Debates of April 30th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth Fund

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we entirely agree. The Liberals have created constant chaos, uncertainty and confusion with fund after fund that is not delivering any positive results in any way whatsoever. Life just keeps getting more and more expensive for everyday Canadians.

I think all opposition parties need to unite in pushing the Liberals to tell them exactly what they are going to do. I think they are going to pick winners and losers in every part of this country, this society and the economy according to their own total-control agenda, which they are showing is what they want to do here in the House of Commons.

In addition, related to another comment, do members know that there are 71 proponents in front of three Canadian regulators right now, and that they are all stuck, waiting around and not getting fast-tracked in any way whatsoever, no matter what the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for London West is rising on a point of order.

Canada's Olympic and Paralympic Athletes

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole in order to welcome Canada's 2026 Milano Cortina Olympic and Paralympic Games athletes, provided that:

(a) the Speaker make welcoming remarks on behalf of the House;

(b) the names of the athletes present be deemed read and printed in the House of Commons Debates for that day;

(c) when the proceedings of the committee have concluded, the committee shall rise; and

(d) only authorized photographers be permitted to take photos during the proceedings of the committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Motion

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth Fund

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It is a pleasure to participate in today's debate on the government's plan to build a stronger, more independent and more resilient Canada for all. It is a plan that builds more affordable homes. It is a plan that builds major infrastructure. It is a plan that will help transform our economy. It is also a plan that will bring down costs to help Canadians get ahead.

With the spring economic update announced earlier this week, we are providing a clear and transparent account of how Canada's economy is performing in an increasingly uncertain world. We believe this transparency is critical to help businesses seize new opportunities and give families the confidence to plan for their future. Central to this plan is an announcement made earlier this week by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that we are launching Canada's first sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund.

Through an initial federal contribution of $25 billion over three years, the fund will strategically invest, alongside the private sector, in Canadian projects and companies driving our economic transformation. This includes projects in clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, agriculture and infrastructure.

The returns will be reinvested to grow the Canada Strong fund, strengthening its capacity over time. As the fund grows, it will direct capital towards investments with the highest potential return for Canada and Canadians. To ensure that Canadians have the option to invest in the growth of our nation and share in returns, the government will launch a retail investment product. This will give Canadians a direct stake in our nation's long-term prosperity and help build long-term national wealth.

The federal government will be holding consultations in the coming months on the specifics of this new initiative. Further details about the fund will be provided in the coming months.

Canadian companies and investors are coming forward to build Canada's future, and investors from all around the world are choosing to invest in that future. The transformative projects and companies they will help build will create a stronger, more independent and more resilient economy for all Canadians. The Canada Strong fund takes that one step further, making sure that all Canadians are the beneficiaries of the financial results that these projects will generate.

That, quite simply, is a vote of confidence in Canadian entrepreneurs, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers, because on this side of the House we know that despite the tremendous economic headwinds we are facing, the Canadian economy is uniquely positioned to grow and thrive in the 21st century. The private sector knows this; the international community knows this, as evidenced by the fact that foreign direct investment just reached a 20-year high; and Canadians know it, which is why they are so excited to invest in our future shared prosperity via this fund.

We are doing this because we know that the geopolitical and economic changes we are witnessing are sudden and unprecedented. As the spring economic update outlines:

The global economy is more than a year into a profound rupture. Economic security, industrial policy, and geopolitical competition are increasingly shaping investment, trade, and financial decisions. The recent conflict in the Middle East—which has disrupted key shipping routes and damaged energy infrastructure—has pushed energy prices higher, underscoring the fragility of global supply chains, and adding to the already elevated uncertainty.

Despite this environment, Canada's economy continued to expand, growing by 1.7 per cent in 2025. The economy avoided a recession and domestic activity remained solid, even as tariff increases [from the United States] and trade tensions weighed on activity. North American supply chains [were more resilient] than expected, with...(CUSMA) protecting approximately 85 per cent of Canadian goods exports from recent U.S. measures.

