Debates of April 30th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth Fund

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals wanted a sovereign wealth fund too, and they decided to call it the Canada Strong fund.

Sovereign wealth funds are built using surpluses, but Canada is deeply in debt, so the government decided to go even deeper into debt to set this up. What are the details? They were supposed to be part of the economic update, but when the update was presented, we were told the details would be provided in a few months. We are not really sure what the details are.

We were told that several projects in Canada would create jobs and that the private sector would be involved. In the end, the private sector is not investing, so what is the government doing? As journalist Francis Vailles put it, this is just a government “gimmick”, because no one can figure out what it does. The Canada Infrastructure Bank could have been part of this, but no, the government wants to create a whole new structure.

This has nothing to do with a sovereign wealth fund. It is a $25-billion debt that does not appear in the budget, artificially reducing the deficit.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's argument is essentially that we should have a sovereign wealth fund here because other countries also have sovereign wealth funds. However, what he is forgetting is that those other countries use surpluses instead of debt to build up their sovereign wealth funds.

It is a bit like if I were to buy a house that costs three times the price I can afford. Let us say I buy a house for $10 million and I make $50,000 a year, because I wanted to be like my neighbour, who makes $300,000 a year.

Does it make sense to do something I cannot afford to do simply because my neighbour did it?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree with what my colleague just said.

A sovereign wealth fund is funded by surpluses. The government has no surplus, so it is going into debt to make it look like it does. That is not a sovereign wealth fund at all. There is a reason most analysts in the media are wondering what the point of it is. As Francis Vailles of La Presse said, it is a gimmick.

Sovereign wealth funds have a clear objective, but what is the point of this particular sovereign wealth fund? On page 55 of his economic update, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue stated, “The Canada Strong Fund will focus on building Canada.”

Well, that says it all.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Conservatives' opposition motion on the new so-called sovereign wealth fund, or the Canada Strong fund, which the Liberals announced in their economic update. In short, the Conservatives' motion, which is a page long, argues that this fund should not exist and that the government should abandon it to limit our debt load, rather than increasing it.

There is one thing that I have to point out right away to those who are here today. It is not every day that the Bloc Québécois agrees with the Conservatives. In fact, that is a rather rare occurrence. I think the fact that I am announcing my intention to vote in favour of the Conservative motion really says something, and I think most members of my party intend to do the same. That is bad news for the Liberals, but it does not matter because they have a majority.

That is unfortunate, because if the government did not have this much-vaunted majority, then perhaps it would avoid making mistakes like this one. The Liberals are introducing the sovereign wealth fund as though they just reinvented sliced bread. They are saying that there are plenty of other countries in the world that have sovereign wealth funds and that by setting up such a fund, Canada will be able to get rich like those countries.

If I go to the bank and borrow $200,000 because I want to buy a bigger house or do renovations at home, I am not richer the next morning, because I took on $200,000 in debt. That is exactly what the Liberals just did. They just took $25 billion and are going to issue bonds, but they are forgetting something: the interest payments.

There is something else they are forgetting. There is now a sovereign wealth fund, this $25 billion, and they are going to have to do something to pay the interest. That is the Liberals' gamble. They tell us that, since we have $25 billion, we are rich. In fact, we are not rich, we just have debt. That is on top of the already monstrous debt that Canada has accumulated over the years, particularly under the previous Liberal government, which is still in power today. This government has been around for more than 10 years. I cannot wait to see which way this is going to go over the course of the next three years, because it is starting to be alarming.

Things have reached a point where the entirety of the GST is being used to pay interest on the debt. Not only that, interest on the debt is going to exceed the amount that Ottawa spends on health transfers. Soon, no one will be able to go to the hospital anymore. Actually, people will still be able to go to the hospital, but Ottawa will be too deeply in debt to keep paying its share of hospital costs. What will the government do then? It will cut transfers to the provinces. Still, it has a sovereign wealth fund.

