Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
What is the point of the Canada Strong fund?
Initially, we were told that it is a sovereign wealth fund. When I hear the word “sovereign” I think it must be autonomous, independent, somewhat proud, a fund that makes decisions on its own. We are told, however, that it is the government that chooses the projects. It is sovereign, but regulated. It is independent, but monitored. It is free, but with permission. It is a bit like a teenager being told that they are free, as long as they get home by 9 o'clock, do their homework and do what they are told. I wonder, what is the point of a sovereign wealth fund if it is not sovereign?
Then the government says that it is not an expense. What a joke. It is costing $25 billion dollars, yet it is not an expense. Imagine that scenario in real life. Someone's girlfriend shows up and says she bought a cottage, but it is not an expense. It is an off-budget transaction backed by an asset. What is more, she says that she has borrowed to pay for it, but that it does not count. We are talking about $25 billion that somehow does not count. I would love to have a credit card that works like that. I could spend and spend, but it does not show up anywhere. That is the “Canada Strong” dream.
The media are saying that the government is taking on less debt than expected because the economy has performed slightly better than expected; there have been fewer natural disasters than expected; fewer batteries are being built than expected; and they have not seen the $25 billion. It makes me wonder. A fund that costs $25 billion but that does not count: What is the point?
Let me get this straight. The government is borrowing $25 billion to invest where the private sector does not want to invest, because it is too risky and unlikely to pay off. In other words, Ottawa does not have any money so it is going to borrow it. Meanwhile, interest on the debt is going up, from $54 billion today to $81 billion in a few years. We are talking about $81 billion in interest alone, which is far more than the amount spent on health care. It is like someone paying a mortgage on a house their whole life—a house that is never theirs but that they paying into anyway because of the Canada Strong fund. I have to wonder, what is the point of a fund that increases the debt?
Let us compare that to the situation in Norway. If Norway has a surplus, it invests abroad in foreign currencies to counter Dutch disease and to better withstand economic shocks. Its fund is worth $3 trillion. Meanwhile, we are running a deficit and borrowing. What is more, the fund selects the projects chosen by the Prime Minister, but, of course, it is still sovereign. We are not even in the same league. Norway is playing in the NHL, while we are playing ball hockey in a church basement, and the government is telling us that it is the same thing. That is like me saying that I have a bank account just like Bill Gates. Yes, we may both have bank accounts, but we do not have the same amount of money in them. I will come back to my question. What is the point of having a fund like Norway's that is nothing like Norway's fund?
Countries around the world have funds generated from surpluses, and each of those countries has a clear goal. China's funds are used to buy strategic infrastructure around the world, like ports in Africa or Europe. The Persian Gulf countries use their funds to set money aside to facilitate their transition when their reserves run out. Quebec's generations fund is used to reduce debt for future generations. However, here we have a debt fund and we do not even know yet what it will be used for. We are talking about a $25-billion debt fund that will independently decide what the Prime Minister tells it to decide.
The economic update says what it will be used for. I would encourage members to brace themselves and take a seat. On page 55, the Minister of Finance wrote, “The Canada Strong Fund will focus on building Canada.” Well, that answers that question. We should have thought of that. It is certainly true. We sure know what the point is now.
It gets even better. The fund will pay for projects without going through Parliament. How convenient. It is convenient because Parliament asks questions and debates things and stirs up trouble. Here we have an agency. If things do not work out, it is not the government's fault; it is the agency's. Who created it? The government. Who controls it? Not the government; it is independent. It is independent except when it comes to selecting projects. The government does that. This is like someone saying they are not driving, they are just holding the wheel. What is the point of a fund that is not accountable to Parliament?
Never mind the rest of it. Agencies, structures, layers of bureaucracy; they keep adding more and more. When something does not work, they do not make it better, they pile more on top. This is like putting coats of paint on a cracked wall. The paint gets thicker and thicker, but the wall does not get any stronger.
We already have an infrastructure bank, funds and tools, and yet another one is being created. The government already created the Canada Infrastructure Bank to fund infrastructure development. Its purpose, like the sovereign wealth fund, is to attract the private sector and have it fund infrastructure projects.
Other funds also exist, like the Canada growth fund. Instead of changing the Canada Infrastructure Bank's mandate to include direct project participation through share purchases, for example, the government is choosing to create another structure with another undoubtedly well-paid director. It will certainly require another president, another office and other salaries, for a big, strong, beautiful, and most of all well-organized Canada. What is the point of another fund to do what was already being done?
What I like most is the part where we are told that the private sector is going to invest. Why would the private sector suddenly want to invest in projects that no one wants to fund? It is because the government is on board. That is reassuring, not to mention that the government may even guarantee their capital. It is a dream come true. If it works, the private sector wins. If it does not work, the public sector pays. It is capitalism at its finest. It is the great ongoing history of the Dominion continuing to unfold. What is the point of a fund if the risks are public and the profits are private?
Meanwhile, businesses and workers are suffering because of the 25% tariff on steel, aluminum and copper. The forestry sector and entire regions are affected. There is almost nothing for those sectors and yet, Ottawa has a fund. It has a big, fat fund that does not appear in the budget, only in the debt, and is not reflected in the results. Imagine if my house were on fire, but I think everything is fine because I bought myself a nice, big stainless steel barbecue. This is really astounding. I therefore had to ask the question, not to criticize the government or to complain, but to really understand: What exactly is the point of the Canada Strong fund?
It is basically a fund that is not sovereign, that is financed by debt, operating outside the budget and controlled by the government. It is not accountable to Parliament, but will invest in risky projects and hope for the best. It certainly looks and sounds good, and instills a lot of hope. I like hope. I used to be hopeful. However, it usually cost me less than $25 billion.