House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction”, adopted at New York on June 19, 2023.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs entitled “Suicide Prevention Among Canadian Veterans”.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

    Mr. Speaker, I table the Conservatives' supplemental report to the veterans affairs committee's report on suicide prevention.

    Suicide among veterans is an epidemic in the country and is claiming more lives than many of the conflicts that have happened in this century. Despite all the cries of broken-hearted spouses, parents and siblings, the government is still failing to do enough about this.

    Although the report is a step in the right direction, the calls for action need to be stronger and more precise. Therefore, Conservatives have outlined in our supplemental report a road map for ensuring that veterans are no longer retraumatized by their own government and that they are able to access timely care so they can find peace before it is too late. We also raise the issue of MAID being pushed on veterans who are seeking help in living their life.

    To all people who serve Canada and have been lost to suicide, I say that we honour their service to Canada and we mourn their lives. Let us act now to prevent the loss of more Canadian heroes.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which relates to the motion adopted on April 20, 2026, regarding the creation of an independent Canadian military honours review board.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Federal Climate Policy at a Crossroads”.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table our dissenting Conservative report, in both official languages. While the committee's report documents the failed Liberal emissions reduction plan, it then recommends more of the same. It calls for higher industrial carbon taxes or an oil and gas emissions cap that would drive investment, jobs and production out of Canada.

     Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today in the House the supplementary report of the Bloc Québécois, which aims to build on the ambition of the main report tabled on the plan to reduce—

    The hon. member needs to seek unanimous consent to table a supplementary report.

    Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to table our supplementary report.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, I am tabling this supplementary report from the Bloc Québécois in the House today to try to make the main report on the study of the 2030 emissions reduction plan more ambitious. These reports are the result of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's first study in this Parliament, a study that was proposed by the Bloc Québécois.

    We proposed this study to respond to the dangerous and increasingly real risk that Canada will not meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. We proposed it because, despite what is currently happening on the international stage, the climate crisis has not gone away. It has not been put on pause because of tariff wars or armed conflicts, particularly the one in Iran. On the contrary, these tensions are happening at a time when extreme climate events are on the rise and they only serve to emphasize the urgent need to take action here and now to end our dependence on oil.

    The Bloc is pleased to see that the main report recommends that the federal government update its climate action plan by the end of June to clearly demonstrate that it intends to meet the 2030 target. That is essential. Solutions exist. What is lacking is political will. The government needs to get its act together after having abandoned and even gutted many of its climate measures.

    In this supplemental report, the Bloc Québécois recommends an immediate moratorium on all new oil and gas projects, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and 11 concrete measures that the government can and must implement.

    Canada and Quebec have everything to gain from quickly moving away from fossil fuels—in terms of the environment, society, the economy, public health and future job creation. The transition must happen now, not in 2050.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in relation to the motion adopted Wednesday, April 22, 2026, entitled, “Report on International Student Program Reforms, of the 2026 Spring Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

    This new audit request by the public accounts committee to the Office of the Auditor General calls for a continued look at Canada's broken immigration system, particularly at screening and at fraudulent activities. Canadians want to find solutions to our immigration system and find out what steps must be taken to do just that. We have discovered that the failures identified by the Auditor General run deep and that they run deep through several departments that are not working together.

    We urge the Auditor General to take up this audit and report back to Parliament as soon as possible.

     moved for leave to introduce Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material.

    She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill S-209. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Miville-Dechêne for her leadership to bring the bill forward. Her continued efforts in advancing this legislation reflect her strong commitment to better protecting children and young people online. I would also like to thank the member for Newmarket—Aurora for seconding the legislation.

    The bill, and its previous version in the last session, has received support across party lines. It demonstrates a shared commitment among members of the House and the other place to better protect young people. I look forward to working with all colleagues in the House in advancing this important piece of legislation.

     Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

     Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    [For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

    moved:

    He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am responding to the costly, gimmicky schemes of the Prime Minister, who now wants to put $25 billion on the national credit card to fund handouts for well-connected businesses, Liberal elites, and co-operative forces, all while increasing the cost of living for everyone: workers, small businesses, and seniors. We have seen that this Liberal government has already racked up 11 deficits on the national credit card. After a year of this Prime Minister, we are seeing higher costs, more debt, higher taxes, and more money on the credit card. He is just another Liberal.

    To have a sovereign wealth fund, there need to be funds. There are no funds because there is no surplus, unlike in Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Norway, and so on. These countries have surpluses every year, which they set aside as savings for their countries. They have no deficits.

    The Conservatives want to remove government barriers in order to attract private investment again, boost our economy and pay our bills through private production. That way, the cost of living will come down for Canadians who are already paying too much. That is how we will free up our economy and restore affordability. We will be strong at home and masters in our own house.

     Imagine someone went into their doctor's office, and suddenly the doctor injected them with some strange substance. They asked what it was, and he said that it was a poison. They then asked why he had injected them with a poison. Immediately he pulled out another syringe and injected them with an antidote, and he said he did that so he could save their life with the antidote. They asked why he had done any of it in the first place, and they were told that he wanted to save their life because that is what he does. That is exactly how Liberal economics work. The Liberals do massive economic damage to our country, and then they claim to be its solution, its antidote.

     The government blocks homebuilding with taxes and red tape then sets up a fourth federal housing agency to subsidize housing. The Liberal Prime Minister blocks resource projects with high taxes, 19‑year permitting delays, and bans on oil shipping off the B.C. coast, and then he creates massive new offices to get projects built, which promise carve-outs, bail-outs and handouts to favourite businesses.

    The Prime Minister blocks investments with high taxes, drives $1.2 trillion of pension funds out of the country and then subsidizes investment with new corporate welfare programs. He drives up the cost of living and the cost of food with inflationary money printing, carbon taxes and red tape, then prints even more money to give people cash payments to help them with the cost of the food, which he inflated. He blocks development, taxes production, regulates investment, delays permits, drives capital away, kills projects and crushes builders.

     Then, when the economy slows down, the Prime Minister shows up with a subsidy, a fund, a bank, a summit, a task force and a photo op to solve the very problem he caused. Instead of just following the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, the government does plenty of harm and then claims that it provides the cure. Like the great Ronald Reagan said, if it moves, a Liberal taxes it. If it keeps moving, he regulates it, and when it stops moving, he subsidizes it.

    Why not just get out of the way and let things move? Why not let the builder build, the worker work, the investor invest, the farmer farm, the miner mine, the manufacturer manufacture and the trucker truck? It is because then there would be no role for the Liberal politician, no power, no control, no permit to authorize and no cheque to hand out.

     If people could just launch a business, produce resources, grow food and build homes, the Prime Minister and the people within his castle walls would be irrelevant. Instead he forces everything to go through him. He basically creates a regulatory prison and charges a ransom for anyone who wants to build something to get out of it. If they want a place to live or food in their stomach, they have to wait for the government to send back some of their money. If they want to build a home or a pipeline, they have to kneel before the king and seek his good graces. If they want investment for their enterprise, they have to bow before the state.

     State-controlled crony capitalism is how the Liberal Prime Minister enriched himself. In fact, his Brookfield investments profit off government favours that typically help a tiny group of politically powerful but unproductive takers at the expense of the great mass of productive makers.

     Help is the sunny side of control. It is the illusion of action from the people who caused the problem, the illusion of investment from the people who drove the investment away and the illusion of growth from those who blocked the growth because, in this Liberal model, the economy does not belong to the people; it belongs to the politicians, bureaucrats and other authorities who control it and the powers that influence them.

     The real debate in our economy today is that of a political economy versus a market economy. A political economy allocates wealth based on power. A market economy allocates wealth based on free choice. Enter the sovereign wealth fund, which has no wealth. It is another Liberal illusion.

     Countries with real sovereign wealth funds, such as Singapore, Norway, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, accumulate surpluses year after year, which they then squirrel away and invest to grow bigger returns for their people. The Liberal Prime Minister has no surplus to invest. In fact, the net equity of the government is negative $1.3 trillion. If we take all the assets and deduct all the liabilities, that is what is left. We call that our national debt.

     Just two days ago, the Prime Minister announced that he is running the 11th Liberal deficit, which is being put on the national credit card. There is more debt, more taxes and more costs on the credit card.

    The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. In fact, he has doubled the deficit since Trudeau left office, so he has no wealth to put into the wealth fund. He has something else: debt. He wants to put $25 billion more on our national credit card to invest in politically connected companies. Who will get the money? It is those with the political power.

     The Liberal Prime Minister plans to hold yet another summit, this time with multinational corporations and billionaires, to offer them access to government money and allow them to circumvent the brutal red tape and taxes he imposes on all other businesses. He will demand that these businesses, which will ultimately get permits to go ahead and get around the restrictive red tape and taxes, will give the government an ownership stake. It is almost like charging a ransom for letting them out of the regulatory prison he has created. The million or so small businesses without lobbyists will still be stuck in that regulatory prison, forced to pay taxes to subsidize their larger, more politically powerful competitors.

    It is the golden rule: Those with the gold make the rules. The small elite turns power into wealth, wealth back into more power and then more power back into more wealth. The cycle continues until they have it all. They get richer, making everyone else poorer.

     In a political economy, the elite profit not by having the best product, but by having the best lobbyists. It is not how much value they create for customers. It is how much influence they have over ministers, regulators, agencies and insiders. The most important commodities in the political economy are influence and power.

     In a market economy, people get ahead by serving the people. We sell a product only if someone wants to buy it. We hire a worker only if the worker freely chooses the job and the employer values the work. We attract investment only if we can prove that we can create more value tomorrow than we will consume today. That is the magic of the free market. People cannot get ahead without making someone else better off. We know that because they would not engage in the voluntary transaction if it did not make them better off.