Generally speaking,what is the point of a sovereign wealth fund? A sovereign wealth fund is often set up by countries that want to put money aside when they have surpluses in order to avoid creating hyperinflation in their country or in case certain resources currently being developed are no longer available in the future.

As members know, certain resources such as oil are non-renewable energy sources. Once oil wells have been depleted, that is it for oil. Some countries have been smart enough to set money aside. When the day comes that there is no more oil, they will still have money, instead of having spent it all. They will be able to continue helping their citizens. For example, they will be able to embark on an energy transition, as well as an economic transition, simply by setting money aside in all sorts of ways to continue funding the public services they want to provide to their people.

In this case, we are still wondering where all the cash reserves from Canada's oil industry went. The answer is simple. Not a single penny was set aside. All of it got squandered. Now the government is finally waking up and realizing that maybe it should have set some money aside, but it is a bit late. When we compare Canada to other countries, it is pretty clear that those countries are in a better economic situation than we are.

However, this raises a question. This sovereign wealth fund will have to be paid back. At the very least, if it is not paid back, the interest on the debt will have to be paid. How will the government pay the interest on the debt? If it cannot generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the debt associated with this sovereign wealth fund, what will ultimately happen? People will continue to get even poorer. What is the government's plan for making money to enrich Canadians? What will the sovereign wealth fund be used for? It is going to be used to invest in Canada.

That is rather broad. It could mean just about anything. The government is going to invest in Canada, but now it is telling us that it is going to invest to attract private capital. I find that interesting because, usually, when one wants to attract private capital, it is because private capital will make money. Why would private capital put money into investments that it does not currently want to invest in? That is the idea behind the sovereign wealth fund: take risky projects that the private sector is avoiding and ensure that investments are made and that the projects go forward. That is the exact same mandate as the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB. Now, the government has conveniently decided to duplicate that structure with an additional $25 billion, with another bureaucratic pyramid and with more people being paid big salaries to manage it, rather than just giving the CIB the mandate to manage those additional funds. There is a lot I could say about the CIB in general, but that is not the subject of today's debate. What is the idea behind all this? What does it all boil down to? It is a charade. The idea is to put on a show, to announce the creation of a sovereign wealth fund similar to funds that other countries with money set aside have, when we do not have a penny to spare here. That is what is happening. The government is pretending to have something that it does not have.

I was saying that this debt will have to be paid back, or at least the interest will have to be paid. How will we pay the interest on projects that the private sector did not want to invest in in the first place because they were too risky and because the private sector thought it could not make money on them? What classic device is being used? Public funds are used to reduce the riskiness of projects and thus absorb the risks and losses if the projects do not work out, or at least ensure that the project is profitable for the private sector. If there is no profitability to begin with, the public would absorb the loss. How are we supposed to make money on something the private sector said it would not turn a profit and, on top of that, pay off the interest on the $25‑billion debt we just incurred? I am having a hard time understanding how the government is going to do that. I am going to need some serious explanations from the people on the other side of the House. For now, it is not very impressive. It is especially worrisome when the government gambles with taxpayers' money.

All this government is doing is using marketing tactics to sell us all sorts of pipe dreams. That worries me because, on top of everything else, the decisions around which projects will receive investment will not be made independently. The government is saying there will be an independent board of directors. How is it actually going to work? The projects to be funded by this much-touted sovereign wealth fund will be referred by the Major Projects Office. Which projects will be referred by the Major Projects Office? The Prime Minister will decide which projects get referred. What we are being told, then, is that the Prime Minister will select the projects to be referred to the Major Projects Office, which will then refer them to the sovereign wealth fund. This is surprising, because that is exactly what is happening right now with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Someone will have to explain to me who is doing what, but that is another story.

