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?

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly where the Liberal government gets it wrong. It would start a new bureaucracy and a new fund to be staffed and overseen by Liberal insiders. The Liberal government, in the past year alone, has already formed 13 new bureaucracies, all of which are overseen or managed by Liberal insiders. The government says it would be professionally managed, but it would actually be professionally managed to fail and to benefit only corporate insiders. That is one of the biggest differences we see compared to other models that are succeeding.

We could unleash our resources and attract investment. We do not need to draw on more government debt that is going to be paid off by taxpayers and the next generation. The sovereign wealth fund should be built on one thing: wealth. What we have a lot of, after 11 years of Liberal governments, is debt.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that just a year ago, Canadians chose a new government, a new Prime Minister and a direction I thought was fairly clear. Like other members, I knocked on thousands of doors during the last election. I have a fairly good sense of what the expectations of Canadians are. I have a fairly good understanding of why Canadians made the decision they made. About 8.5 million Canadians voted for the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and the 300-plus candidates throughout the country. Canadians got the change they needed to see at the government level.

However, in listening to the last speaker, it seems there has been absolutely zero change in the Conservative Party's approach to Canada. Its members consistently talk about it being broken, and what I really find somewhat distasteful are the allegations, which are constant, to try to make it look as though members of Parliament are corrupt. The character assassination that comes over from the Conservative ranks toward the government is fairly pathetic. It is definitely consistent.

What motivates the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of the Liberal caucus is what we hear from our constituents: the desire to make Canada a stronger and healthier country. It is not to get out of the way but to recognize that the government has a role to play. We heard that when we listened to what people were saying one year ago, almost to the day, when people were at the polls.

What they wanted was a government that was going to be there to protect and secure Canadian interests at a time of economic uncertainty, which was being put on in good part because of President Trump with the threat of tariffs and the issue of trade. That was the issue Canadians were coming to grips with a year ago, and they wanted to hear what politicians had to say.

Canadians did a comparison between the leaders. The leader of the Conservative Party, for all intents and purposes, has been a career politician and nothing really beyond that. Canadians contrasted him with the current Prime Minister, the one they chose, who had actually been appointed to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada by a Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper. He has also been the Governor of the Bank of England.

Virtually throughout the G20 countries and beyond, the Prime Minister is recognized as a first-rate economist, someone who genuinely understands the economy. That is why he was so well received in Davos with the speech he delivered there. Our Prime Minister understands what it takes to build an economy. From day one after the election, that is where the focus of the government has been, serving Canadians first and foremost.

With respect to all the trash talk we hear from members of the Conservative Party towards the integrity of members, whether the Prime Minister or other ministers, I say shame on the Conservatives for trying to give false impressions and mislead Canadians, whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons, through social media or through the millions of emails they send out. It does a disservice. There is an expectation that the official opposition be a critic of the government, but I was in opposition for many years, and as I said before, there is a fine line.

Actually, it is a very broad line, and the Conservatives have crossed that line. At least, the current leadership of the Conservative Party has crossed that line, because it is catering to the far right, the extreme far right, quite frankly. That might feed some of the Conservative base, but it is time to start focusing on what Canadians are saying and on the interests of the country. It is time that the far-right Conservative Party today and its House leadership team start paying more attention to the needs of Canadians than to the needs of the self-serving Conservative leadership team of today. I say that in such a manner because of the personal shots that are constantly being raised, as if personal gain or giving political whatever to so-called friends were the motivating factor.

I can tell the House that the government has given grants to Conservatives, to New Democrats, to Liberals and to apolitical individuals. That is not a measuring stick when it comes to the progress of our great nation. It is all about building a stronger Canadian economy for all Canadians. Take a look at what actions we have taken to date that, collectively, are making a difference and that will provide hope for the future of Canada's economy.

Every Liberal member of Parliament believes that Canada is the greatest country in the world to call home, and we are committed to building on the hopes, desires and needs of the nation today so Canada will continue to be the best country in the world to call home. That does not mean we stand out of the way and do nothing. Look at what has actually been proposed by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus: a sovereign wealth fund.

There is an unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives. They are now in the opposition. They have united on this saying, “No, no, it is not good for Canada.” There are dozens of sovereign wealth funds around the world today, but the opposition does not believe Canada should have a sovereign wealth fund. Our fund, the Canada Strong fund, is a wonderful opportunity to offer investors abroad and at home. I also like to believe it is going to have an impact on people who do have some extra finances. They would like to be able to be part of a strategic fund dealing with our sovereignty, be able to demonstrate a sense of pride in our nation, be provided some guarantees, and invest in Canada.