That is not to say that, for the 15% that are not protected, there is not significant uncertainty that we need to work together to deal with. The update continues:

Businesses and workers have shown remarkable resilience in the face of [significant] uncertainty. Business sentiment has recovered and firms are diversifying suppliers and markets. Canada also continues to attract significant global capital—leading the G7 in per capita direct investment inflows— and the Statistics Canada survey of planned capital expenditures for 2026 indicates that businesses plan to step up capital spending this year. Reflecting this adaptability, the International Monetary Fund...expects Canada to post the second-fastest growth in the G7 over 2026 and 2027.

Labour market conditions have remained resilient. Since the start of 2025, Canada has added nearly three times as many jobs per capita.... The majority of those jobs have been in the private sector.... Wage growth has now outpaced inflation for more than three consecutive years, supporting continued gains in real incomes.

From a fiscal perspective, economic resilience, bolstered by government policies to respond to immediate challenges through temporary supports, is delivering an $11.5 billion improvement in the projected 2025-26 budgetary balance.... This strength carries into future years, improving the budgetary balance, relative to budget 2025, by an average of $10.7 billion per year from 2026-27 to 2029-30 before new measures. [This fiscal room allows the government] to improve affordability and raise Canadians' standard of living through targeted and responsible policy measures, particularly in the areas of fuel, food, and housing affordability.

The move to invest more in Canadians started with budget 2025. According to the spring economic update:

Budget 2025 marked a strategic shift in the government's management of public finances, focused on expanding federal capital spending to mobilise investment, while maintaining fiscal responsibility. With significant investments to support infrastructure, innovation, and the development of domestic industrial capabilities, Budget 2025 set out a clear plan to build the strongest economy in the G7.

This fiscal plan remains rooted in fiscal responsibility—not for its own sake, but to create the capacity to invest in long-term economic strength and greater self-reliance. Consistent with this approach, decisions in the Spring Economic Update are guided by the government's two fiscal anchors: balancing operating spending with revenues by 2028-29 and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio.

This is good news for Canadians, even if it is bad news for my Conservative colleagues. I think we need to talk Canada up. We need to boost our economy. We will continue to move our plan forward.

These are serious times, and in a world of geopolitical instability, governments need to rethink how they respond to headwinds and build resilience for the future. Standing still is not an option, as inaction and underinvestment can carry significant costs, including slower growth, diminished competitiveness and weaker security. Thankfully:

Canada starts from a position of strength to turn this moment of global uncertainty into one of national opportunity.

Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio stands at just 10.2 per cent, compared to the G7 average....

Canada's net debt burden today is lower than that of any other G7 country, and is even below the levels of those countries prior to the pandemic.

Canada also has one of the smallest deficits in the G7 as a share of the economy.

This fiscal advantage gives the government the capacity—and the responsibility—to act to build a stronger economy to make life more affordable, to create high-paying jobs, to take care of each other and to determine our future.

Canada's fiscal position also stands out among 30 other advanced economies, with a below-average deficit-to-GDP ratio and one of the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratios in the group.

Canada is also one of the only two G7 economies, alongside Germany, to maintain AAA ratings from major global credit rating agencies. These AAA ratings support investor confidence and help keep borrowing costs as low as possible.

As I indicated before:

In [an] uncertain world, the government's focus on what [we] can control—delivering lasting economic benefits for Canadians who are reinforcing fiscal discipline—will help ensure Canada maintains this fiscal advantage going forward.

With the spring economic update, the government showed that Canada's fiscal strength remains strong while we continue to invest for Canadians where it counts, building Canada's prosperity today and for the next generation. The Canada Strong fund is a key pillar of that plan.

We are catalyzing a series of nation-building projects in energy, trade, critical minerals, transport, data and beyond, projects that will make Canada stronger, more resilient and more independent. Through the Canada Strong fund, all Canadians will have the opportunity to share directly in the benefits. This is their country. This is their future. This is our country. This is our future. We need to build it together, and I would encourage all my colleagues to support the Canada Strong fund.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the sovereign wealth fund, I recently asked my colleague the same question. The other day, my neighbour showed me his bank account, and it was enormous. I thought, “This is a secret”, so I maxed out my credit cards and put the money in my savings account. For some reason, when I went to my accountant, he said I will never retire.

