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.