    That is why, in a free market, when one buys something and says “thank you” to the vendor, the vendor often does not say “you are welcome”. They say “thank you” back. This is because the seller values the money more than what they sold and the buyer values the product more than what they paid. If someone wants an apple and has an orange, and I want an orange and have an apple, and we trade, we still have an apple and an orange between us, but we are both richer because each of us has something worth more to us than what we had before; thus the double “thank you” when we trade.

     By contrast, a state-controlled economy is based entirely on force. Everything the government does, it does by force because taxation is mandatory and not voluntary. That is why no one ever writes “thank you” on their tax form. The transaction was imposed. Even if it was a good transaction, it was not a free one. Free exchange allows work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest. It is free people making free choices and building a free country.

    By contrast, a government-controlled economy works differently. As I said, it operates by coercion, and in relationships of coercion, the strongest always win and the weakest always get crushed. The Prime Minister quoted Thucydides in his Davos speech, saying that the strong do what they will and the weak do what they must. The government taxes, regulates and blocks the productive economy, then uses our own money to create programs that promise to fix the damage it caused. This is not Robin Hood. It is the sheriff of Nottingham. It takes from the workers, builders, taxpayers and investors, running their money through bureaucracy, consultants, lobbyists and insiders, and lets a few drops trickle back down to the people who paid for it in the first place.

     This is state-controlled crony capitalism, a system where government concentrates money in fewer hands based on power, and where most businesses and citizens never have the political clout needed to get a meeting, win a carve-out, secure a subsidy or escape that regulatory prison. Make no mistake, regulatory prison is what it is. If someone wants to build a mine or a pipeline, they must wait. If they want to build a home, they must wait. If they want to build a port, a road, a transmission line, a factory, a terminal, a refinery or a railway, they must wait, fill out the forms, hire consultants, lobby a minister, please the regulator and win some political influence. Maybe they will then have a chance. After years of delay, they might get government support, as the Prime Minister likes to call it.

    If a project is good enough to receive regulatory support, why not just approve it in the first place? Why should a company have to win over a politician to get something built? Why should a project have to give up a piece of its ownership to the state in order to escape the prison of heavy regulations? This is the model the Liberal Prime Minister believes in, and that is because it is the model that enriched him in the first place, not by doing business in the marketplace, but by using political power to get favours for his company.

    We remember that the Prime Minister pushed for heat pump subsidies. Well, Brookfield sells heat pumps. We remember that he pushed for money-printing inflation. Well, the CEO of Brookfield confirmed on May 20 of last year that Brookfield profits off of inflation, saying, “many of our things are regulated, rate-based or contractual in nature, and inflation is actually a positive to the numbers, so as inflation comes in, it actually helps the revenue streams of those businesses”.

    The Prime Minister said a little over a year ago that he had successfully lobbied for a more expensive form of so-called sustainable aviation fuel right before Brookfield, his company, invested a billion dollars in that same fuel, forcing Canadian passengers to pay higher airline fees for this more pricey fuel, which his company then profited from. This is not business; this is political manipulation. It raises the cost for everyone, especially those who do not have political power. That is the difference between the real economy and the protected economy.

     In the real economy, inflation crushes families. It raises grocery bills. It raises rent and mortgage payments. It costs people more for gas, heat and electricity. It shuts young people out of home ownership and starting families.

    In a political economy, inflation can be used as a revenue tool for elites and schemers. The government creates the rule. The rule creates the market. The insider sees the rule coming. The insider invests, and the consumer pays the politically connected profit. Everyone else is told that this is progress. Canadians will pay the price through higher inflation at the grocery store, taxes on their paycheques and debt interest for future generations.

     We have seen this movie before. I just mentioned that there is going to be a big summit where a whole series of multinationals and billionaires will come and feast on this $25 billion. This is not a new idea. In 2016, the Liberal government hosted another international summit of investors at a Shangri‑La hotel to unveil the Infrastructure Bank, a $45‑billion pot of gold that went to subsidizing the investments of insiders. Here we are, 10 years later, and a Liberal government is holding the same kind of summit to allow the same elites to feast on the same debt.

     Since the creation of the Infrastructure Bank, it has lost hundreds of millions of dollars. For its first seven years, its investment income failed to cover even its operating costs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that, when all levels of government were included, two out of every three dollars used for projects funded by the bank came from the taxpayer, not from businesses. Taxpayers lost and insiders won.

    The bank spent a quarter of a billion dollars on operations. The CEO makes $600,000 a year. It paid out $8 million in bonuses in one year. That is why a parliamentary committee studied it thoroughly and recommended it be eliminated. Now, instead of doing that, the Liberals are augmenting it with yet another slush fund.

    Then, in September of 2024, the then Liberal finance minister Chrystia Freeland pledged to create a Canada growth fund, seeded with taxpayers' dollars, to try to bring back the $1.2 trillion of pension funds that the Liberal government had driven abroad. Who was tapped to administer that fund? It was Brookfield.

    That was barely two years ago, and here we go again. There is another summit, another fund, another transition office and another name for the same old Liberal idea. There is an illusion of change, but the reality is that it is more of the same.

     Desjardins wrote that the proposed fund draws strong parallels to the Infrastructure Bank. The Montreal Economic Institute called it “essentially the Canadian Infrastructure Bank under a different name.” It is the same poison with a new label, more costs, more corruption, more debt, more taxes and more on the credit card. The Liberal Prime Minister is just another Liberal.

     We have seen how we can build wealth when we unlock the power of the free enterprise system. The answer is not to weigh the economy down with even more government agencies on top of the countless number that already existed a year ago, and the 13 new ones that the Prime Minister has since created. We need to unblock and unlock the potential of our resources and our people.

     The answer is more economic freedom, such as the freedom to build, to produce, to hire, to invest and to compete. We must replace an economy of carve-outs, handouts and bailouts for insiders with free choice, opportunity and affordability. If a project is safe, lawful and in the national interest, just approve it. If a company can build without taxpayers' money, let it build now. If workers can build bigger paycheques by producing energy, minerals, food, homes, steel, aluminum, copper and more, we need to get the government out of the way and let them do it. Let businesses compete for customers, not political favour. Let entrepreneurs win with the best product, not the best lobbyists. Let workers earn a powerful paycheque, not wait for government handouts. Let Canadians build sovereign wealth, not borrow sovereign debt.

    This is the choice: state-controlled crony capitalism, where political influence becomes the most valuable commodity, or a free market where work, savings, risk-taking and service create prosperity for everyone. The options are a top-down, state-controlled, crony capitalist system or a bottom-up, merit-based, free enterprise system. A political aristocracy or an economic meritocracy is the choice.

     We want this to be a country that restores the promise to the people that anyone who works hard can enjoy an affordable home, a safe street, good food on the table and realize their dreams. We want a country where our people get ahead by having the best product and the best work, not by having the most political influence.

    We do not want a country of bureaucrats and busybodies, of gatekeepers and grifters, of tax collectors and toll masters. We want a country of artists and adventurers, entrepreneurs and explorers, workers and warriors, pioneers and patriots. That is the country we seek to build. Now, let us get to building.

    Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Canadians had the opportunity to decide. It was a decision that was made based on how the economy was doing. People were genuinely concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade. They were concerned about the economy and affordability. They looked at the leader of the Conservative Party and contrasted him with the leader of the Liberal Party, who had been appointed as the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of England, and who has had an impeccable career dealing with economic measures.

     The Canada Strong fund, a national sovereign wealth fund, is something that Canada needs. It is something Canadians will support, because they understand the necessity of supporting Canada's economy, and at the same time, supporting Canadians.

    Why does the leader of the Conservative Party not support a government that invests in Canada and invests in Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. The member has been giving the same speech on the same Liberal side for the last decade. He speaks, and the reality—

    An hon. member: As you have done for 22 years.

    Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, for 22 years, on every single economic issue, I have been proven right. On every single economic issue, the Liberal Prime Minister has been proven wrong.

    The Prime Minister was wrong to say that we needed bigger and broader carbon taxes. He was wrong to say that we needed to keep 50% of our oil in the ground. He was wrong to testify before a parliamentary committee against the northern gateway pipeline, which would be moving $30 billion of oil overseas today, had the government not blocked it. He was wrong to say that we would have deflation after COVID. He was wrong to say that money printing would not cause inflation. He was wrong just weeks ago when he said that affordability is the best it has been in the decade. How is it that he has been so wrong for so long?

     Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. I believe he hit the nail on the head when he started his speech by describing the new Canada Strong fund as a “gimmick”. I would like to thank him on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

    The Leader of the Opposition has economic expertise. I have heard many MPs and ministers, and even the Liberal Prime Minister, compare the new Canada Strong fund to Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

    Could the Leader of the Opposition explain the difference between the sovereign wealth fund—Norway's genuine sovereign wealth fund—and the sovereign wealth fund of the new Liberal government?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his compliment about the expression I used in French, “patente à gosses”. Every day, I try to learn a little more of the language of Molière. A little poetry can sometimes be a delight.

    The difference is that Norway's sovereign wealth fund contains funds. It is simple. We do not have any funds here. The people of Norway have surpluses because they take revenue from the oil industry, which makes up 25% of their economy, and they put that revenue in a fund and invest it.

    Here in Canada, we do not have surpluses. We have deficits year after year. The government is just going to put this investment on the credit card. It is taking big risks with money that belongs to future generations by charging this to the credit card. That is irresponsible, and it is the opposite of what the folks in Norway do.

     Mr. Speaker, we have seen the statistics. We in Canada now have had six consecutive quarters of more businesses shutting down than opening up. It is an entrepreneurial drought. Of course, these are the Canadians who have been grinding it out, opening early, closing late and making personal sacrifices. They cite regulatory uncertainty, delays in permitting and overtaxation. These are the Canadian dollars that are actually leaving the country.

    My question for the member is, does he think this fund will fix those issues?

    Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The member is quite right. For six consecutive quarters, there have been more businesses that have closed than opened in Canada. A recent survey showed there are twice as many Canadian businesses that opened in 2024 outside of Canada than inside of Canada.

     For the elbows-up crowd in the room, Canadians are now opening more businesses in the United States than they are opening in Canada. In the last decade, $1 trillion of net investment has flowed out of our country. A majority of Canadian pension funds are, according to Statistics Canada, invested abroad and not here at home, a problem that has worsened since the Prime Minister took office.

    Now, the question was very particular: Would the million small businesses across this country benefit? Of course not. They will not be invited to the investment summit. It will just be for large multinational corporations that have political power. Small businesses that serve customers will lose. Multinationals that serve politicians in power will win.

     Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's speech, but obviously I do not share his pessimism about the sovereign wealth fund. Generations ago we had examples with victory bonds, with war bonds. We have had examples of Canadians stepping up, especially at times when Canada's sovereignty has been tested, throughout our history, when Canadians want to participate in investing in the future that they want to build for this country.

    Would the member not say that this is a welcome opportunity for Canadians to be able to participate in the prosperity and growth that the government is moving forward on?

    Mr. Speaker, there is no prosperity and growth to participate in. This economy has not grown in a decade. In fact, Canada has had the worst economic performance of all G7 countries. Since the Liberal Prime Minister took office, nothing has changed. There has been no regulatory reform and no tax reform, and not a single antidevelopment law has been eliminated. Other than to rename the carbon tax as the clean fuel standard, there has been no serious tax reform. Finally, and I guess it is the only difference, the deficit is twice the size now of what it was under Justin Trudeau.

    Now, as for participating in growing the Canadian economy, people have the freedom right now to buy into a Canadian stock index if they want to do that. I do not understand why they need the government to force them to take on a $25-billion liability on the credit card for the Liberal government to dole out, in a political slush fund, to those politically powerful corporations.

    Mr. Speaker, among other things, this so-called sovereign wealth fund—so called because that is the tagline the liberal government baptized it with—is tasked with investing in projects selected by the Major Projects Office. The thing is, the Prime Minister himself is the one who decides what projects to send to the Major Projects Office.

    We were told the sovereign wealth fund would be independent, but how can it be independent if the Prime Minister is the one choosing which projects to fund?

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to be king of the economy. He is holding on to all kinds of regulations that are hurting businesses. Businesses that are getting ahead are being slapped down with hefty taxes, except for a small group personally chosen by the Prime Minister. The member is absolutely right: Under the law, these powers all belong to the Prime Minister. That is no exaggeration. These special businesses will be able to sidestep all the rules and receive subsidies and gifts from the fund, which opens the door to corruption and leaves millions of small businesses out in the cold.

    Why not open up the free market so that all businesses can prosper?

    Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition is about the fact that this fund is, basically, being funded on the taxpayers' credit cards. We are already paying to service our national debt, and this will just add to it. Going forward, it is going to have an impact on the hon. leader's children, my daughter and the youth in this country being able to live a prosperous life in the future.

    Mr. Speaker, it is now $60 billion of annual interest, money for bankers and bondholders, not doctors and nurses, and $3,400 from every family will go to pay interest on the federal debt this year. That number will go up by 50% over the next five years. This is the fastest-growing item on the government's budget right now: interest on the debt.

    It will enrich the bankers and the bondholders at the expense of hard-working people and threaten the future of our kids. That is why we need to restore fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and controlled spending.

    Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I do not share the views and pessimism coming from the Conservative leader in the House.

    I appreciate the opportunity to speak today about the sovereign wealth fund that our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance announced just before the spring economic update.

    There is no doubt that Canada's economy is at a very important moment, a hinge moment. Around the world, countries are competing for investment, talent and opportunity. Supply chains are shifting dramatically, global energy systems are evolving quickly, and technological change is accelerating, especially with the AI revolution. In this environment, economic strength does not happen by accident. It is built deliberately through smart policy, strong partnerships and a clear focus on long-term growth.

    Our government has been focused on what we can control. There are many things we cannot control, but there are many that we can. Building a strong, sustainable and inclusive economy is within our control, an economy that is backed by an ambitious plan to help enable $1 trillion in total investment across Canada over the next five years. That plan is well under way. We saw in the spring economic update quite a large number of signs of progress.

    As we build a stronger Canada, we must ensure that all Canadians can benefit, now and for generations to come. The spring economic update 2026 builds on the momentum of budget 2025 with strategic investments that support productivity, innovation, growth and competitiveness, and that position Canada for long-term prosperity. This means delivering generational infrastructure and nation-building projects, like the 21 projects listed, with $125 billion in new investment and over 60,000 jobs.

    It also means diversifying Canada's trade. We have seen 20 new trade and security agreements signed and a 38% increase in non-U.S. trade over the short term, or a time frame of just about eight months. We are also supporting workers and young people. In the spring economic update, we see an initiative to recruit, train and hire 80,000 to 100,000 more skilled trade workers. On building more homes, we are accelerating $7 billion in low-cost financing for rental apartment construction.

    It also means protecting the safety and security of Canadians. We see the creation of the financial crimes agency, and security for places of worship, in the spring economic update. These are very important initiatives. We are also investing in strong communities. We see sports, from playground to podium. We see small craft harbours, mostly in Atlantic Canada but recognizing that they are all across our coastal communities and very important to building strong communities.

    The government is making these key investments while maintaining Canada's strong fiscal stewardship, which has positioned Canada, according to the International Monetary Fund, to have the second-fastest projected growth in the G7 and the strongest fiscal position in the G7. Let me repeat that. We have the strongest fiscal position in the G7, according to the International Monetary Fund. That is good news. I know Conservatives do not like to hear that, but it is good news for Canada and certainly a sign that we are building prosperity from a position of strength.

    One of the measures announced in the spring economic update was the creation of the Canada Strong fund, Canada's first sovereign wealth fund. Sovereign wealth funds are not just financial tools but nation-building investments in the future of a country. They represent a country's belief in its own future. They take today's revenues, often generated from hard-won economic strength, and invest them with purpose, discipline and a long-term view.

    Instead of spending everything in the moment, sovereign wealth funds build enduring assets that can support generations to come. This is the intention of the Canada Strong fund. It will do exactly that. It will help more Canadians be able to participate in the generational wealth building that we are achieving together. Through an initial federal contribution of $25 billion, the fund will strategically invest, alongside the private sector and based on commercial terms, in Canadian projects and companies driving our economic transformation.

    This includes projects in clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, agriculture and the infrastructure that we need in this country. The returns will be reinvested to grow the Canada Strong fund, so it will be compound growth, strengthening its capacity over time. As that fund grows, it will direct capital toward investments with the highest potential return for Canada and Canadians.

    To ensure that Canadians have the option to invest in the growth of our nation and share in the returns, the government will launch a retail investment product, which will be principal-protected. This will give Canadians a direct stake in our nation's long-term prosperity and help build long-term national wealth.

    The Canada Strong fund will operate at arm's length from government. We will create a new Crown corporation, and its work will be guided by a CEO and a qualified, independent board of directors. This model will ensure that both in the near term and in the long term the fund remains focused on its mission: supporting the transformation of the economy and creating wealth for Canadians.

    Canadian companies and investors are coming forward to build Canada's future, and investors from around the world are choosing to invest in that future. We have seen many examples of this, with foreign direct investment in Canada reaching an almost 20‑year high, $97 billion of inflows. This is significant progress over the last 20 years. We see this as being a high point. We have heard from RBC, our largest bank, and from our largest pension plan, the Canada pension plan, that Canada is garnering the attention of many global investors. This is really strong evidence or signs that our plan is working.

    Transformational projects and companies that will help build and create a stronger, more independent and more resilient economy for Canada will stand to benefit from the sovereign wealth fund. The Canada Strong fund takes one step further, making sure that all Canadians are the beneficiaries of the financial returns that these projects will generate.

    Not only are we making it easier for those projects to get off the ground through the Major Projects Office, but we are also ensuring that our indigenous partners are able to participate through the loan guarantee program that our government has capitalized. We also want to make sure that all Canadians can participate in the proceeds that will come from the strong returns from many of these large infrastructure projects.

    This is how we ensure that Canadians have a direct stake in our nation's long-term prosperity. It is one of the many things our government is doing to build Canada strong. In addition to the Canada Strong fund, our government is securing a more prosperous, competitive and sovereign future through initiatives like the buy Canadian policy and the Major Projects Office.

    I want to take a moment and talk about solidarity. The Prime Minister, in his famous speech at Davos, talked about solidarity. I think that, now more than ever, Canadians want to be a part of the Canada Strong plan. They want to be a part of building the strongest, most prosperous country in the G7. They are inspired by that vision. I think they see the potential.

    The sovereign wealth fund, the first ever in Canada, which I have long thought would be a good idea, enables Canadians to show their solidarity by putting in small amounts they are able to invest in Canada's future and then benefiting from the proceeds and the prosperity we are building together. That, to me, is a great sign of solidarity. Canadians can help build this country in many different ways. They can become skilled tradespersons, but they are also able to invest in major infrastructure projects and very large projects. This is a way they can come alongside.

    The sovereign wealth fund will come alongside institutional investors from both around the world and here in Canada to ensure that Canadians benefit in many ways from these projects. Not only are we going to get a boost in productivity from these major infrastructure projects, as many of them support us getting more goods to foreign markets so we can help diversify the economy, but they are also going to have significant returns. We want to make sure that Canadians can participate in that.

    The spring economic update outlined a clear plan to build a strong and resilient Canada, built by Canadians with Canadian materials for Canadians.