I am wondering if the member can explain to me the difference between my neighbour's bank account, in which he saved money over time, and my savings account that I just put money into. Can you explain the difference between those two?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will remind the member to address his questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe that the member is actually equating an individual's own wealth with the country's obligation to fund massive projects within the country. The idea of countries borrowing to enable to grow their economies is not something new.

Obviously, there needs to be fiscal prudence. The government's plan balances that fiscal prudence with a very solid balance sheet of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 economies, with an idea that we need to build strong nation-building projects going forward. This is a way for the country to benefit from those projects long-term, as well as for individual Canadians to put up their own money to join in investing in those projects.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's infamous sovereign wealth fund proposes, among other things, to use the $25 billion in borrowed money to invest in projects that are too risky for the private sector, projects that the private sector did not want to invest in. The government is also proposing to allow individuals, like us and our constituents, to invest in this sovereign wealth fund while guaranteeing the security of their investments. We are told that these investments in the sovereign wealth fund will help attract more private investment. As a result, the fund will “derisk” these operations. The way we see it, the sovereign wealth fund will absorb the risk so the private sector can make a profit.

Given his great enthusiasm for the sovereign wealth fund, does my colleague opposite intend to sell his personal assets and invest them in the sovereign wealth fund, as he would be able to do?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things.

First, no one said that these projects were too risky for private investment. This is about attracting other investments. By showing that Canadians and the Government of Canada believe in those projects, we will attract private investment from here and other countries.

Second, I would be very excited to invest my money in it, but I am not allowed to as a parliamentary secretary because I do not manage my own finances. My money is in a blind trust that I am not allowed to look at or manage.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's excitement about the fact that our government has launched Canada's first sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund. It is based on a model that other countries have been using to generate revenue over several decades. Here in Canada, we will have a fund tailored to our needs and our economy that will focus on our long-term growth.

Why does my colleague think it is important to implement meaningful measures like this one that will have long-term benefits when it comes to strengthening our economy and country?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question. I completely agree.

One of this government's greatest strengths is that we have a Prime Minister who is looking ahead to Canada's future. He does not just think about tomorrow. He does not just make political decisions for the next month or the next year. He makes long-term decisions. If this sovereign wealth fund operates like the ones in Singapore and Norway, it will attract a lot of money, which will help improve the lives of all Canadian taxpayers in the 2030s, 2040s, 2050s and beyond.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear colleague from Mount Royal, the parliamentary secretary, for sharing his time with me. I hope he will not regret it after hearing my speech because there are several things in the opposition motion that I agree with. This might be the first time I find myself in this situation.

I usually do not find myself agreeing so very much with opposition day motions from the official opposition. I am watchful, and I really am very careful, of how long it takes to study, be fair and consider what has been put before us. I will try to make a number of points that relate to the multiple paragraphs in the opposition day motion.

I will start with one of the government's announcements and my experience as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian citizen.

A big announcement was made on April 27, the day before “Canada Strong for All: Spring Economic Update 2026” was tabled. The Prime Minister announced that we would soon have all the information regarding a new sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund.

We were given the big announcement on April 27. There was a press conference. I do not think I got it wrong when the government announced this and that we would get all the details on April 28, the next day.

We would know the details of how this sovereign wealth fund would work and how Canadians could participate in it as individuals.

We were told the fund would create opportunities for Canadians to make investments and to participate in our sovereign wealth fund. We just had to wait a day for the details. When we get to the details, and this is what I find astonishing, because this seems to happen a lot, on page 56 of the spring economic update, what we are told is that yes, and it is very exciting, we were going to have a “broadly accessible [fund for] Canadians from coast to coast to coast” that was “easy and simple to purchase, hold, and transact”. It was to be the Canada Strong fund, our sovereign wealth fund, but how were we going to find out about it?