In terms of the administration, think in terms of the building office that we have, the Major Projects Office, which is located in the Prairies, as well it should be. Take a look at a lot of the investments and the driving force, in many ways, over the next few years. We want major projects. We not only want them; we also want to see them turn into a reality.

I would argue that we would have to go back generations and generations before we would find a Prime Minister who has been as committed to attracting the types of investments that are necessary and to doing the work that is necessary in order to build the type of support to build and to build big. By doing that, we are going to provide the opportunities, the jobs, the incomes and the GDP growth into the future. Even if we do not realize all of that in the next year or two, let us get the ball moving on it.

It is a bit of a joke when I hear the leader of the Conservative Party inside the House or outside the House try to compare himself to the Prime Minister, saying that the Prime Minister has no understanding of how an economy works. That is like saying that Wayne Gretzky does not know how to skate or that Céline Dion cannot sing. How silly that is. Really and truly, do the Conservatives believe that there is anyone who believes those sorts of assertions that come from the leader of the Conservative Party?

If I go back to a week or so after the last federal election, I remember Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, and the actions that the federal government took, literally weeks after coming back in session, to take down barriers so at least from a national perspective we would have one Canadian economy. There have been efforts back then and today through which we are continuing to encourage other premiers to start taking down some of the provincial barriers. Whether it is with respect to consumer products or labour mobility, we need to continue to push, encourage and support a team Canada approach at building Canada strong.

The need is there, and it was demonstrated throughout the election, when people were telling me and everyone else at the door about their concern about the dependency Canada has on the United States as a direct result of threats of tariffs on our products. We responded in many different ways. Bill C-5 is just one of those ways: one Canadian economy. However, that was not it. Within that same two- or three-week span, we made the commitment to develop the Major Projects Office, and the Prime Minister made it known that we want to hear ideas. We want premiers and stakeholders, both private and public, to talk about the types of ideas that are going to allow us to build, and to build big.

A lot of ideas came forward. The provinces stepped up to the plate in a very real and tangible way in every region of our nation. For the first time, we were talking about major projects and how the federal government and the provincial governments, working with others, can expedite, encourage and promote major projects, and ultimately turn them into reality wherever we can. Alberta is a great example. Think of the tension that was within the province of Alberta in a lot of the discussions that were taking place.

The Prime Minister, who has roots in the Prairies, in Edmonton in the north, is especially compassionate and wants us to actually move forward on major projects. That is the reason, with respect to pipelines, that we now have an MOU with the Province of Alberta. Do members remember when that issue came up and the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta made the announcement? All the Alberta Conservative MPs were either sitting on their hands saying nothing or were criticizing the fact that, though we had the MOU, it was not good enough.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, they ask, “What is built?” Well, when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government for over 10 years, the Conservatives did not build one inch of pipeline to the coastline.

I will contrast that with what the current Prime Minister has done in one year for the advancement of—

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

The hon. member for Saint John—St. Croix is rising on a point of order.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative Saint John—St. Croix, NB

That member is misleading the House, Mr. Speaker. There are four pipelines. I will come back with the names very shortly—

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

There is no point of order.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

Order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order, and I hope it is a new point of order.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member is actually imputing my motives. He is indicating that I am intentionally misleading—

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

No, the word was “misleading”, not “intentionally misleading”. There is a slight but subtle difference.

I am going to pause for just a second. We have had some interactions here, some back-and-forth. We have four minutes and 51 seconds to go of the 10 minutes' worth of questions and comments, so there is lots of time to get these matters on—

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

The hon. member may conclude his remarks.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will stand by my word, and I look forward to the member coming back to the House and sharing with me which pipeline his leader actually built that went to the west coast. Yes, they did have pipelines that went down to the United States, but let us remember what the argument is.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

He says I am confused, Mr. Speaker. There is a difference between west and east versus north and south.

The point is that there are major projects. The Conservative Party takes one approach, and that approach is just to get out of the way. As a government, we recognize the value of being involved by having things like a sovereign wealth fund, which will make a difference, and by having things such as the Infrastructure Bank, something the Conservative Party is on the record constantly opposing. We have seen literally billions of dollars' worth of investments in different areas drawn upon by different levels of government and by private industries. That money was put into the economy: buses, transport, energy and many other aspects. The Canada Strong fund—

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, this is all good stuff, and if the Conservatives did their homework, they would know it. The problem is that all they do is rely too much on their backroom, the spin and ChatGPT. That is what they rely on in terms of delivering their comments on the floor of the House of Commons.

The other side has to calm down over there.

