Debates of April 30th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth Fund

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is kind of wild that the Prime Minister has delivered nothing on the trade front. I thought that was his big promise. The track record with this guy is he makes a big promise and then he does not deliver. Canadians are not only starting to wake up to this fact, but it is costing them too.

I will just close with this anecdote. My husband really likes motorcycles, probably too much. Yesterday he was making a pitch to me that he should buy this motorcycle. It is probably not the best decision, do not encourage him, but this is what he said to me. He said, “Don't worry. I'll just put it on my sovereign debt fund. I got it. We're good.” I would just like to tell the Prime Minister that he is encouraging bad behaviour among everybody.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Calgary Nose Hill is right when she says that real sovereign wealth funds like in Norway run from surpluses, resource revenue or royalties, and they do not invest within Norway because of inflationary issues that could come up from that.

I was wondering if she could expand on a point she raised about why Canadians are so concerned about this debt fund by the Liberal Prime Minister given the Liberals' track record of slush funds, giving money to Liberal-connected insiders and the corruption and scandals we have seen over the last 10 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a character in Greek mythology named Cassandra, somebody who is doomed to know the future but nobody believes them. I feel like right now all the speeches that are happening are like Cassandra's speeches: this is going to fail, this is a bad idea, this is not the right decision. This is why the opposition is saying we cannot support this massive expenditure in the form that it is right now. It is crazy, especially given, as my colleague said, the government's poor track record in this regard.

I do not want to be watching a clip of this speech years from now saying that I was right and nobody listened on that side of the House. The government would be better served to say that this is a bad use of tax funds and that there are other things Canadians could benefit from. The government should pump the brakes on this, realize it is not a great idea and vote for this motion today, which supports those principles.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Liberal government's announcement concerning the creation of a so-called sovereign wealth fund amounting to $25 billion. We are not talking about $25 million or $2.5 billion, but $25 billion, charged to the national credit card.

As a Conservative member, I want to be clear. We believe in strategic investment, but we do not believe in writing a blank cheque using the country's credit card. In the end, the government will not be the one footing the bill. Canadian families, workers, small businesses, our children, our grandchildren and future generations will be the ones paying for it. A fund built on credit is a risky bet.

The first critical problem with this sovereign wealth fund is the source of the funds. It is not funded through surpluses. It is not funded through surplus revenues, such as proceeds from natural resource development. The other countries mentioned by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for comparison purposes are all countries involved in developing their natural resources. They have budget surpluses, extra funds, which they use to create their sovereign wealth fund. Ours will be funded through debt.

In other words, the government is proposing to charge $25 billion to the credit card at a time when inflation is hitting households hard, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and federal debt is reaching historic levels. The government is choosing to add another layer of financial risk. A debt-financed sovereign wealth fund is a gamble with other people's money. When markets fluctuate, as they always do, it is taxpayers who absorb the losses. This is an unnecessary duplication of tools that already exist.

There is another fundamental question. Why create a fund when we already have existing tools? Canada already has the Canada Infrastructure Bank, an institution created specifically to finance transformative projects, attract private investment, support the development of strategic infrastructure, and share financial risks. It was supposed to be the central tool for investing in the country's economic future. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has $35 billion in capital. It has currently committed only $18.1 billion of that amount. The remaining $16.9 billion is awaiting allocation by the government. This government is not even able to make the most of the existing bureaucracy. If the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already doing the job, why create another vehicle?

Creating a new fund means multiplying bureaucratic structures. The Liberals are experts in that. They are the champions of bureaucracy, the champions of structures and the list goes on. Creating a new fund also means watering down responsibilities, complicating accountability and increasing administrative costs. Instead of improving what already exists, the government is choosing to reinvent the wheel—and at great expense.

Another major danger of this fund is the risk of political interference. When a government controls a $25-billion fund, there is always a risk that investment decisions will be influenced by political considerations, election priorities or partisan regional interests. A sovereign wealth fund—a true sovereign wealth fund—must be independent, transparent and rigorously managed. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is worth $2 trillion and is considered the best-performing sovereign wealth fund in the world, is not allowed to invest in the domestic market in order to ensure it stays independent. History shows us that when governments directly manage billions of dollars, the risks of favouritism increase.

We have to ask ourselves some serious questions. Who will decide on the investments? What will the criteria be? How much transparency will there actually be? Who will bear the losses if investments fail? All of these questions remain unanswered. There will be losses. That is inevitable in any investment portfolio. Once again, taxpayers are the ones who are going to pay, with a governance that is still unclear and that does not provide answers to our questions.