How are they going to make decisions independently if the selection process is politicized right from the start? What does a politicized process mean? It means that the Prime Minister will choose projects based on what he considers to be good projects. A project that is considered good and promising is not always one that will turn a profit right away. What is even more concerning is that ordinary people are being invited to invest in this sovereign wealth fund, with the assurance that there is nothing to worry about and that their investment will potentially be guaranteed. Generally speaking, an investment is guaranteed when the return is lower. How does the government plan to attract private capital when it is guaranteeing individuals' investments and has to pay interest on a $25‑billion debt? The reality is that it could end up using accounting practices designed to ensure the public does not fully understand what is going on.

I am fascinated by this sovereign wealth fund where all the projects are chosen by the Prime Minister. The government is calling it a sovereign wealth fund, but I think it should be called “the sovereign's wealth fund”. We know we have a Prime Minister who draws a lot of inspiration from the monarchy, and I get the impression that is the direction we are heading in, a situation where the Prime Minister, all alone in his office, has complete control over what the future will look like and what will happen with people's money, and that is particularly worrying.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Economic Institute said, “We don't need a Canada Infrastructure Bank 2.0”. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommended “[t]hat the Government of Canada abolish the Canada Infrastructure Bank.”

With this in mind, does the member agree that Canadians do not need this sovereign wealth fund?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a good one because it gives me an opportunity to address some points I did not have a chance to discuss in my speech.

The government is introducing a new gimmick, the sovereign wealth fund, even though we already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, on which I serve, did indeed recommend abolishing the bank because it became clear that it was a political gimmick the Liberal government was using as a revolving door.

Michael Sabia went from the Department of Finance to the Prime Minister's Office to chair of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. There are also plenty of ties to consulting firms that are close to the government, such as BlackRock. I am actually not sure it is BlackRock. Anyway, the point is that we should be asking ourselves if we really have to duplicate what already exists.

Besides, there are other institutions already, such as the Canada growth fund, the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada. There are already several entities that can finance projects. The government is just adding new ones for marketing purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing that we have the Conservative and the Bloc members united in believing that this is something the country does not need. In fact, if one was to be a bit of a visionary and demonstrate some true leadership, they would understand and appreciate the actual value of having a sovereign wealth fund.

There is a significant difference between what is being put on the table and the Infrastructure Bank. It is unfortunate that the members do not necessarily understand the difference between the two. We have the potential to generate investments to continue to build a stronger economy. I can understand why the Bloc might oppose Canada becoming a stronger nation, relatively speaking, but I do not understand why the Conservatives would resist something that other countries around the world have.

Why is it not good enough for Canada if other countries have deemed it necessary?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very interesting. He is saying that I do not know the difference between the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB, and the sovereign wealth fund the government is proposing.

It is difficult to really know the difference because the government itself does not know. It has not yet fully explained what the sovereign wealth fund will be used for or how it will work. However, according to the government announcement, their objectives are more or less the same. The difference lies in how the two mechanisms operate. One has $35 billion, and the other has $25 billion.

What is happening with the CIB's $35 billion? The investment objectives are based on policies issued by the government. There are guidelines regarding the investments the CIB should make. In the case of the sovereign wealth fund, the investments will be dictated entirely by the government because they will be decided by the Major Projects Office, which is administered by the Prime Minister's Office.

This is making things even less independent and more political. That is the reality.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the transport and infrastructure committee for his excellent speech. As we have mentioned in committee, and as he has mentioned many times in committee, we are pointing out the lack of transparency with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the many connections to Liberal insiders that seem to be at play and, of course, the very favourable terms that are given to projects of those insiders.

Does he worry that, with the sovereign debt fund, we are going down that exact same road? Can he elaborate more on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, what worries me the most is that the economy is looking more and more like a command economy, where the government picks which economic projects it will invest in. I would argue that the role of government is to create conditions conducive to business and deliver government services to the people.

I find this very troubling, because the government is going to take on the risks associated with investments and projects, when those risks would normally be on the private sector. Lastly, this is being done with the money of ordinary people, who need that money to get public services and who hope they will not have to pay for their grandchildren.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice under Standing Order 43(2)(a) that all remaining Conservative caucus speaking slots are hereby divided in two.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak about the spring economic update.