     Ultimately, the goal is very straightforward. It is about ensuring that Canada can compete globally, attract the investment we need and create opportunity here at home for all Canadians. It is about building an economy that is resilient in the face of global change and the many challenges and headwinds we face, inclusive in its outcomes and strong enough to support future generations. We want to make sure the Canada we are building will create generational wealth for Canadians. It is about making thoughtful choices today that set Canada up not just to grow, but to lead for the future.

    The Canada Strong fund is a great example of how we will do this, turning today's resources into tomorrow's opportunities and investing for long-term prosperity, resilience and a shared sense of national success. It is that sense of solidarity all Canadians have, that sense of pride in our country, that sense of the strength we have in all of us, that grit we have as Canadians: that we want to build a better future, that we want to do it together, that we are a part of the same mission and vision as a country, and that we all should participate and benefit from the prosperity we are building together.

    I am happy to take questions.

    Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to me. As Conservatives, we believe Canada is one of the greatest countries in the world, and we should be the wealthiest country in the world. We have unlimited natural resources. We are the envy of the entire world when it comes to our energy resources, yet here we are in massive deficits run for 10 years by Liberal governments.

    Where does the member think the wealth should come from for this so-called wealth fund?

     Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite and I share many differences, but the one thing we can agree on is that Canada is the greatest country in the world and has the greatest potential to be even stronger and more prosperous than it is today. This is exactly what the sovereign wealth fund intends to do. Again, it is to help all Canadians be able to participate in the prosperity that we are building and those major projects, which are going to have high returns. I know members opposite believe in many of those projects that run through their parts of the country, which are going to benefit their communities with work opportunities and with new tax revenue for other levels of government, including the federal government. The sovereign wealth fund is going to help us give Canadians the opportunity to participate in that prosperity.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member opposite. The government talks about a sovereign wealth fund, but we know perfectly well that this fund is only masquerading as one. Sovereign wealth funds exist in almost every country of the world. They are based on savings and what people decide to put away for future needs. In this case, however, the fund is based on debt, not savings.

    My questions for my colleague opposite are as follows. How much debt has Canada taken on to create this phoney sovereign wealth fund? How much is this extra debt going to cost taxpayers annually?

    Mr. Speaker, I know there is much we can learn from other entities around the world that are similar to the Canada sovereign wealth fund. We can draw lessons from Quebec's generations fund and from Alberta's heritage savings trust fund. We can draw learnings from Norway and Singapore. Many of these large income-generating national wealth funds have been built over decades. The idea for Canada to be setting one of these up now has the perfect timing, in my view. In fact, I would suggest that we should have done this probably 30 years ago, but it is really great that we are going to do this now to be able to have a nest egg that builds wealth in this country and distributes it to everyday Canadians.

     Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to just how important this is in recognizing that we want to build a strong, healthy economy. We have set the goal of being the strongest in the G7. That is the goal. Part of that is recognizing that whether it is looking for trade opportunities or attracting investment into Canada or the Canada Strong fund or the sovereign wealth fund, these are all part of a much bigger picture that the Prime Minister and this government have put forward to the House in order to emphasize how critically important it is to build Canada strong for all Canadians.

     Mr. Speaker, that question is one that I feel very passionate about answering, because there are many things we are doing on many fronts.

     The Major Projects Office obviously addresses challenges that this country has faced, in terms of streamlining projects and getting approvals where investment has not been strong enough in Canada. That is exactly the intent of the Major Projects Office, to remove a lot of the barriers for investment to come into Canada and to streamline that process so we can build big things again in this country.

     That is great news, but it is only part of the picture. In our budget, we moved forward with new investment tax credits and strengthening those, the clean economy investment tax credits. We moved forward with major deductions and immediate expensing for businesses across Canada so they can invest in new machinery and equipment, research and development, protecting their intellectual property and much more. These things help attract investment in this country.

    That is exactly what we are doing, and the sovereign wealth fund is an example of how we ensure that Canadians can benefit from that.

     Mr. Speaker, people in Saskatchewan have lived through this nightmare before: “Trust us; the government can do it better.” This reminds me of the NDP in the 1990s and early 2000s in Saskatchewan, when the government invested money from Crown corporations and taxpayers' dollars in things like Spudco, where it lost $30 million, things like Navigata, where it lost $12 million, and things like mega bingo, where it could not even run a bingo properly and lost $14 million.

     The member just mentioned that a lot of different funds in Canada and around the world are similar to this. The big difference, and the part that he left out and that all Liberals will leave out, is that those were all built on surplus budgets. Alberta's, for example, started in 1972, under former premier Peter Lougheed, when he had surpluses. Now that fund is $32 billion, at the start of 2025, built on surpluses.

    Why do the Liberals not understand that governments build money when they have it, not borrow money?

     Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the member opposite has such an opposition to the thought that everyday Canadians should be able to do this. When I was a kid, I had a paper route. I saved money every month, and my parents encouraged me to buy Canada savings bonds. This is essentially doing a similar thing. The Government of Canada is saying that it is going to help attract investment and build a stronger economy in Canada, and it wants to create retail opportunities so that everyday Canadians, around their kitchen table, can say, “Hey, we want to participate in the prosperity that we are building.”

     I know the members opposite do not like it when I talk about the paper route I had as a kid, for some reason, but buying those government savings bonds was a great tool to build wealth. My parents encouraged me to do that when I was young. We did it during the war and at any time in history when our sovereignty was tested. This is the perfect time, in my view, to help make it attractive to Canadians and give them the opportunity to participate in the process.

    Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is astounding. In response to a question my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asked earlier, the hon. member opposite had the nerve to say that Canada's new sovereign wealth fund is similar to Norway's, when, as my colleague explained so well, the two are nothing alike.

    There is something else that is a little unusual about the Liberals' argument regarding this new sovereign wealth fund. They claim that this fund is sovereign and independent. However everyone knows perfectly well that these projects will be funded through the Major Projects Office and that they will be the direct result of the Prime Minister's decisions. The Liberals themselves have said so.

    When they say that this fund is independent, how can they justify that in a clear, transparent and honest way?

     Mr. Speaker, the member can be assured that this will be independent, because it will be set up as a separate Crown corporation with an independent board and CEO, and it will operate under commercial terms. It will invest money in order to get returns for Canadians. We will see that fund grow over time and continue to invest in large projects that have good financial returns and will pay dividends to everyday Canadians. It is a great concept.

     I know that members opposite have every right to debate this. That is what the House of Commons is for. What I take issue with is the overall pessimism they have about a sovereign wealth fund. There are many examples around the world of how this can really help achieve national and generational wealth.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. Which one of the Prime Minister's banker buddies is going to be the CEO of this fund?

    Mr. Speaker, what is great about this fund is that we are leveraging our strong fiscal position in Canada. Again, the IMF said Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We just reported $11 billion less in the deficit. We have cut operating spending and increases. We are moving down from 8%, on average, to 2%. We are doing that, all while supporting Canadians with affordability measures and building a stronger economy.

    We want to ensure that Canadians can benefit from the generational wealth we are building.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, it would be amusing if the truth and the reality were not so sad.

     I would like to get my hon. colleague's comments on what the previous speaker said about how Canadians want to have the opportunity to invest. In this situation, does he believe people will not be voluntarily contributing money? It is the government taking from our tax dollars to do it, and that is a completely different perspective from what the Liberals are proposing.

    I completely agree with my colleague.

    The Prime Minister tells us that we are going to invest to build Canada strong, but in reality, it is the private sector that is going to invest in oil projects, ports and all that. There is money to be made. He waited a while, did some networking, travelled around the world, and then realized that no one was showing up. Then he wondered what he should do and decided that the solution was to put our money into it.

    However, he had already gone into debt. His deficits are twice as large as Justin Trudeau's. He has no money left, so he is planning to borrow money to keep things going, but get the private sector involved too. How will the private sector get involved? The day before the economic update, he told us that he did not have many details to share at that time, that perhaps the money could be guaranteed, and that he would provide details during the economic update. The next day, when the economic update was tabled, we were told that the details would be provided in a few months. We are being left in the dark.

    The Canada Strong fund does much the same thing as the Canada Infrastructure Bank. If there were a desire to invest direct funds—borrowed money—the government could simply modify the existing structure rather than creating a new one, which is unnecessary. Clearly, the government is instead choosing to invest by borrowing taxpayers' money for projects that are not profitable for the private sector.

    Mr. Speaker, arguably, the unholy alliance is alive and well, as the Bloc and the Conservatives have united once again in order to oppose a good idea. A Canada Strong fund is there to support, in a very real and tangible way, the potential development of major projects. These projects would deliver thousands of jobs and increase Canada's GDP.

     I guess that is all bad news for the Conservatives and the Bloc today. They do not see the idea and the principle behind having a sovereign wealth fund.

     Other nations have developed these funds, so why not Canada? Why are the Bloc and the Conservative Party against Canada having a sovereign wealth fund when there are other countries in the world that have them?

     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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

     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?

    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.

    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?

     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.

    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.

    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.

    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—

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

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

     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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

     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.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: 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—

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

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

    There is no point of order.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    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.

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

     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—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member may conclude his remarks.

    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.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: 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—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: 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.

     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?

     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.

    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?

    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.

     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?

     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.

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

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Anthony Housefather: I also thank the member for Lakeland for having the best laugh in the House.

    Mr. Speaker, it is funny that there are so many statistics related to Canada's performance within the G7 that are so favourable to Canada, and yet some in the opposition basically say, “Well, it doesn't matter. We're only comparing ourselves to ourselves, so what does it matter what the debt ratio is in France or in England?” Then with other statistics that they say are negative, they spout the same G7 statistics.

    Does the member find that to be a contradiction?

    Mr. Speaker, many years ago, I took a course dealing with stats and how stats could ultimately be twisted and so forth. The bottom line is, I believe if we do a relative comparison between Canada and the G20 countries or the G7 countries, more often than not, we will find Canada in the top three and often the top two in terms of overall performance. I am very comfortable with where we are compared to other nations, in particular within the G20.