The update says, “The government will establish a dedicated Canada Strong Fund Transition Office.” It will, once set up, “lead a targeted engagement with market participants and regulators, and rapidly finalise the Fund. Further details will be provided in the coming months.” I am just quoting from the statement. I do not want to be unfair with them, but it is absurd. They cannot say they are going to borrow $25 billion to create a sovereign wealth fund, which is going to have all these great attributes, but first they have to create a transition office.

It did not need to be like this. We have really good models from Canada for how a sovereign wealth fund can be created. I will take us back in a time machine to a place where good ideas emerged. In 1976 Alberta, Peter Lougheed created a sovereign wealth fund for the province of Alberta. Norway actually sent experts from Norway to Alberta to learn from Alberta about how it was creating a sovereign wealth fund. Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth over $2 trillion U.S.

Norway created the sovereign wealth fund based on the principles established by the late and, I think we would all would agree, great Canadian Peter Lougheed, who in establishing the oil sands and investing in them, said we have to look at this resource and have some rules.

One of Peter Lougheed's first rules was to think like an owner. Another thing he decided was that we do not want to live off the oil rents. We do not want the revenues from oil wealth to go into spending by government. He wanted to set it aside as what we might call a rainy day fund.

Alberta created what was then called the Alberta heritage savings trust, and it was funded largely by resource revenue, which went into the fund and accumulated. It accumulated the wealth.

Norway followed that example. These are the attributes of Norway's fund. I take the points from my hon. colleague from Lakeland, who was just speaking and pointing out the differences between Norway and Canada, and they are taken as read.

Let us look at what Norway established based on what Peter Lougheed put forward. Number one is that it was run by an independent board. No government could touch the principal, and withdrawals were kept by law, so no subsequent politician could do what actually happened in Alberta when Ralph Klein became the premier and took over from Peter Lougheed. I will not editorialize on the differences between Ralph Klein and Peter Lougheed, but I think everybody knows.

Norway's sovereign wealth fund was created as a sovereign wealth fund. What we have in Canada may be a sovereign wealth fund, but we are starting out with borrowing $25 billion to get it started. I do not see any suggestion here that anyone other than Canadians could invest.

Would anyone invest? We do not know what it is. It is definitely a pig in a poke, but on top of that, we are told to wait while a transition office, for which we are paying a couple million dollars a year, decides to consult to figure out what it is. I think we should start with what we know works, which is to tax oil wealth and separate that.

The Province of Alberta did set it up and did run it. That was in its jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can do it at this point, and I am not proposing this on the floor of the House, but let us be clear that we could do it, is if we were to nationalize that sector and said that we would set aside that wealth for future generations. That is not going to happen. I know my hon. colleague here is laughing, and I am sure they are not laughing at me, but with me.

The point of what I am saying here is that, in Canada at this point, we have missed the boat on deciding to create a sovereign wealth fund based on resource revenue, unless the government puts in place what many of us, the NDP and the Greens, have been calling for for some time, which is a tax on the excess profits that big oil is experiencing, particularly as prices go through the roof due to war and not due to their careful management as managers of the resource. The prices skyrocketed when Netanyahu and Trump began bombing Iran. As the spring economic statement pointed out, this drives up the price of oil and increases profits for the private sector. We should be applying an excess profits tax on those who are basically war profiteering in the sector.

Let me look at another aspect of the very thoughtful motion from the opposition. I do want to thank them. Under their sixth point, the Conservatives are pointing out something that I have been railing about in this place for some time. There is over $1 trillion in pension fund money in Canada. If we are looking for sovereign wealth, there is over $1 trillion in pension fund money that has been invested outside of Canada. How does that happen?

Let us just roll back a little on that. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act was carried through Parliament by our former prime minister, and I think we all respect him enormously, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien. He is still active in public life, and he created the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act with the idea of an independent Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to decide how to take Canada's pension money and make it work for us. The investment board is not necessarily even made up of Canadians, unfortunately and tragically.