Another concerning point is the lack of clarity regarding the governance of the fund. We have heard some big announcements, but not a lot of details. How will the fund be structured and managed? What accountability mechanisms, investment limits and loss protection mechanisms will there be? A $25‑billion fund cannot be based solely on vague promises. It must be based on strict rules, robust mechanisms and absolute transparency. Right now, all we are getting is slogans. There are no guarantees.

It is also important to look at what is being done elsewhere. Before becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney was involved in similar initiatives—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would remind the member that they cannot name members, even the Prime Minister.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska may continue.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before becoming Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister had another life and was involved in similar initiatives in the United Kingdom. The idea in that case was also to use public funds to stimulate strategic investments, but the British experience revealed certain limitations, including results that were slower than expected, investments that were concentrated in certain sectors, and lingering questions about real profitability. This reveals something critical. Setting up a fund does not guarantee financial success, and it is not the size of a fund that creates prosperity. It is fiscal discipline and the quality of decisions that create prosperity.

The opportunity cost is what could have been done instead. When we talk about $25 billion, we also have to consider the opportunity costs, because even borrowed money could be put to other uses. The government could have decided to ease the tax burden on families, who are currently being squeezed. It could have invested directly in critical infrastructure, supporting municipalities that are desperately underfunded. Instead, the government is choosing to invest that money in an uncertain financial vehicle, and that is a risky choice. This decision will have consequences for decades to come.

Financial markets are unpredictable. Even the best investors suffer losses. Imagine a simple scenario: a global recession, a market crash, investments losing value. What will happen? The government will have to inject more money into the fund or absorb major losses. Once again, taxpayers will be left holding the bag. This fund does not eliminate risks. It transfers them directly to the public using Canadians' credit card.

Conservatives believe in a different approach. We believe in fiscal discipline, financial responsibility, using existing tools efficiently, and, above all, reducing government waste. Before creating a new fund, we should seriously evaluate the effectiveness of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We should improve what already exists, not add more costly structures.

Canadians deserve better. Canadians work hard. They pay their taxes and budget carefully. They know they do not want to live on credit forever. They expect the same level of discipline from their government, but this sovereign wealth fund proposal gives the opposite impression. It gives the impression of a government that is willing to take on major financial risks without providing sufficient guarantees or full transparency.

To conclude, I want to make something clear. This debate is not anti-investment. This debate is not anti-innovation. This debate is anti-financial recklessness. Creating a debt-financed $25-billion fund creates unnecessary duplication, increases financial risks, opens the door to political interference and imposes a heavy burden on future generations. They deserve transparent investments. That is why, in the name of fiscal responsibility and transparency, and on behalf of taxpayers, I am against the creation of this sovereign wealth fund.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have heard my colleague's views. He emphasized the importance of investing in Canada and Quebec to grow our economy and create more and better jobs. He really emphasized investment and the importance of investment.

However, he concluded by saying that Canada, unlike other countries around the world, would be unable to do this properly while following appropriate rules of governance. Why is he so skeptical about Canada's ability to perform as well as other countries?

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not Canadians I am worried about. What I am worried about is how the Liberal government manages Canadians' public finances. This government has been wasting Canadians' money for 11 years now. When the Liberals came to power, the debt was $700 billion. Now, 11 years later, it is $1.4 trillion. What worries me is putting money in Liberal hands.

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

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's economic update, the government announced that ordinary taxpayers will be able to contribute to this Canadian sovereign wealth fund that the Prime Minister wants to create. It so happens that his goal, as Prime Minister, is more or less to dictate what investments the sovereign wealth fund will cover. In fact, all of it will involve projects recommended by the Major Projects Office, and those projects will have been chosen by the Prime Minister's Office. That means the Prime Minister is the one who will determine what investments will be made through the sovereign wealth fund.

Does my colleague intend to invest his personal savings in the Prime Minister's preferred picks?

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not make the same kind of money our Prime Minister does. My investments are far more modest. However, that is certainly not the choice I would make. As for Canadians, Conservatives naturally are in favour of freedom of choice, so I will leave it to Canadians to make their own choices regarding their investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed, as I said earlier, in the Conservative Party not recognizing the value of having a national wealth fund. I think of the expansion of the port of Montreal in the province of Quebec. There is so much potential for projects across Canada, in Quebec and all regions of the country. This gives Canadians an opportunity to potentially participate. It allows for the expansion of our economy, the creation of jobs and contribution to our GDP. The Conservatives' approach is to get out of the way. That is all they want to do.

I would suggest they are not thinking about building Canada strong. They are more concerned about the Conservative Party than they are about the interests of Canadians. Why will the Conservative Party not support what many—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question because, once again, we have proof that what the Liberal government is doing is doubling and tripling the infrastructure. It is adding more layers and more structures. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is there to do the job. The Liberals should be using the tools that are in place and continuing to build Canada.