    Mr. Speaker, this sovereign debt fund is nothing new. The Liberal government has had funds like this before. One is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is supposed to disburse its $35‑billion capital envelope by 2027-28, but on July 10, the PBO reported it had disbursed only $14.9 billion and it was $21 billion short of its target. These Liberals fail every time they try to attract investment. There is nothing but failure that has followed this Prime Minister everywhere he has gone, whether it be the Bank of England or the Bank of Canada. He has printed money and caused inflation everywhere. People from Saskatchewan have seen this movie before where the government thinks it can invest their money better than they can, and it has ended in a complete failure and out-migration. I am scared to see the same thing happen to Canada, which I love.

    How can people trust this unethical, corrupt government to actually invest money properly?

    Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to sell the Canadian public literally false information to try to give the impression that Canada is broken and that everything is an absolute failure. No one believes him. At the end of the day, I would ultimately argue, as I have in the past, that Canada is, and will continue to be, the best country—

    Order. There is a point of order from the member for Regina—Lewvan.

    Mr. Speaker, the member said I made a false statement. I would like him to clarify what statement was false.

     Again, that is not a point of order. We are in questions and comments. I am not going to give the chance to respond because there is no point of order.

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada's new sovereign wealth fund is neither sovereign nor independent, and yet my colleague continues to compare it to Norway's sovereign wealth fund. The only thing these two funds have in common—because they do indeed have one thing in common—is the name.

    My question is very specific, and I would like my colleague to answer it. If the government buys a cat and tells everyone it is a horse, does he think people will call it a horse or a cat?

    Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians as a whole are very smart. They understand that there are dozens of other countries around the world that have some form of sovereign wealth fund. The Canada Strong fund that is being created as a national sovereign wealth fund here in Canada is a positive thing. I can understand the Bloc does not want to see it. I am disappointed that the Conservatives are opposing it, but at the end of the day, this fund will generate significant investments. It will provide thousands of jobs, I would ultimately argue, into the future. It will provide an economic boost. It will provide improvements in the overall GDP. I believe we should be supporting it.

     Mr. Speaker, there is an old joke about a man who racks up an enormous credit card debt, takes a second mortgage, opens a savings account and tells his wife it did not cost them anything. That joke is a pretty accurate description of the government's economic policy, and we are all the wife.

    The Prime Minister has announced a $25-billion so-called sovereign wealth fund, and Canadians deserve a serious accounting of what has actually been put in front of them. Let us begin with the most fundamental question: What precisely is a sovereign wealth fund? A real one would be built on genuine surpluses. We heard in the House today about Norway. Norway's government pension fund, the model the Prime Minister so eagerly name-drops, was capitalized by petroleum revenues. It has $1 trillion of assets because Norway saved when times were good.

    Canada is not Norway. Norway has oil money and Canada has vibes and a $25-billion credit card statement. We are running an almost $70-billion deficit in the current fiscal year alone, double the last guy's, so we do not have surpluses to invest. We have deficits to finance, and $25-billion seed money in this fund is not savings. It is actually borrowed money any way we look at it. It is debt finance, like every other federal expenditure that exceeds our revenues. The Prime Minister is not building a wealth fund. He is building a debt fund, and he should be honest with Canadians about it.

    Let us be clear about what it means for every Canadian household. The government is borrowing at roughly 3.5% or 4% on 10-year bonds and betting that a bureaucratic Crown corporation run by political appointees will outperform the cost of that capital. It is leveraged speculation with taxpayer collateral, and not the nation building that the Prime Minister is suggesting it is.

    I have heard Liberal government members say that this fund will be different, that it will be more transparent, more accountable and better governed. I would feel more confident about that claim if they could tell us who is going to govern it, how the projects would be selected, when it would be operational and what relationship any of this would have to the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the Canada Growth Fund. They cannot answer any of those questions today, and we will see that throughout the day. I am certainly not alone in asking them.

    This announcement landed with a giant thud. The sovereign wealth fund proposal was met with near-universal skepticism, disbelief and, frankly, pure ridicule. The Globe and Mail, not exactly a Conservative voice in Canada, observed this week that the pension funds that presumably partner with this vehicle, including the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, were not even consulted before this announcement was made.

    The CPP Investment Board, to its credit, said that the key to long-term success for any public investment institution is “a clear commercial mandate, strong governance, and operational independence.” That is a politely worded way of saying that it has concerns. We should have concerns, because the question cuts to the heart of this whole exercise. The fund's mandate is politically directed toward domestic infrastructure such as ports, mines and trade corridors, with diversification explicitly not a priority. It is then not truly an investment fund at all.

    In the Globe's words, it is an “off-balance sheet vehicle for fiscal policy.” That is a government wealth fund in a costume. It is actually just another government program. We have seen this movie before and we know how it ends. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which members might remember now as the green slush fund, sent $400 million out to Liberal-backed pet projects with 186 identified conflicts of interest, zero accountability and zero measurable results.

    The Canada Infrastructure Bank was also endowed with $45 billion in infrastructure. It spent a fraction of that on actual construction while handing out $8 million in bonuses since 2024. The Prime Minister himself made these comparisons earlier this week. With respect, I do not think it is the endorsement he thinks it is.

    Here is a deeper problem. The reason that major projects are not getting built in Canada is not a lack of government capital, and that is the point here. There is not a lack of capital in Canada. They can ask anybody. If an infrastructure project is not moving forward, it is almost certainly because the private sector stakeholders have determined that it is not economically viable or because of the absurd regulatory environment. They have told us this. One does not solve an onerous regulatory environment by creating a new Crown corporation to fund projects the private sector stakeholders already said no to. One solves it by fixing the actual regulatory environment. Even industry leaders are telling the Financial Times, not a Conservative blog but the Financial Times of London, saying that the government's red-tape cutting efforts are already floundering, costing more in lost trade than Trump's tariffs ever did. Forestry executives are frustrated. People in the oil and gas sector are frustrated. Auto executives are frustrated. What do we do? We create another bypass around the dysfunction, instead of fixing the dysfunction itself.

    The Liberals have created an $18-billion-a-year regulatory burden. They have interprovincial trade barriers in place that knock $200 billion off our GDP. They are married to Bill C-69, the tanker ban, the policy uncertainty that has chased a trillion dollars out of this economy over the 10 years. Capital did not flee Canada because there was no government bank to subsidize it. It fled because it was simply unprofitable to do business here. A $25-billion Band-Aid applied over a gaping wound does not close the wound. It just becomes a really expensive Band-Aid that Canadians will end up paying for.

    There are real alternatives to this. We could genuinely cut taxes so that families have more in their pockets every single month and business owners have a reason to stay here or to open up their business here in the first place. We can eliminate red tape and trade barriers that cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic activity every year. I just do not understand how that is never the solution that they go to. We could fast-track approvals and start building things rather than funding another Ottawa office to study the feasibility of someday perhaps getting something built. We could scrap the bad laws, including Bill C-69, the tanker ban and the industrial carbon tax. They are actively preventing pipelines, mines and LNG terminals from being constructed. That is not this side of the House saying that. That is the industry representatives themselves. None of this would require borrowing $25 billion of new money. All of it would create much more wealth than the government ever could.

    That is how to build a country, not on borrowed money funnelled through a Crown corporation whose governance, mandate and accountability mechanisms have yet to be designed but were announced first and with details to follow. Canadians get to pay the bill.

     This House is owed answers that the government has not provided. Who runs the fund? How much in terms of management fees did they get? On what criteria are projects approved? What prevents them from being another vehicle for the same Liberal patronage networks that have embarrassed the government repeatedly? We will keep asking those questions. We will keep being the voice of every single Canadian who can see clearly what this is.

     When this was announced, I could not find a whole lot of people who were excited about it, except for the members on the other side of the House. They keep telling Canadians that Canadians do not understand the potential of this and this is based on hope, but everything this would do is the opposite of what the government says it is going to do. It is going to spend borrowed money, pick winners and losers, mostly losers, in our own economy and distort the market.

    Canada's federal deficit sits at 2.1% of GDP. It is higher than it was last year. That is not lower. That is going in the wrong direction. Interest on the debt is heading past $80 billion annually, double what it was just four years ago.

     I will close with a sincere request for the government. Put down the $25-billion chequebook, step away from the podium at the Canada Science and Technology Museum and try something truly novel the government could not do in over a decade. Get out of the way, so that private capital and private business could be put to work here once and for all.

    Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions already today. There is a theme coming out of the Conservative Party. I recognize that and it is a very simple one, which is just to get out of the way. It is something that the Conservatives have said, not only in regard to this policy but in regard to a litany of virtually all policies that the Conservative Party seems to want to favour.

    Do members of today's new Conservative Party believe there are circumstances and actions that the government can take that would support the economy, that would involve things such as sovereign wealth funds or an infrastructure bank? Does she have any—

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Thornhill.

    Mr. Speaker, I know that we are discussing the sovereign wealth fund today, but this is not what the government is proposing. In fact, the Liberals cannot even talk about it in their questions. The sovereign wealth fund, or the sovereign debt fund, that they are proposing is the exact opposite of one that would actually work. It would work in an economy where we have surpluses and resource revenue, and it would invest outside the country and not distort the market within the country by picking the very projects that make it unprofitable in the first place for businesses to invest.

     This is the problem with the Liberals' government. Every single time, their solution is to come in and distort the market, regulate the market and subsidize the market so nobody can build here. That is evidenced by the $1 trillion of capital that has fled this country.

    Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. At times, we do agree with the Conservatives. When that happens, perhaps the government should listen.

    The government, as part of its Canada Strong fund—which it likes to describe as a sovereign wealth fund—has determined that project selection would be carried out by the Major Projects Office and that these projects would first be chosen by the Prime Minister's Office.