I urge all my colleagues to think about this. Let us open up the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, because it requires that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board consider only one criterion when investing our pension plan dollars, which is a return on investment. If we look at the Quebec investment board process, in Quebec they are required to consider, and it does not sound like a big threshold, the well-being of Quebec in the interest of the Quebec. This is missing for the federal monies. Our act for where our pension plan dollars go does not mention the good of Canada, and most of the money that has been invested has gone to the United States, not Canada. It has gone outside of Canada to other investments.

One of them stuns me, and I think it should shake us to our core when we look at what just happened in Tumbler Ridge. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board decided it was a good investment, with good return on investment, to invest in OpenAI and Grok, the developers of deepfake AI. By the way, a member of that investment board is now our ambassador to the United States, Mark Wiseman. Two hundred million dollars of our pension plan money went into that because the board thought it was going to make money.

There is no ethical screen on where our money goes. Obviously there is no climate screen on where our money goes. There is not even a question of whether it is in the interest of Canada.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my B.C. colleague for giving us a bit of an Alberta history lesson. Part of it was almost entertaining.

When I look at this, I am a little concerned. One of the issues here is that the Liberals want to compare Norway to Alberta, whereas Alberta has had, over the last 50 years, $600 billion in transfer funds go out of the province to the rest of the country. If that was actually in the Alberta heritage fund, we would probably be exceeding Norway at this time.

My concern is with the lack of structure. Who is going to be in control of this? How are they going to be appointed? Is the member concerned that this is just going to be another slush fund for the Prime Minister to dictate to his buddies to invest in what the government is concerned about?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. As my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois mentioned earlier in debate, this looks a lot like the Infrastructure Bank. Government money is put into it. It is supposed to be a bank. It is supposed to sound great.

At this point, particularly since we have no details, we are debating something that is amorphous. We know what happened with the Infrastructure Bank, and it does look much the same, as my friend from Yellowhead has said.

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of things do not add up in the Liberals' arguments.

First, we are told that this fund is similar, and even comparable, to Norway's sovereign wealth fund, when we know full well that Norway did not go into debt to finance its own fund. Second, we are told that this fund will be independent, when we know full well that it will fund only projects that come from the Major Projects Office and that the Prime Minister will decide which projects are referred to the Major Projects Office. Obviously, this fund will be politically influenced.

Why are the Liberals trying to tell us they bought a cat, when it is actually a horse? Why do they think everyone will believe it is a cat when it is really a horse?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the economic update document includes the following sentence: “Introducing Canada's own sovereign wealth fund—the new Canada Strong Fund”. That is all. There is no explanation, no rationale. There is not a single reason why we should have confidence in the idea of a Canada Strong fund.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the leader of the Green Party. She usually provides information, and I was looking forward to her comments.

I have a question for the member. The Canada Infrastructure Bank deals with applicants that come from different organizations and energy-efficient programs. It has been very successful as a program. Here we have a national wealth fund, which is completely different. It is for major projects that will be to the economic benefit, and social benefit, of Canadians. Does she not distinguish the difference between the two? I would have thought that she would. If not, maybe at some point we could have a sit-down and have a good discussion about it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like to share information, and I appreciate that my colleague has noted that I do the work before I speak.

I would have loved to have discussed what we knew about the sovereign wealth fund and how it is going to be set up, but all we know is that the Liberals are creating yet another office to consider and consult. If we had information, my speech could have focused on that information.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals dropped two big pieces of news. One was a budget that, from what I can see, would not deliver any actual, tangible results for Canadians, with a massive deficit. This, of course, impacts Canadians who are presently struggling to pay their bills. At the same time, the Prime Minister announced $25 billion of debt for a new “fund”.

To be fair to the Prime Minister, the political spin that his team has put on this expenditure is really something. By billing this debt fund as the Canada Strong fund, which is kind of patriotism-coded; a sovereign wealth fund, which is kind of freedom-coded; and a national savings and investment account, which is sort of stability-coded, the Prime Minister's launch announcement had a level of overhype that would have made any starving founder pitching to a VC blush.

