. Everyone else is told that this is progress. Canadians will pay the price through higher inflation at the grocery store, taxes on their paycheques and debt interest for future generations.

We have seen this movie before. I just mentioned that there is going to be a big summit where a whole series of multinationals and billionaires will come and feast on this $25 billion. This is not a new idea. In 2016, the Liberal government hosted another international summit of investors at a Shangri‑La hotel to unveil the Infrastructure Bank, a $45‑billion pot of gold that went to subsidizing the investments of insiders. Here we are, 10 years later, and a Liberal government is holding the same kind of summit to allow the same elites to feast on the same debt.

Since the creation of the Infrastructure Bank, it has lost hundreds of millions of dollars. For its first seven years, its investment income failed to cover even its operating costs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that, when all levels of government were included, two out of every three dollars used for projects funded by the bank came from the taxpayer, not from businesses. Taxpayers lost and insiders won.

The bank spent a quarter of a billion dollars on operations. The CEO makes $600,000 a year. It paid out $8 million in bonuses in one year. That is why a parliamentary committee studied it thoroughly and recommended it be eliminated. Now, instead of doing that, the Liberals are augmenting it with yet another slush fund.

Then, in September of 2024, the then Liberal finance minister Chrystia Freeland pledged to create a Canada growth fund, seeded with taxpayers' dollars, to try to bring back the $1.2 trillion of pension funds that the Liberal government had driven abroad. Who was tapped to administer that fund? It was Brookfield.

That was barely two years ago, and here we go again. There is another summit, another fund, another transition office and another name for the same old Liberal idea. There is an illusion of change, but the reality is that it is more of the same.

Desjardins wrote that the proposed fund draws strong parallels to the Infrastructure Bank. The Montreal Economic Institute called it “essentially the Canadian Infrastructure Bank under a different name.” It is the same poison with a new label, more costs, more corruption, more debt, more taxes and more on the credit card. The Liberal Prime Minister is just another Liberal.

We have seen how we can build wealth when we unlock the power of the free enterprise system. The answer is not to weigh the economy down with even more government agencies on top of the countless number that already existed a year ago, and the 13 new ones that the Prime Minister has since created. We need to unblock and unlock the potential of our resources and our people.

The answer is more economic freedom, such as the freedom to build, to produce, to hire, to invest and to compete. We must replace an economy of carve-outs, handouts and bailouts for insiders with free choice, opportunity and affordability. If a project is safe, lawful and in the national interest, just approve it. If a company can build without taxpayers' money, let it build now. If workers can build bigger paycheques by producing energy, minerals, food, homes, steel, aluminum, copper and more, we need to get the government out of the way and let them do it. Let businesses compete for customers, not political favour. Let entrepreneurs win with the best product, not the best lobbyists. Let workers earn a powerful paycheque, not wait for government handouts. Let Canadians build sovereign wealth, not borrow sovereign debt.

This is the choice: state-controlled crony capitalism, where political influence becomes the most valuable commodity, or a free market where work, savings, risk-taking and service create prosperity for everyone. The options are a top-down, state-controlled, crony capitalist system or a bottom-up, merit-based, free enterprise system. A political aristocracy or an economic meritocracy is the choice.

We want this to be a country that restores the promise to the people that anyone who works hard can enjoy an affordable home, a safe street, good food on the table and realize their dreams. We want a country where our people get ahead by having the best product and the best work, not by having the most political influence.

We do not want a country of bureaucrats and busybodies, of gatekeepers and grifters, of tax collectors and toll masters. We want a country of artists and adventurers, entrepreneurs and explorers, workers and warriors, pioneers and patriots. That is the country we seek to build. Now, let us get to building.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Canadians had the opportunity to decide. It was a decision that was made based on how the economy was doing. People were genuinely concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade. They were concerned about the economy and affordability. They looked at the leader of the Conservative Party and contrasted him with the leader of the Liberal Party, who had been appointed as the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of England, and who has had an impeccable career dealing with economic measures.

The Canada Strong fund, a national sovereign wealth fund, is something that Canada needs. It is something Canadians will support, because they understand the necessity of supporting Canada's economy, and at the same time, supporting Canadians.

Why does the leader of the Conservative Party not support a government that invests in Canada and invests in Canadians?

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. The member has been giving the same speech on the same Liberal side for the last decade. He speaks, and the reality—

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

An hon. member

As you have done for 22 years

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, for 22 years, on every single economic issue, I have been proven right. On every single economic issue, the Liberal Prime Minister has been proven wrong.

The Prime Minister was wrong to say that we needed bigger and broader carbon taxes. He was wrong to say that we needed to keep 50% of our oil in the ground. He was wrong to testify before a parliamentary committee against the northern gateway pipeline, which would be moving $30 billion of oil overseas today, had the government not blocked it. He was wrong to say that we would have deflation after COVID. He was wrong to say that money printing would not cause inflation. He was wrong just weeks ago when he said that affordability is the best it has been in the decade. How is it that he has been so wrong for so long?

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. I believe he hit the nail on the head when he started his speech by describing the new Canada Strong fund as a “gimmick”. I would like to thank him on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

The Leader of the Opposition has economic expertise. I have heard many MPs and ministers, and even the Liberal Prime Minister, compare the new Canada Strong fund to Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

Could the Leader of the Opposition explain the difference between the sovereign wealth fund—Norway's genuine sovereign wealth fund—and the sovereign wealth fund of the new Liberal government?

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his compliment about the expression I used in French, “patente à gosses”. Every day, I try to learn a little more of the language of Molière. A little poetry can sometimes be a delight.

The difference is that Norway's sovereign wealth fund contains funds. It is simple. We do not have any funds here. The people of Norway have surpluses because they take revenue from the oil industry, which makes up 25% of their economy, and they put that revenue in a fund and invest it.

Here in Canada, we do not have surpluses. We have deficits year after year. The government is just going to put this investment on the credit card. It is taking big risks with money that belongs to future generations by charging this to the credit card. That is irresponsible, and it is the opposite of what the folks in Norway do.