    Does my colleague find it reassuring that a supposedly independent fund will ultimately have to select its investments from the Prime Minister's choices?

     Mr. Speaker, it is always an interesting day here when we agree with the Bloc Québécois.

     This government has now put forward a 13th new bureaucracy. All of these bureaucracies have one thing in common: They are there to distort the market. Private companies chose not to invest in something, so the government comes and backfills that capital, which already exists in this country, by choosing the projects that go forward. That is the opposite of how a free market works. It is the opposite of how this country was built throughout generations. I cannot understand why the Liberal government always chooses the wrong path when it comes to building Canada's future.

     Mr. Speaker, with regard to Norway's sovereign wealth fund, I decided to do the same thing as the Prime Minister, because he is a wise person. I decided that what I would do is take the bulk of the money out of my credit card, put it in my savings account and call it “Scott's retirement fund”. Then I went to my accountant, who said that I would never retire. I was wondering if the member could explain to me why that is.

     Mr. Speaker, that is what some people call “girl math”. I call it “Liberal math.”

    I have been guilty of doing the same thing. I see a very expensive thing that I absolutely cannot afford, and I buy it on sale when it is 5% off. I convince myself that I got all these savings for it. That is Liberal math. That is how the math works in this place.

     Canadians do not need a wealth fund. They need a government that is going to handle affordability in a responsible way and stop leveraging the national credit card so Canadians have to leverage theirs for groceries.

    Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, I remember a time when hard work paid off in Canada, when people could start a business or a family with hope for a bright and prosperous future, and when government did not stand in the way of businesses, pick winners and losers in industry and society, or tax Canadians, businesses and entrepreneurs at every turn. That was just over a decade ago, under the last Conservative government, led by Stephen Harper. Canada had a balanced budget and a $1‑billion surplus. Canada had the strongest economy in the G7, with the largest and most prosperous middle class in the world. That is the Canada the Liberals inherited. Since then, they have imposed punitive laws that landlock and roadblock Canadians, entrepreneurs, investors and inventors with costly red tape, mixed messages and constantly shifting policies and regulations.

     Today, the Prime Minister sits in the same chair he advised for the last half-decade, where he pushed policies that strangled the Canadian economy and drove $1 trillion of investment out of Canada and into the United States, which probably explains why he moved Brookfield south of the border. The results speak for themselves. After 11 years of this same Liberal government and a year of this Prime Minister with all the same key players, Canada now has the highest household debt, the most unaffordable housing, the lowest investment per worker, the second-worst productivity and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. The Prime Minister cannot blame global factors. Other countries face the same pressures and have responded with real action and secure trade deals, while the Liberals have responded with delay and confusion. Canadians are in this position because Liberal policies punish work and drive out investment for anti-development ideology and government control.

    How do the Liberals respond? Well, they set up another half-baked scheme. This week, the Prime Minister announced a so-called sovereign wealth fund or, as he calls it, “a people's fund”. I wonder if that name came from his visit to Beijing. In this long, drawn-out, rhetorical photo op, he said that this fund would finance major projects in Canada, because nothing says free enterprise like a government fund that looks like top-down state control, does it?

    However, he did point out Norway and Singapore as examples. Let us look at his claims and how they compare to his plan for Canada. Norway, of course, is a unitary state, with a single centralized government. It runs consistent budget surpluses, because it develops its abundant resources, especially oil and gas, which drives its economy, creates jobs and funds strong public services without crushing taxpayers. In fact, Norway's budget surplus is one of the largest in the world and far exceeds the OECD  average. The Norwegian government then puts that extra wealth into their sovereign wealth fund.

    Singapore, which the Prime Minister also mentioned, is a small city-state that built a highly attractive business environment with low taxes and minimal red tape that draws investment, jobs and businesses. Singapore has low corporate tax rates, big tax exemptions, no capital gains tax, and a highly efficient, transparent and independent legal system for permitting and contract enforcement. It competes for investment; it does not chase it away. Oh, and it has a big budget surplus, too. The Singaporean government puts that wealth into their sovereign wealth fund.

     Now, let us look at Canada. The Prime Minister said that he would saddle Canada with a budget deficit of $66.9  billion, which is double Trudeau's. If it requires further clarity, that is the opposite of a surplus. The Prime Minister also revealed that debt interest charges alone will be $59 billion annually, and that will rise by 50%, up to $80 billion, in 2030. Of course, it does not stop there. The Liberals' $264‑million Major Projects Office has approved zero projects. There is no start date, deadline, start point, end point or really any clear material progress on the Prime Minister's promised pipeline to the Pacific, and Liberal red tape still drives business out of Canada.

     Just this week, business leaders said that Liberal anti-development laws are worse for Canada than Trump's tariffs. François Poirier, CEO of TC Energy, said, “Capital goes where it is welcome. And for too long, it hasn’t felt welcome here”. David Pierce, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said, “I've heard of resource projects that require hundreds of permits, due to federal, provincial and municipal requirements”. He tells the truth. Enbridge, North America's top pipeline company, said, “changes in policy and regulatory environment need to happen”, not only for a new pipeline but “for producers to have confidence to increase production”. Not really an attractive business climate, is it?

    Under these Liberals, Canada does not have a budget surplus; caused a historic capital flight, especially to the U.S., which started in 2015 and has gotten worse every year since; and does not develop or export the full potential of Canada's resources, either for Canadians here at home or for allies abroad. In fact, this government blocks projects, landlocks production, bans exports and then wonders why investment leaves.

    There really was no point at all to compare Canada's alleged sovereign wealth fund, which is clearly a sovereign debt fund, to Norway or to Singapore, other than to make it seem like the Liberals have a good plan, but it is just an illusion.

    What wealth is actually going into this so-called wealth fund? It seems like the Prime Minister had an idea. One could say it is the Liberals' old reliable. They will, of course, take Canadians' money, just like they always do, because, when in doubt, they will just tax Canadians out: out of their homes, out of their businesses and, in the very end, all the way out of Canada. He said that if Canadians had a bit of extra money, they could give it to him, just a few bucks here or there, because he needs more of their money. He thinks he has not taken enough of it.

    For the Liberals, it is always “spend first, tax everyone and everything later”. Why does he want our money? What is the point of this sovereign debt fund in the first place? It seems to be so the Prime Minister will have the power to bankroll hand-picked projects while claiming it is independent. He will be able to pick winners of a few and make losers of the rest in Canada's economy. He will make sure, once and for all, that the lucky few who tow Liberal talking points and parrot his globalist, European, neo-Marxist agenda get to rake it in, so they can hire the top consultants, line their pockets and add just a few more zeros to their big fat bonuses.

    As for the rest, they get shut out and drowned in anti-development laws, regulations and taxes. They get told to go wait at the back of the line, while the Prime Minister holds the door open for his big banker elite buddies, his cronies, all the guys who helped get him to where he is today. As Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said, “every other unwashed business owner [is] stuck in the old, unworkable system.” Meanwhile, food banks get 2.2 million visits per month, double from seven years ago. Canadians are forced to sacrifice basics and put food back on the shelves. More young Canadians lose hope as to whether they will ever be able to get a home, start a family or get ahead, no matter how hard they work.

    Another bureaucracy is not the solution to $1 trillion in lost investment. Another bureaucracy is not the solution to lost opportunities across Canada after a decade of the Liberals, but to them it appears to be. They have created the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Growth Fund, the Major Projects Office, the defence bank and the green slush fund, but Canada still has the worst investment record in the G7. Those have not worked so far. Why do the Liberals expect that another one will? We know the definition of insanity. This is more bureaucracy, another fund with no delivered results for Canadians, but words that sound good. What they have delivered are more offices funded by taxpayers and more executives who get six-figure salaries while everyone else suffers.

    Instead of pouring more money into a broken system, the Liberals should fix their own laws and regulations that broke it in the first place, but why would they? As long as the Liberals are in total control, with their laws, policies, taxes and red tape, they can extort private businesses and provinces to get their way and to implement their agenda so the Prime Minister can make sure that his agenda to creep more into Canadians' lives, into provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdiction, and into Canada's private sector will be put into place. It sounds like a certain Communist regime to me. After all, he seems much more comfortable now cozying up to Beijing, as he lets their EVs on Canadian streets, even though they spy on Canadians and interfere in Canadian elections, academia, social media, law enforcement, defence and natural resources.

    The whole point of a private sector, of a free economy, is supposed to be freedom from government interference, the freedom for businesses to prosper and to create jobs without being taxed to high heavens, since lower taxes actually always result in more government revenue, so that Canadians can build good lives without the need to survive on government programs. That is necessary, also, to ensure that supports for vulnerable Canadians who really need a safety net can be sustainable.

    That is why Conservatives will fight every day for affordable and abundant Canadian energy and exports, low inflation and low taxes by cutting the cost of government, free market competition, and a self-reliant, sovereign and secure Canada.

    Life does not have to be this way. In a country as rich in natural and human resources as Canada, no business should be driven out and no family should have to choose between heating their home and feeding their kids. The beauty of Canada, its resilience, is the diversity of regions, resources and people who work, live and co-operate free of government micromanagement, who build a nation on hard work and share in opportunity and prosperity to pass on something stronger and better to the next generation, not controlled by Ottawa, not held back by red tape, but driven by hard work, innovation and pride in what Canadians can build ourselves and in who we are. That is what Conservatives will fight for every day.

     Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Conservatives' position on anything that supports Canadians moving forward and Canadians having opportunities to grow our wealth and to grow our economy. Unless it is their idea, they are against it. Listening to them talk, it is almost like they are against Canada. They are talking about unlocking opportunities for Canadians, yet they constantly vote against Canadians.

    Can my hon. colleague tell me why they continue to vote against Canada?