At this point, I cannot really blame the Prime Minister for this level of shamelessness. He is staring down the barrel of a Liberal-induced faltering national economy, he has a debt-ridden government, and the man is counting on the Canadian establishment's current enamourment with him to give in to the feels of the moment and not look too closely under the hood of this new debt fund. However, no good investment manager would do that, and Canadians should not either.

Canadians should have a full picture of the risk the Prime Minister is asking them to undertake not only with their tax dollars but also, as he implored them in his announcement, with additional post-tax contributions. He is actually asking Canadians to invest in this debt fund not just with a very high amount of tax dollars but also with personal post-tax contributions.

If the devil is in the details of the Prime Minister's pitch, there sure is not a lot for Canadians to go on. For starters, the Prime Minister's fund model is, as colleagues have mentioned, built on debt. Therefore, it is misleading for him or anyone else to pitch it to investors as a true sovereign wealth fund in the same vein as Norway's, which is built on the actual wealth and surplus created by resource revenues. By contrast, the Prime Minister's $25-billion expenditure would be entirely debt financed at a time of widening structural Liberal deficits, which is sort of the same as an individual investor who is already in serious debt borrowing more money to go out and buy stocks.

Further, outside of the announcement that a Crown corporation would manage it, every other detail remains vague, including who would run it. I am assuming it would be Liberal appointees. The criteria that would be used to fund it are similarly opaque.

The lack of announced guardrails to stop the $25 billion from being funnelled into politically directed projects should also raise red flags for Canadians. Allocation decisions made by the debt fund, according to the Prime Minister's remarks, would follow government priorities rather than pure market returns. The Liberals have a dismal track record of picking winners: for example, the billions of dollars they funnelled into EV battery plants that left the country with no return; the superclusters, for which there is a word we use now, but it is not parliamentary; the green slush fund; and the arrive scam app. The government's track record is literally funnelling taxpayers' money.

Now they are saying to add additional post-tax dollar contributions into a fund, and they do not really have a track record of delivering. On top of that, the government's inherent ability to place such a bet successfully in any circumstance should make Canadians take the claims of big-time benefits that the Prime Minister has been touting with a grain of salt.

There are other problems to consider related to the viability and benefit of the Prime Minister's debt fund, too, especially in the context of Canada's stalled economy. First, the Prime Minister's debt fund could create something called a crowding-out effect. By pumping $25 billion of subsidized capital into Ottawa's preferred projects, the debt fund could massively distort private markets.

That matters because of pension funds, for anybody who has invested in a pension fund or is drawing on a pension fund right now. Banks and institutional investors already deploy billions of dollars into Canadian infrastructure and resources. They would now have to compete against a government player that is armed with massive taxpayer backing and a direct link to politics. That is a huge market distortion that could affect the stability of somebody's retirement savings, for example. The result could be higher costs for genuine private projects or capital simply fleeing for greener or more level pastures.

In that same vein, far from a guaranteed hedge against economic risk, what the Prime Minister is proposing with this debt fund has the potential to exert further inflationary pressure on Canada's economy.

Second, the Prime Minister's early signals of international investing with the debt fund should raise eyebrows big time on its supposed Canada strong angle. Even more Canadian tax dollars could flow abroad while pressing domestic needs wait unfulfilled. Conversely, if the debt fund's expenditures stay strictly domestic, it could become a captive buyer for Liberal-favoured ventures. Either way, this has the makings of a giant boondoggle and a mess.

I want to say that we have seen this movie before with the Prime Minister. It was something called GFANZ, this big fund he tried to put together. What ended up happening was that members balked at the requirements to phase out financing without clear backstops or substitute goods. At the end of the day, what ended up happening was that the thing fell apart.

Members may colour me a little skeptical, but I am not sure which investment manager would capitalize $25 billion right now under this lack of detail. I sure would not, and I will not be voting to support it, because that would be a bad decision on behalf of my constituents.

This conundrum further underscores why this expenditure should not be referred to as a sovereign wealth fund, because decisions made with government debt have different opportunity costs to evaluate than those made with true wealth funds.