Before I begin that, I want to reiterate what a privilege and an honour it is to represent the wonderful people of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, a very vibrant, diverse and dynamic community in the heart of the GTA.

Today, we are debating the spring economic update. I want to give a little context as to where we are.

The Liberal government was re-elected on April 28 of last year. We were waiting with bated breath to see the first budget come out. We thought it would come out in May or June at the latest. Given that the fiscal year started on April 1, we thought that it would be prudent to at least present the budget a couple of months in, given that the election delayed that a bit, but no, the Liberal government decided that it would be best to present the budget to the House of Commons, to Parliament, a good seven months after the fiscal year had begun. In essence, seven months after it had spent seven-twelfths of the money in the budget that it was to present, which of course makes no sense at all and certainly does not make any sense to Canadians who know that one cannot spend money before one earns it or has the right to spend it.

Nonetheless, the Liberals presented their budget with much fanfare, an omnibus project in a book that was some-464 pages, I believe, which showed that they were continuing more of the same kind of leadership they had learned over the years from the prime ministership of Justin Trudeau. Of course, we know that there is not much change on the other side, because most of the ministers were Trudeau ministers. We were not expecting much change, but we thought that with a new Prime Minister touting a résumé of economic and banking credentials, we would see something somewhat different. Unfortunately, what we saw was more of the same deficits year after year, giving very little hope to Canadians that the Canadian economy would turn around anytime soon.

Nonetheless, the budget was presented in the House and debated. We went back and forth, and then we waited with much anticipation for this new document that the finance minister presented in the House on Tuesday of this week, which he titled “Canada Strong For All: Spring Economic Update 2026”.

I thought, “Maybe there is something in this. Maybe they needed more time to get it right and get it together.” Then I was further encouraged, as were Canadians, because the day before this was presented, the Prime Minister went to the media and said that we were going to have “good news” from the finance minister.

The day when the economic update was presented at four o'clock in the afternoon, literally 90 minutes before this document was presented in the House, every single Liberal minister or secretary of state responding to questions in question period made sure that they got the following words in: that within the next hour and a half, we would hear “good news” from the finance minister. I thought, “There has to be something good here.”

I waited for him to get up, as did all of us in the House and many Canadians across the country who were hoping for some pocketbook relief for them, their families, communities and businesses from coast to coast to coast in this country.

Then the finance minister started speaking and these books were distributed to all parliamentarians. We quickly looked through to get the summary. What did we see? We saw deficit after deficit, year after year. In fact, the previous prime minister, who the current Prime Minister considers a mentor, only had a $31-billion deficit projected for this year.

This document came out, and the finance minister announced with much fanfare that it was good news for Canada that we were going to lose $67 billion. The only person who uttered that was him. Then, of course, there was resounding applause from the Liberals, very happy and thrilled that Canadians and the Government of Canada were going to lose another $67 billion.

I scanned through the book to see what their projections were. I thought maybe, just maybe, it was just this year, but no. Over the next five years, they are projecting loss after loss, indebting Canadians an additional $363 billion. There is no hope for turning the economy around, no hope for making life more affordable for Canadians. In fact, we then see they are borrowing all this money. They cannot print the money; they are borrowing it from banks and financial institutions. One would assume they are borrowing from Canadian banks, American banks, Asian banks and European banks. They are borrowing the money wherever they can.

What does that mean? That means we have to pay interest on that, like every Canadian has to on their mortgage, their car or any loan they have. Canadians pay interest for this. Interest payments are projected this year to be more than the amount of money we spend on health care. I think if we knock on the door of any Canadian family and ask them what is more important to them, paying interest or having better health care, we would get a 100% response that it should be health care. Instead, we see the opposite here.