L'Écho des femmes de la Petite Patrie

[Alexandre Boulerice, Independent, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am immensely proud to rise in tribute to an outstanding milestone reached in Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie. This year, we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of L'Écho des femmes. For four decades, this organization has been much more than a mere gathering spot. It is a pillar of solidarity, a shield against isolation and a driving force for social change. Whether through mutual support, public education or advocacy, L'Écho des femmes transforms lives.

I would be remiss not to commend one very special woman, Silvia Martinez, for her 35 years of service. Silvia is among those considered the lifeblood of the organization. She is a voice for women who have too little voice left. Her dedication to justice and her cheerful ways have left their mark on generations.

In a world of persisting inequality and violence, we need L'Écho des femmes and women like Silvia Martinez. On behalf of the people of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie, I want to thank them and wish them many more years of combat and victory.

Ottawa Stray Cat Rescue

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important work of Ottawa Stray Cat Rescue. It is a 100% volunteer-run organization that rescues cats in need, cares for them through a network of foster homes and helps them find safe, loving families. For those cats too feral for adoption, the rescue owns a barn where the cats can live safely and be fed under a vet's care.

Each year, Ottawa Stray Cat Rescue saves over 750 cats. Foster families play an especially important role in helping cats to heal, socialize and prepare for adoption. Last year, I adopted my own little Coco through Ottawa Stray Cat Rescue. She had been lovingly fostered by Axelle and Scarlette, and we are so grateful.

I want to thank all the volunteers, foster families and supporters of Ottawa Stray Cat Rescue for their outstanding service to our community.

Finance

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' costly credit card budget reveals a deficit of $65.3 billion. That is more than double Justin Trudeau's deficit, and it is the largest deficit in our history outside of COVID.

This inflationary credit card-style spending does not just stay on the books here in Ottawa. It means higher costs, higher taxes and more debt for Canadians already struggling with affordability. Canadians will now pay $59 billion in debt interest, which is more than federal health transfers and more than GST revenues. Servicing the debt costs the average family about $3,400 annually. This spending also shows up on the bills of every Canadian. That is the real impact.

While Liberals pat themselves on the back for deficit spending, Canadians are left paying more, because in the end, there is no such thing as government money. There is only taxpayers' money and it is Canadians who pay the price.

150th Anniversary of St. Catharines

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

M r. Speaker, on May 1, 1876, the City of St. Catharines was incorporated. That means 150 years ago, the garden city was born. Over the years, St. Catharines has grown to a vibrant community of nearly 150,000 people. Along the way, we have welcomed communities like Merritton, Louth, Grantham and Port Dalhousie, and yes, we say that right.

Every city has its stories. Generations pass, landmarks change and memories fade, but one thing remains constant: the land beneath our feet. That is why the celebration's theme is Our Common Ground. Our land has supported us and carried us forward. It bore the footsteps of first nations people, offered refuge to freedom seekers on the Underground Railroad and gave rise to waterways, vineyards, orchards, industry and gardens that define us today.

I invite everyone to join us on Saturday at Montebello Park from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. as we celebrate this remarkable milestone. While the unusual spelling of our city name may remain a mystery, one thing is certain: Happy birthday, St. Catharines.

Niverville Nighthawks

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today, I congratulate an extraordinary team from Provencher, the Niverville Nighthawks, on capturing the Manitoba Junior Hockey League championship.

In just its fourth season, the Nighthawks achieved a record-setting 51‑6‑1 regular season and established itself as one of the most dominant teams in league history. It carried that success through the playoffs, defeating the Virden Oil Caps to capture the Turnbull Cup and become MJHL champions.

The accomplishment is the result of a team effort, highlighted by exceptional individual performances and leadership throughout the organization. Goaltender Austin Dubinsky was named playoff MVP, Captain Adam Vigfusson led by example, Merik Boles was recognized with the top sportsmanship award and Coach Dwight Hirst was named coach of the year. Now the team will represent Manitoba at the Centennial Cup in Prince Edward Island, competing against the best junior A teams from across Canada.

On behalf of the House, I congratulate the Niverville Nighthawks on its incredible achievement and wish the team continued success as it pursues a national championship. Go, Nighthawks.

Oral Health Care

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the 250,000 residents of the greater Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region who are now covered by the new Canadian dental care plan, helping them to save an average of $900 a year on the cost of dental care.

I would also like to congratulate the staff and students of the faculty of dentistry at Laval University, who will be using an additional investment of nearly $4 million to further improve access to dental care in our beautiful region. This investment will fund new placements in social dentistry at the SPOT clinic in Quebec City's lower town, as well as at a new clinic on the south shore. It will also mean placements can be offered in private practices located in underserved areas of the greater Quebec City region.