     Mr. Speaker, let me give the member some advice right off the top. I think she should actually engage in the policy discussion here instead of impugning the motives of duly and equally elected people who represent hundreds of thousands of Canadians and care about our country exactly as much as, and maybe more than, every single other person, which is why we are fighting so hard to save it.

    I think that as a Liberal government member, she should stand up here and explain all the details about the fund: exactly how it would work, who would run it and what it would do for Canadians who cannot afford to pay rent or their mortgage, or to feed themselves, people who have to ration their basics and live in sacrifice because that is what the government has made them do. It is the member's job to stand up to answer those questions.

     Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lakeland is exactly right. Eleven years ago, we had the richest, most prosperous middle class in the world here in Canada, but we have moved a long way from that. Canada has the lowest private sector investment in our economy of all the OECD countries because of the regulatory and tax burden that is choking and chasing away investment.

    I would like the member to comment on the fact that it has been nine months since the Major Projects Office was approved in legislation, and zero shovels are in the ground, yet Germany built an LNG intake facility in 6.5 months, the Netherlands in six months and Finland in four months.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all his advocacy for energy development and for making life more affordable for every single Canadian in every part of the country.

    Of course he is exactly right. The Major Projects Office is just the latest example of big promises and great rhetoric of the government's trying to pretend it is new compared to the exact same one that it was, which had driven out investment. In fact, the member raises a major point. In 2015, and I wonder what happened then, it the first time in Canadian history that capital from Canada started to flow into the U.S., rather than the other way around, and it has gotten worse every year since.

    Here we are, a year out, and the Major Projects Office has not designated a single project in the national interest. Most of the projects it is announcing have already been built, and most have already gone through regulators or their provincial jurisdiction. There are a bunch of others for which nobody has any idea what is going to happen. There are a hundred people who are making a lot of money, and the Liberals have not delivered on a single thing in terms of their promises for getting major projects built or for cutting red tape and interprovincial trade barriers. That is the problem. They—

    The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

    Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was rather impressed by the intensity of my colleague's speech. It was very substantial. There was so much to it that I could not take it all in.

    I would like to hear more about the merits of creating a so-called sovereign wealth fund to fund major projects, when apparently the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already being used for that purpose.

    Why launch a new fund when we already have a tool that does the same thing?

     Mr. Speaker, we entirely agree. The Liberals have created constant chaos, uncertainty and confusion with fund after fund that is not delivering any positive results in any way whatsoever. Life just keeps getting more and more expensive for everyday Canadians.

    I think all opposition parties need to unite in pushing the Liberals to tell them exactly what they are going to do. I think they are going to pick winners and losers in every part of this country, this society and the economy according to their own total-control agenda, which they are showing is what they want to do here in the House of Commons.

    In addition, related to another comment, do members know that there are 71 proponents in front of three Canadian regulators right now, and that they are all stuck, waiting around and not getting fast-tracked in any way whatsoever, no matter what the—

    The hon. member for London West is rising on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

     All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

    The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

    It is a pleasure to participate in today's debate on the government's plan to build a stronger, more independent and more resilient Canada for all. It is a plan that builds more affordable homes. It is a plan that builds major infrastructure. It is a plan that will help transform our economy. It is also a plan that will bring down costs to help Canadians get ahead.

     With the spring economic update announced earlier this week, we are providing a clear and transparent account of how Canada's economy is performing in an increasingly uncertain world. We believe this transparency is critical to help businesses seize new opportunities and give families the confidence to plan for their future. Central to this plan is an announcement made earlier this week by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that we are launching Canada's first sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund.

    Through an initial federal contribution of $25 billion over three years, the fund will strategically invest, alongside the private sector, in Canadian projects and companies driving our economic transformation. This includes projects in clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, agriculture and infrastructure.

    The returns will be reinvested to grow the Canada Strong fund, strengthening its capacity over time. As the fund grows, it will direct capital towards investments with the highest potential return for Canada and Canadians. To ensure that Canadians have the option to invest in the growth of our nation and share in returns, the government will launch a retail investment product. This will give Canadians a direct stake in our nation's long-term prosperity and help build long-term national wealth.

    The federal government will be holding consultations in the coming months on the specifics of this new initiative. Further details about the fund will be provided in the coming months.

     Canadian companies and investors are coming forward to build Canada's future, and investors from all around the world are choosing to invest in that future. The transformative projects and companies they will help build will create a stronger, more independent and more resilient economy for all Canadians. The Canada Strong fund takes that one step further, making sure that all Canadians are the beneficiaries of the financial results that these projects will generate.

    That, quite simply, is a vote of confidence in Canadian entrepreneurs, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers, because on this side of the House we know that despite the tremendous economic headwinds we are facing, the Canadian economy is uniquely positioned to grow and thrive in the 21st century. The private sector knows this; the international community knows this, as evidenced by the fact that foreign direct investment just reached a 20-year high; and Canadians know it, which is why they are so excited to invest in our future shared prosperity via this fund.

    We are doing this because we know that the geopolitical and economic changes we are witnessing are sudden and unprecedented. As the spring economic update outlines:

    That is not to say that, for the 15% that are not protected, there is not significant uncertainty that we need to work together to deal with. The update continues:

    The move to invest more in Canadians started with budget 2025. According to the spring economic update:

    This is good news for Canadians, even if it is bad news for my Conservative colleagues. I think we need to talk Canada up. We need to boost our economy. We will continue to move our plan forward.

    These are serious times, and in a world of geopolitical instability, governments need to rethink how they respond to headwinds and build resilience for the future. Standing still is not an option, as inaction and underinvestment can carry significant costs, including slower growth, diminished competitiveness and weaker security. Thankfully:

    As I indicated before:

    With the spring economic update, the government showed that Canada's fiscal strength remains strong while we continue to invest for Canadians where it counts, building Canada's prosperity today and for the next generation. The Canada Strong fund is a key pillar of that plan.

    We are catalyzing a series of nation-building projects in energy, trade, critical minerals, transport, data and beyond, projects that will make Canada stronger, more resilient and more independent. Through the Canada Strong fund, all Canadians will have the opportunity to share directly in the benefits. This is their country. This is their future. This is our country. This is our future. We need to build it together, and I would encourage all my colleagues to support the Canada Strong fund.

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to the sovereign wealth fund, I recently asked my colleague the same question. The other day, my neighbour showed me his bank account, and it was enormous. I thought, “This is a secret”, so I maxed out my credit cards and put the money in my savings account. For some reason, when I went to my accountant, he said I will never retire.

    I am wondering if the member can explain to me the difference between my neighbour's bank account, in which he saved money over time, and my savings account that I just put money into. Can you explain the difference between those two?

    I will remind the member to address his questions through the Chair.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

     Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe that the member is actually equating an individual's own wealth with the country's obligation to fund massive projects within the country. The idea of countries borrowing to enable to grow their economies is not something new.

    Obviously, there needs to be fiscal prudence. The government's plan balances that fiscal prudence with a very solid balance sheet of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 economies, with an idea that we need to build strong nation-building projects going forward. This is a way for the country to benefit from those projects long-term, as well as for individual Canadians to put up their own money to join in investing in those projects.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's infamous sovereign wealth fund proposes, among other things, to use the $25 billion in borrowed money to invest in projects that are too risky for the private sector, projects that the private sector did not want to invest in. The government is also proposing to allow individuals, like us and our constituents, to invest in this sovereign wealth fund while guaranteeing the security of their investments. We are told that these investments in the sovereign wealth fund will help attract more private investment. As a result, the fund will “derisk” these operations. The way we see it, the sovereign wealth fund will absorb the risk so the private sector can make a profit.

    Given his great enthusiasm for the sovereign wealth fund, does my colleague opposite intend to sell his personal assets and invest them in the sovereign wealth fund, as he would be able to do?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things.

    First, no one said that these projects were too risky for private investment. This is about attracting other investments. By showing that Canadians and the Government of Canada believe in those projects, we will attract private investment from here and other countries.

    Second, I would be very excited to invest my money in it, but I am not allowed to as a parliamentary secretary because I do not manage my own finances. My money is in a blind trust that I am not allowed to look at or manage.

    Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's excitement about the fact that our government has launched Canada's first sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund. It is based on a model that other countries have been using to generate revenue over several decades. Here in Canada, we will have a fund tailored to our needs and our economy that will focus on our long-term growth.

    Why does my colleague think it is important to implement meaningful measures like this one that will have long-term benefits when it comes to strengthening our economy and country?

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question. I completely agree.

    One of this government's greatest strengths is that we have a Prime Minister who is looking ahead to Canada's future. He does not just think about tomorrow. He does not just make political decisions for the next month or the next year. He makes long-term decisions. If this sovereign wealth fund operates like the ones in Singapore and Norway, it will attract a lot of money, which will help improve the lives of all Canadian taxpayers in the 2030s, 2040s, 2050s and beyond.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear colleague from Mount Royal, the parliamentary secretary, for sharing his time with me. I hope he will not regret it after hearing my speech because there are several things in the opposition motion that I agree with. This might be the first time I find myself in this situation.

    I usually do not find myself agreeing so very much with opposition day motions from the official opposition. I am watchful, and I really am very careful, of how long it takes to study, be fair and consider what has been put before us. I will try to make a number of points that relate to the multiple paragraphs in the opposition day motion.

    I will start with one of the government's announcements and my experience as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian citizen.

    A big announcement was made on April 27, the day before “Canada Strong for All: Spring Economic Update 2026” was tabled. The Prime Minister announced that we would soon have all the information regarding a new sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund.

    We were given the big announcement on April 27. There was a press conference. I do not think I got it wrong when the government announced this and that we would get all the details on April 28, the next day.

    We would know the details of how this sovereign wealth fund would work and how Canadians could participate in it as individuals.