The Liberals keep borrowing, ballooning that interest line item in the budget to about $80 billion in five years. Here is what $80 billion a year can do for Canadians. With $80 billion, we can twin the TransCanada mountain pipeline. With $80 billion a year, we can build 47 hospitals the size of the very beautiful new Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital in the heart of Vaughan, in the York region where I live. With $80 billion, we can buy 800 F-35 fighter airplanes. Eighty billion dollars is more money than all the money transferred as part of the Canada health transfer. At that time, $80 billion will be about $30 billion more than we are putting into health care. We could cut the GST to zero if we had that $80 billion. Every Canadian would benefit, but no, we are putting it in interest.

The economist, banking Prime Minister may have a good education from good academic institutions from around the world, but what he does not have is practical experience. The guidance he has given, which he learned from his predecessor and mentor Justin Trudeau, to the finance minister is to continue more of the same. Let us put Canada more and more in debt. In fact, they are trying these fun, fancy words now, such as the sovereign wealth fund, which of course we know is a debt fund. They could have a wealth fund, but they would have to have money for it. They do not have money when they are coming to Parliament and saying they are losing $67 billion this year. They certainly do not have money when they are saying they are going to be paying $80 billion in interest within five years, or that they are going to add more debt to the tune of $363 billion, so he comes up with this fancy thing.

The other thing they are saying over there is that they spend less so they can invest more. How are they spending less? They are not spending less. They are spending more. In fact, the highest the Government of Canada has ever spent in the history of the country since Confederation is in this year's budget. Where they are spending, there is no transparency. We should not expect transparency from these Liberals. If we had transparency, we would know who had the green slush fund money. If we had transparency, we would not have the finance minister saying he is recusing himself from talking about Alto, the $90‑billion fiasco, because his wife is a senior vice-president in the firm. He said he was part of the decision, but now he is recusing himself because the world has found out that he has a vested interest in this from a family perspective.

The bottom line is that Canadians are concerned about affordability, their grocery bill, their mortgage payment, their business and employment. The government is entirely tone-deaf to what Canada wants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest it is the opposite. It is not the government that is tone-deaf; it is the leader of the Conservative Party and the collective team of Conservative members of Parliament who want to stand by and do nothing or, as they say, get out of the way.

Let us contrast that to a government that has been very proactive in increasing exports, bringing in trade, bringing in investment and looking at ways to build a stronger and healthier economy. The development of a sovereign wealth fund would go a long way in the future of Canada by providing tens of thousands of jobs and a stronger, more independent economy. The Conservatives say to get out of the way. I disagree.

I would ask the member opposite if he does not see any value in Canada—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill a chance to respond.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary would have some credibility if he had not been saying the exact words from his seat in the House of Commons for the last 11 years. Liberals have had 11 years to get this right. For 11 years, he defended Justin Trudeau and now he is defending the current Prime Minister. For 11 years, we saw deficit after deficit. For 11 years, they have not delivered for Canadians.

He is right about one thing, and that is that we say to get out of the way. We actually mean that they should get out of the way. They should listen to what we are saying and let the Conservatives run this country. Then we would see a big difference, because Canadians would be the beneficiaries of that, not their elite friends.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has expressed our concerns on this side of the floor. I think of 18-year-olds right now facing their futures. Over the next six years, they will be going to school, getting a trade, occupation or profession, and they will be in the seat of dealing with $406.6 billion in interest over those six years added on to increasing debt.

How does the member feel about the reality of what the government is doing to the next generation of Canadians?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, because we are talking about the future generation, our youth in this country. When we look at the budget, we are planning for the future and the youth are the future leaders of this country. Unfortunately, hope has been taken away from them. They cannot find jobs or buy a house. When they get married and start their families, they cannot live in the community in which they grew up because things are so expensive.

When I said “tone-deaf”, I mean that. I wish the parliamentary secretary, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government would knock on Canadians' doors and find out what these young people are feeling. They are feeling despair and that the future is not bright for them. They are looking for opportunities outside our country, which would be a travesty.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have recently been going door to door. I knocked on a lot of doors in Terrebonne.

Given the results of the three recent by-elections, where the Conservative vote plummeted in Terrebonne, I think going from 18% to 3%, and lost half their vote in both University—Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest, I am wondering why the member thinks that Canadian voters as a whole are so blind to the brilliance that he brings to the debate.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for acknowledging that I am brilliant in this debate. I appreciate him making that comment.