I would like to once again thank and congratulate all the partners involved in this important project.

Public Safety

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in recent town hall meetings, I heard clearly that people do not feel safe downtown. Residents told me they avoid going out at night. Some leave their homes only to step directly into an Uber.

Drug paraphernalia litters our streets, and open drug use is now a common sight on the CTrain. A Fraser Institute study shows that Calgary ranks 27th out of 334 municipalities for property crime.

A smashed window can be the final blow for a small business. Boarded-up shops and graffiti drive away shoppers, not criminals. Property damage means higher insurance costs and higher condo fees. Frontline services are stretched and lack the legal tools to keep repeat offenders off our streets.

We do not have to accept this as the new normal. Bill C-14 was the first step in getting our streets back. More must be done. We need laws to protect first responders, preferential sentencing and to put victims first. Calgarians are demanding action so they can have safe, normal neighbourhoods again.

May Days

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, next week, residents of Port Coquitlam will celebrate one of our community's most beloved traditions, May Days. Now in its 103rd year, this long-standing celebration of spring brings together neighbours, families and visitors for festivities that reflect the very best of community spirit.

From the opening ceremonies this Sunday to the Rotary May Day Parade the following Saturday, May 9, May Days is a reminder of the strong volunteerism and local pride that define our community. I encourage everyone to take part and to enjoy the live music, delicious food and many family-friendly activities that make May Days so special. I encourage everyone to join in celebrating what makes Port Coquitlam such a vibrant place to call home.

Fuel Taxes

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Oshawa, I hear from seniors on fixed incomes, families and workers who are doing everything right, raising their kids and still falling behind. Every trip to the gas pump stretches them far too thin and, for many, filling their gas tank means cutting back somewhere else.

The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He says affordability is the best it has been in a decade but then also admits that there is a problem. That flip-flopping does nothing for my neighbours in Oshawa and his plan still offers only temporary, partial relief that will not ease the real burden they are facing.

Conservatives have a better plan. We propose scrapping all federal gas and diesel taxes for the rest of 2026, including the fuel excise tax, the GST on gas, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard. That would mean real relief, up to 25¢ per litre and over $1,200 this year for a family of four. It is time the Liberal government gave them full relief for the full year.

Guylaine Barré

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, to her loved ones' shock, Guylaine Barré breathed her last. This morning's Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe got it right: She was a “merchant of happiness”.

Guylaine was a fixture in our region's business community. It gave me great joy to interact with her regularly because my offices were located downtown near her shop, Rita Fleuriste, which she ran so passionately for 40 years. Few entrepreneurs could ever leave such a lasting impression on us. She was cheerful and energetic, and her smile was contagious. Listing all of her qualities would take much longer than my allotted time. Just as she herself adored flowers, Guylaine was surely a rose among thorns.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I extend my deepest condolences to her family and everyone at Rita Fleuriste. Make no mistake, an entire community has been mourning her loss for nearly a week.

Farewell, Guylaine.

Retirement Congratulations

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Doug Tennant has dedicated more than 35 years to advancing inclusion for people with developmental disabilities as a parent, volunteer and CEO of Uniti.

Doug has worked alongside self-advocate leaders to help ensure they have the same rights and opportunities as all Canadians. Doug helped lead innovative housing initiatives, creating communities that provide quality housing for all, including people with disabilities. His leadership has strengthened partnerships in the non-profit, business and public sectors. Doug has served as a board member of Uniti, the Surrey Board of Trade and the BC CEO Network. He was a founder of the Canadian Business Disability Inclusion Network. He uses his influence to challenge bigotry through initiatives such as We Belong Surrey.

As he retires, Doug plans to continue volunteering to advance inclusion and affordable housing, hopeful that his work helps shape policy, inspire leaders and build more welcoming communities. I wish Doug a happy retirement.

Fuel Taxes

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are still getting hammered at the pump and these Liberals are making it worse. They know Canadians are struggling and they are still taxing more. Instead of real relief, they offer a gimmick, a third of the relief for a third of the year.

Meanwhile, families are paying more for everything because Liberal taxes are driving up the cost of living. This is the reality: Higher fuel costs mean higher grocery bills. Every truck, every delivery, every shelf price goes up and Canadians are the ones paying the price.

When Conservatives put forward a plan to scrap all federal fuel taxes for the year, cutting costs by 25¢ per litre and saving families over $1,200, these Liberals voted to keep those taxes in place. This was a choice by the Liberals to keep taking more from Canadians when they can least afford it.

Conservatives are offering real relief, a full plan for a full tank. Canadians should not have to choose between filling up their car and feeding their family.