The debt fund also has massive potential for mission creep. If the debt fund's scope stays vague, as it is right now, it will likely expand quietly once initial public scrutiny fades. For that reason, scrutiny should be paid to the fact that this expenditure will also likely duplicate existing bureaucracy, and it will duplicate and increase overhead and, conveniently, Liberal board appointees. It would be duplicating things like the Canada Growth Fund and the Infrastructure Bank.

There are other flags that Canadians should be concerned about too. The Prime Minister mentioned that the debt fund would grow through mechanisms like “asset recycling”, which in Ottawa is often code for selling public assets on the cheap to insiders. The debt fund also has the potential to impinge on provincial jurisdiction, particularly if the debt fund capitalizes from resource export taxes or remittances of any kind.

Resources are definitively the jurisdiction of provinces, and a move to reset constitutional order would not only be a major concern but create great instability at a time when the Prime Minister should be trying to do more to create national unity across the federation. Right now, though, it is like a little poke in the eye there. Is he going to say to companies, “Oh, hey, you have to pay a tax to get a Bill C-5 exemption or to get around Bill C-69,” instead of just doing away with the regulatory tape that is making it difficult and risky for investors to capitalize big projects in Canada?

Aside from all these issues, there is another big problem with Canadians writing the Prime Minister a blank cheque for this project, and it is opportunity costs. With $25 billion, we could cut taxes, pay down debt or deliver direct affordability relief for struggling Canadians. Interest on the federal debt already consumes tens of billions of dollars and is more than health transfers to the provinces. Canadians will be faced with even more of the same to pay for this new expenditure at a time when inflation is already straining affordability in every aspect of Canadian life.

If building a bigger pool of capital for major projects is what the Prime Minister is trying to solve for, arguably the structural problem Canada faces is not the lack of a debt fund but the lack of investment certainty in its regulatory and tax environment. The government should be scrapping bills like Bill C-69 to attract the capital into the country naturally and more sustainably to see big infrastructure projects built out.

Without reform in those areas, the Prime Minister's new debt fund is throwing money at a problem that money cannot solve. He also has not begun to answer why families should lend their potential retirement savings to this fund instead of traditional instruments like RRSPs or, frankly, proven pension fund managers. Nor has he explained whether, if the debt fund loses money, taxpayers will backstop it at the expense of more pressing needs. Investing in a scheme that has the potential to pay earlier investors using money from new investors rather than having any actual profit has a name, and the Prime Minister would be well served to remember that.

At the end of the day, I do not think the Prime Minister, a supposed investment guru back in the day, would actually invest in this fund, which was put forward by him, the Prime Minister, and Canadians should not either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed this: I am disappointed that the Conservative Party does not have enough faith in Canadians and the need for us to have a sovereign wealth fund here in Canada. Many other countries around the world have such a fund. The potential contribution this can make to the economy, to Canadians as a whole, is truly something we should all be excited about. Obviously, the Conservatives want to focus more on their own political party than on building a stronger, healthier Canada.

Does the member believe that there is value to wealth funds, whether here or at the provincial level?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, imagine a founder walking into a VC office and saying, “Hey, I don't really know what my product is and don't really have any sort of framework to govern this, but would you give me $25 billion? You can just put it on your credit card.” That is what we are being asked to do here. The member asks if I believe in this like it is the tooth fairy or something. I am sorry, I think the tooth fairy is broke in Canada right now. We cannot rely on hope and dreams and all of these sorts of things without tangible plans. This is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.

The government and the Prime Minister were elected a year ago, almost to the day, on essentially a single promise: to end the trade war. In April 2025, the Prime Minister promised us that the matter would be settled by June. He then postponed it to July and then September. In the end, here we are a year later, and not only is the trade war still going on, but it has gotten worse with Mr. Trump's recent executive orders. The only thing this government can come up with is to borrow $25 billion and create a fund that is neither sovereign nor independent.

What does that say about the government's long-term vision?