The member refers to three by-elections in the country and is trying to correlate it somehow to what is happening in this debate here. We are debating the budget of the government and the indebtedness it is putting on Canadians. He wants to talk about politics and percentages in elections. I can say that if they keep this up, we will see what happens in the next election. We are here and not going anywhere. We are going to keep fighting for Canadians.

Our job as members of the official opposition in this country is to hold the government to account. It is getting no free lunch. Canadians deserve better than what they are getting.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week, Canadians got a fiscal update on the state of the Liberal-managed decline wrapped up in a Liberal rebranding exercise. The Liberal Prime Minister stood and announced what he calls a Canada Strong fund. It is a so-called sovereign wealth fund.

Let us be precise, because words actually matter in the chamber. A sovereign wealth fund requires one thing above all else: wealth. After 11 years of Liberal mismanagement, spiralling deficits, out-of-control inflation, skyrocketing unemployment and leaving our resources in the ground, Canada does not have sovereign wealth. What we have a lot of is sovereign debt.

Real sovereign wealth funds, whether they are in Norway, Singapore or elsewhere, are built on persistent budget surpluses. They are built on discipline. They are built on governments that live within their means and invest excess national prosperity for future generations. This is a simple concept that the Liberals seem to have never understood.

What did Canadians hear this week? They heard about a Liberal government that is running the largest deficit outside of the pandemic. It is a deficit double the size of the one was left behind by the last Liberal prime minister. They heard about a Liberal Prime Minister whose policies have driven $1.3 trillion in federal debt. They heard about a Liberal government whose direct program spending is up 12.5%, even as Canadians struggle to pay for groceries and rent. On top of all of that, they are now being told that another $25 billion will be borrowed on the backs of taxpayers. The national credit card will fund this new Liberal scheme.

This is no sovereign wealth fund. This is a sovereign debt fund.

Let us call this so-called Canada Strong fund what it is: a Liberal slush fund dressed up as a sovereign debt fund. The Liberal government will borrow money, the interest payments for which will be serviced on the backs of Canadian taxpayers and future generations, at a time when Canadians are already drowning in debt. The Liberal government will then place all of that borrowed money into a politically managed investment vehicle. It will take risks with it and hope that the returns will exceed the cost of borrowing. If they do not, Canadians will lose. If they do, Liberal insiders will enjoy the profit leveraged on the backs of Canadians.

This is not to mention that real sovereign wealth funds have investment mandates that enable them to invest globally. They are not contrived, investing in a few hand-picked domestic projects tied to Liberal insiders. That is not the sound fiscal policy the Liberal Prime Minister likes to tout. That is a gamble with other people's money. It is Canadians' money.

Speaking of Liberal insiders, let us talk about who stands to benefit, because this idea of a Liberal sovereign slush fund did not emerge in a vacuum. Back in 2024, this very concept of a multi-billion-dollar investment fund was pitched by none other than the one and only Brookfield Asset Management. Let us not forget that the Liberal Prime Minister was the chair of Brookfield for all of 2024.

The insider proposal was simple. Create a large public investment vehicle and have Brookfield help manage it by sticking its fingers into it, hand-picking investments in insider-owned projects that would get preferential regulatory treatment and gain access to fast-tracked approvals over its competitors. It would then double-dip. Brookfield would propose to co-invest alongside the so-called sovereign wealth fund and participate in any upside value. On top of that, it would be triple-dipping, because Brookfield would profit again through charging hefty investment management fees, regardless of the performance of the fund.

In other words, Brookfield would take taxpayer dollars, funnel them into a politically corporate insider slush fund and allow private financial actors to participate, with the same corporate insiders managing the funds, charging a fee and then hand-picking insider projects that are politically charged. This means that the Liberal Prime Minister and his insider friends would be profiting off the scheme and siphoning funds in multiple ways, while Canadians absorb the downside risk.