The bottom line is that when we see something good come to the floor of the House of Commons, there is nothing wrong with supporting it. There is nothing wrong with saying something is a good thing for Canada. It does not mean a member has to be 100% for it. They could raise some issues in regard to it or raise some concerns, but they should not try to give an impression that it is not good for Canada.

I believe that whether it is this initiative that we have announced or other initiatives that the government has brought forward, the motivating factor for it all is to reflect on what Canadians are telling us at the door. Members of Parliament, at least within the Liberal caucus, are working with their constituents. They are bringing their thoughts, ideas and concerns here, whether they are about jobs or affordability, and dealing with them in a very tangible way.

That is what the spring update does, among many other things. It reassures people. There is comfort in knowing we have a government that wants to expand the economy; that is prepared to help out on the affordability issue by doing things like the groceries and essentials program and reinforcing the dental care program; and that understands that expanding trade opportunities, bringing in investment dollars and building big projects are all things that are going to help us, whether it is increasing the GDP into the future, increasing people's wages or providing the jobs that are necessary. Through that, we are better able to provide social programs.

It is time that the Conservatives change their attitude, listen to what they were told in the last election and give more attention to Canadians' best interests as opposed to the Conservative Party's best interests. I suspect that if they actually followed that advice, they might do a bit better. Maybe their leader would be more secure into the future.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

April 30th, 2026 / 12:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative Saint John—St. Croix, NB

Mr. Speaker, I think your ruling was wise. As you said, I did not use the term “intentionally”. We could tell from the member's slack-jawed face when I said we built four pipelines that he has spent too much time reading false Liberal talking points.

The Enbridge Alberta Clipper was built over 1,600 kilometres. The TransCanada Keystone was built over 1,200 kilometres. There is also Enbridge Line 9B reversal and Kinder Morgan's Anchor Loop: 1.2 million barrels a day as a result of these pipelines. I worked in the Harper government to build energy east, which the Liberal government killed with regulations after TransCanada spent $1 billion.

What position would Canada be in today if we had energy east and the other LNG and oil pipelines that the government killed?

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about Hansard is that all we have to do is look at what I said. The member just reinforced that.

The pipeline the member is talking about does not go to tidewater, and that is what I said. Not one inch of it goes to tidewater. Let us contrast that to TMX. That goes to tidewater. That was not Conservative. It was Liberal. The biggest private-public investment was in LNG between the NDP government in B.C. and the Liberal government here in Ottawa. It had nothing to do with Harper or the Conservatives.

The Conservatives talk a lot. Often they are very disrespectful because they focus so much attention on character assassination as opposed to good public policy.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I always love hearing the Liberals and Conservatives argue over which of them has built the most pipelines. As they see it, the climate crisis is over. Climate change does not exist for either party.

Incidentally, my colleague opposite said during his speech that he was really pleased that the Major Projects Office is located in the Prairies, because that is where the major projects are going to be. He is confirming that the government is going to use that money to accelerate the climate crisis, with no benefit to Quebec, but using the money of Quebeckers.

Is that his vision of a strong Canada?

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, that is just false, and the member knows what he just said is false. The major projects include the expansion of the port of Montreal. I will give the member a tip. Montreal is in Quebec. At the end of the day, there are major projects in all areas of Canada. The office has to be located somewhere. I am very proud of the fact that it happens to be in Alberta.

Having said that, let us look at the major projects. As I referenced, there is the expansion of the port of Montreal and a nuclear project in the province of Ontario. We can talk about energy transmission lines in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about pipelines in Alberta. We can talk about copper mines and LNG in B.C. We can talk about the potential for the port of Churchill in Manitoba.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, we hear the Prime Minister and my colleague compare the sovereign wealth fund to the Norwegian fund. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is independent, and it is only for public good. It is not used for political interests or what the Liberals call nation-building projects, which could end up funnelling money to Danielle Smith's dream pipeline through the north coast, billions of dollars for a pipeline that the private sector does not even have support for, never mind support from coastal first nations that are opposed to it.

Does my colleague agree that the sovereign wealth fund should be independent and only for public good, not for supporting private projects that are not economically viable?

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the Major Projects Office being able to make recommendations and decisions on projects. The sovereign wealth fund has potential. The member referred to pipelines. It goes far beyond those types of projects.

I am hopeful that we will see funds ultimately flow to all the different regions of the country, recognizing that all regions have a great deal to contribute to the wealth and future of Canada, as they do. I would encourage the NDP to support it. I am not too sure what the New Democrats' position is on it, but I hope they will support it.

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth FundBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Mount Royal Québec

Liberal

Anthony Housefather LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his passionate 20-minute speech. I—