Fast-forward to this week. The Liberal Prime Minister, who has had extensive ties to Brookfield and has had stock options and equity interests connected to that firm, now unveils a fund using a strikingly similar model. Canadians are right to ask who this fund is really for. Is it for workers struggling to afford a home? Is it for families that are shouldering $3,400 a year in just federal debt interest payments? Is it for well-connected financial firms, corporate insiders and Liberal buddies of the Liberal Prime Minister who are looking to manage and siphon off billions in public capital?

This is the same corruption we saw from the last Liberal prime minister, but with more steps and buried in more bureaucracy, agencies and complex corporate legal structures under a new Liberal brand. This raises serious questions about conflicts of interest. When the Liberal Prime Minister brings forward a policy that closely resembles a proposal that was advanced by a firm while he was its chair, which he has been financially tied to, Canadians deserve answers. They deserve transparency. They deserve to know whether decisions are being made in the public interest or in the interest of the Liberal Prime Minister and his corporate insiders.

The pattern is very familiar. We have seen this movie before. We saw it when the last Liberal prime minister was in office.

Let us not forget that the Liberals have already created the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Canada growth fund and the defence bank. Each time, they promised to attract investment, productivity growth and wealth creation. Each time, they created new bureaucracies for highly paid consultants and bureaucrats and corporate positions for their Liberal friends, and all the while, they funnelled money into projects tied to Liberal insiders. Despite all of this, Canada still has the worst investment record in the G7.

How many more funds will it take before the Liberals admit that the problem is not a lack of government vehicles? The problem is Liberal government policy and Liberal corruption.

Let us take a step back. If a project has a real business case and it is viable, competitive and productive, it will naturally attract private capital and investors will fund it, not because the government says it will succeed but because the project will generate risk-adjusted returns that will exceed the cost of borrowing. That is how free markets work. That is how growth actually happens. However, if a project cannot attract private investment on its own merits, why should Canadian taxpayers be forced to take on that downside risk? Perhaps it is because the project's beneficiaries would be Liberal friends and corporate insiders.

Instead of spending taxpayer money, we could bring back $1 trillion in pension fund money that the Liberals have pushed out of Canada by fast-tracking permits, lowering taxes and unleashing free enterprise. Why should a single mother or a small business owner in Richmond Hill South be on the hook for speculative investments that are politically decided by these Liberals and that benefit only corporate insiders? They should not.

Let us take a step back and look at the broader economic picture under the Liberal Prime Minister. Today, after his one year in office, Canada has the highest household debt in the G7, the most unaffordable housing in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7, the worst food price inflation in the G7, the second-lowest productivity in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. The list goes on. I know the Liberals love slogans, but this is not a record of building Canada strong. It is a record of decline overseen by Liberal mismanagement.

Now, after all of this, the Liberals are asking Canadians to trust them with another $25 billion for the sovereign debt slush fund for Liberal insiders, and Canadians are not buying it. This week's fiscal update can only be described as a Liberal credit card budget update. It is a budget that would double the deficit left behind and mean more costs, more taxes, more debt and more inflation.

Let us look at the details a little more. It has $37 billion in net new spending announced alone, $3 billion more for international climate finance slush funds, $11 million for another investor meeting photo op and $2.3 billion to subsidize foreign-made electric vehicles.

The Liberal government's own economic update got one thing right. It predicts that growth will fall and inflation will rise this year. Layered on top of all that, there is a newly minted sovereign wealth fund with no wealth. It is just a sovereign debt fund disguising a Liberal slush fund for corporate insiders.

Canadians are not confused. They understand what is happening. They are being asked to pay more for less once again. The consequences are already being felt. Canadians are now paying $59 billion annually in debt interest, which is up 10% in just one year. That is more than we spend on health care transfers. That is more than we collect in the GST. It means that every Canadian family would now be on the hook for $3,400 in Liberal interest just to service the interest payments on all that Liberal debt. That money would not build anything the Liberal Prime Minister claims he wants to build. It would not make investments in anything this Liberal Prime Minister says he wants to invest in. It would the money of hard-working Canadians going to pay just interest to bankers and bondholders.

This is why the so-called Canada Strong fund is not the solution. It is a symptom of a Liberal government that has run out of ideas and believes that if it simply creates another Liberal institution, another Liberal acronym or another complex corporate structure wrapped in another Liberal announcement, with taxpayer money managed by highly paid Liberal government insiders, growth will somehow follow.

The problem is not the problem itself. The problem is that the Liberal government does not know how to diagnose the problem at all. Growth does not come from Liberal branding exercises or decisions that are dictated by the government in Ottawa. Growth comes from investor and consumer confidence. It comes from trade and regulatory uncertainty. It comes from having a competitive economy and efficient capital markets. The Liberal government has managed to undermine all of these conditions.

If the Liberal Prime Minister truly wanted to make Canada strong and truly wanted to make Canada wealthy, he would not be creating a sovereign debt fund on the backs of hard-working Canadians. He would be removing the barriers that are holding this country back. He would repeal the anti-resource law, Bill C-69, repeal the tanker ban, scrap the industrial carbon tax, end capital gains taxes on reinvestment in Canada and approve a pipeline or two by this summer. That is how we will unlock investment and the power of free enterprise. That is how we will create jobs and drive prosperity. That is how we will generate real, sustainable wealth for the next generation.

Canada does not need a sovereign debt fund disguising a Liberal slush fund for insiders. Canada needs a government that will get out of the way, unleash our economy and let Canadians build the wealth this country was always meant to have, from generation to generation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has really talked down this type of fund, which has been enormously successful in countries like Norway and Singapore. Both countries started the fund in similar types of ways when they were not running a surplus.

Can I ask the member why he feels this type of fund is so unsuccessful when parallel funds have worked in so many other places?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, other countries do not leave their resource wealth in the ground. They do not block their local domestic talent from being able to succeed. Other countries, like Norway, do not have the highest household debt in the G7, the most unaffordable housing in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7, the worst food price inflation in the G7, the second-lowest productivity in the G7 or the second-highest unemployment in the G7.

Maybe the member should put his economics 101 textbook down and read a jobs report for once. He should go and knock on some doors, talk to his constituents and see what Canadians are really facing on the ground.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague is pretty obvious.

Some people are criticizing us for joining forces with the Conservatives because we are against the idea. That has nothing to do with it. We analyzed the government's proposal, and it says this is similar to other funds in other countries. Not one of those funds was paid for by borrowing money and paying interest. Not only is this not a sovereign wealth fund, it is also not a politically independent fund because, at the end of the day, the projects will be selected by the Prime Minister.

What does this fund have to do with Norway's sovereign wealth fund, Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund or Singapore's sovereign wealth fund?

I would like my colleague to explain to our Liberal colleagues just how off the mark their comparison is.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is that the Liberal slush fund has nothing similar to any of the sovereign wealth funds that have been successfully created in the past by other countries.

First of all, other sovereign wealth funds are allowed to invest globally in an investment opportunity set that would maximize risk-adjusted returns. This Liberal slush fund would be restricted to a few selected investment decisions that would benefit projects tied to Liberal insiders.

Second, this Liberal slush fund was pitched by Brookfield, which is none other than the financial firm the Liberal Prime Minister was the chair of in 2024. Guess when it was pitched. It was pitched in 2024.

There are many striking similarities between this so-called sovereign debt fund and the Liberal corruption we have seen in the past.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise here today, I would like to congratulate Maria Gainey, who used to work for me. She got engaged on the weekend to her fiancé Toby, so I would like to congratulate them.

My question for my hon. colleague is around sovereign wealth funds. Alberta has a heritage fund. This is a thing that has been done already in Canada. This happened at a time when Alberta was making record profits through the oil patch. It has continued and grown to $32 billion today.

I am wondering if he has any comments about that.