     We were told the fund would create opportunities for Canadians to make investments and to participate in our sovereign wealth fund. We just had to wait a day for the details. When we get to the details, and this is what I find astonishing, because this seems to happen a lot, on page 56 of the spring economic update, what we are told is that yes, and it is very exciting, we were going to have a “broadly accessible [fund for] Canadians from coast to coast to coast” that was “easy and simple to purchase, hold, and transact”. It was to be the Canada Strong fund, our sovereign wealth fund, but how were we going to find out about it?

    The update says, “The government will establish a dedicated Canada Strong Fund Transition Office.” It will, once set up, “lead a targeted engagement with market participants and regulators, and rapidly finalise the Fund. Further details will be provided in the coming months.” I am just quoting from the statement. I do not want to be unfair with them, but it is absurd. They cannot say they are going to borrow $25 billion to create a sovereign wealth fund, which is going to have all these great attributes, but first they have to create a transition office.

    It did not need to be like this. We have really good models from Canada for how a sovereign wealth fund can be created. I will take us back in a time machine to a place where good ideas emerged. In 1976 Alberta, Peter Lougheed created a sovereign wealth fund for the province of Alberta. Norway actually sent experts from Norway to Alberta to learn from Alberta about how it was creating a sovereign wealth fund. Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth over $2 trillion U.S.

    Norway created the sovereign wealth fund based on the principles established by the late and, I think we would all would agree, great Canadian Peter Lougheed, who in establishing the oil sands and investing in them, said we have to look at this resource and have some rules.

    One of Peter Lougheed's first rules was to think like an owner. Another thing he decided was that we do not want to live off the oil rents. We do not want the revenues from oil wealth to go into spending by government. He wanted to set it aside as what we might call a rainy day fund.

    Alberta created what was then called the Alberta heritage savings trust, and it was funded largely by resource revenue, which went into the fund and accumulated. It accumulated the wealth.

    Norway followed that example. These are the attributes of Norway's fund. I take the points from my hon. colleague from Lakeland, who was just speaking and pointing out the differences between Norway and Canada, and they are taken as read.

    Let us look at what Norway established based on what Peter Lougheed put forward. Number one is that it was run by an independent board. No government could touch the principal, and withdrawals were kept by law, so no subsequent politician could do what actually happened in Alberta when Ralph Klein became the premier and took over from Peter Lougheed. I will not editorialize on the differences between Ralph Klein and Peter Lougheed, but I think everybody knows.

     Norway's sovereign wealth fund was created as a sovereign wealth fund. What we have in Canada may be a sovereign wealth fund, but we are starting out with borrowing $25 billion to get it started. I do not see any suggestion here that anyone other than Canadians could invest.

    Would anyone invest? We do not know what it is. It is definitely a pig in a poke, but on top of that, we are told to wait while a transition office, for which we are paying a couple million dollars a year, decides to consult to figure out what it is. I think we should start with what we know works, which is to tax oil wealth and separate that.

    The Province of Alberta did set it up and did run it. That was in its jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can do it at this point, and I am not proposing this on the floor of the House, but let us be clear that we could do it, is if we were to nationalize that sector and said that we would set aside that wealth for future generations. That is not going to happen. I know my hon. colleague here is laughing, and I am sure they are not laughing at me, but with me.

    The point of what I am saying here is that, in Canada at this point, we have missed the boat on deciding to create a sovereign wealth fund based on resource revenue, unless the government puts in place what many of us, the NDP and the Greens, have been calling for for some time, which is a tax on the excess profits that big oil is experiencing, particularly as prices go through the roof due to war and not due to their careful management as managers of the resource. The prices skyrocketed when Netanyahu and Trump began bombing Iran. As the spring economic statement pointed out, this drives up the price of oil and increases profits for the private sector. We should be applying an excess profits tax on those who are basically war profiteering in the sector.

     Let me look at another aspect of the very thoughtful motion from the opposition. I do want to thank them. Under their sixth point, the Conservatives are pointing out something that I have been railing about in this place for some time. There is over $1 trillion in pension fund money in Canada. If we are looking for sovereign wealth, there is over $1 trillion in pension fund money that has been invested outside of Canada. How does that happen?

    Let us just roll back a little on that. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act was carried through Parliament by our former prime minister, and I think we all respect him enormously, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien. He is still active in public life, and he created the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act with the idea of an independent Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to decide how to take Canada's pension money and make it work for us. The investment board is not necessarily even made up of Canadians, unfortunately and tragically.

    I urge all my colleagues to think about this. Let us open up the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, because it requires that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board consider only one criterion when investing our pension plan dollars, which is a return on investment. If we look at the Quebec investment board process, in Quebec they are required to consider, and it does not sound like a big threshold, the well-being of Quebec in the interest of the Quebec. This is missing for the federal monies. Our act for where our pension plan dollars go does not mention the good of Canada, and most of the money that has been invested has gone to the United States, not Canada. It has gone outside of Canada to other investments.

    One of them stuns me, and I think it should shake us to our core when we look at what just happened in Tumbler Ridge. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board decided it was a good investment, with good return on investment, to invest in OpenAI and Grok, the developers of deepfake AI. By the way, a member of that investment board is now our ambassador to the United States, Mark Wiseman. Two hundred million dollars of our pension plan money went into that because the board thought it was going to make money.

    There is no ethical screen on where our money goes. Obviously there is no climate screen on where our money goes. There is not even a question of whether it is in the interest of Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my B.C. colleague for giving us a bit of an Alberta history lesson. Part of it was almost entertaining.

     When I look at this, I am a little concerned. One of the issues here is that the Liberals want to compare Norway to Alberta, whereas Alberta has had, over the last 50 years, $600 billion in transfer funds go out of the province to the rest of the country. If that was actually in the Alberta heritage fund, we would probably be exceeding Norway at this time.

    My concern is with the lack of structure. Who is going to be in control of this? How are they going to be appointed? Is the member concerned that this is just going to be another slush fund for the Prime Minister to dictate to his buddies to invest in what the government is concerned about?

    Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. As my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois mentioned earlier in debate, this looks a lot like the Infrastructure Bank. Government money is put into it. It is supposed to be a bank. It is supposed to sound great.

    At this point, particularly since we have no details, we are debating something that is amorphous. We know what happened with the Infrastructure Bank, and it does look much the same, as my friend from Yellowhead has said.

    Mr. Speaker, a number of things do not add up in the Liberals' arguments.

    First, we are told that this fund is similar, and even comparable, to Norway's sovereign wealth fund, when we know full well that Norway did not go into debt to finance its own fund. Second, we are told that this fund will be independent, when we know full well that it will fund only projects that come from the Major Projects Office and that the Prime Minister will decide which projects are referred to the Major Projects Office. Obviously, this fund will be politically influenced.

    Why are the Liberals trying to tell us they bought a cat, when it is actually a horse? Why do they think everyone will believe it is a cat when it is really a horse?

    Mr. Speaker, the economic update document includes the following sentence: “Introducing Canada's own sovereign wealth fund—the new Canada Strong Fund”. That is all. There is no explanation, no rationale. There is not a single reason why we should have confidence in the idea of a Canada Strong fund.

     Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the leader of the Green Party. She usually provides information, and I was looking forward to her comments.

     I have a question for the member. The Canada Infrastructure Bank deals with applicants that come from different organizations and energy-efficient programs. It has been very successful as a program. Here we have a national wealth fund, which is completely different. It is for major projects that will be to the economic benefit, and social benefit, of Canadians. Does she not distinguish the difference between the two? I would have thought that she would. If not, maybe at some point we could have a sit-down and have a good discussion about it.

    Mr. Speaker, I like to share information, and I appreciate that my colleague has noted that I do the work before I speak.

     I would have loved to have discussed what we knew about the sovereign wealth fund and how it is going to be set up, but all we know is that the Liberals are creating yet another office to consider and consult. If we had information, my speech could have focused on that information.

    Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals dropped two big pieces of news. One was a budget that, from what I can see, would not deliver any actual, tangible results for Canadians, with a massive deficit. This, of course, impacts Canadians who are presently struggling to pay their bills. At the same time, the Prime Minister announced $25 billion of debt for a new “fund”.

    To be fair to the Prime Minister, the political spin that his team has put on this expenditure is really something. By billing this debt fund as the Canada Strong fund, which is kind of patriotism-coded; a sovereign wealth fund, which is kind of freedom-coded; and a national savings and investment account, which is sort of stability-coded, the Prime Minister's launch announcement had a level of overhype that would have made any starving founder pitching to a VC blush.

    At this point, I cannot really blame the Prime Minister for this level of shamelessness. He is staring down the barrel of a Liberal-induced faltering national economy, he has a debt-ridden government, and the man is counting on the Canadian establishment's current enamourment with him to give in to the feels of the moment and not look too closely under the hood of this new debt fund. However, no good investment manager would do that, and Canadians should not either.

     Canadians should have a full picture of the risk the Prime Minister is asking them to undertake not only with their tax dollars but also, as he implored them in his announcement, with additional post-tax contributions. He is actually asking Canadians to invest in this debt fund not just with a very high amount of tax dollars but also with personal post-tax contributions.

     If the devil is in the details of the Prime Minister's pitch, there sure is not a lot for Canadians to go on. For starters, the Prime Minister's fund model is, as colleagues have mentioned, built on debt. Therefore, it is misleading for him or anyone else to pitch it to investors as a true sovereign wealth fund in the same vein as Norway's, which is built on the actual wealth and surplus created by resource revenues. By contrast, the Prime Minister's $25-billion expenditure would be entirely debt financed at a time of widening structural Liberal deficits, which is sort of the same as an individual investor who is already in serious debt borrowing more money to go out and buy stocks.

    Further, outside of the announcement that a Crown corporation would manage it, every other detail remains vague, including who would run it. I am assuming it would be Liberal appointees. The criteria that would be used to fund it are similarly opaque.

     The lack of announced guardrails to stop the $25 billion from being funnelled into politically directed projects should also raise red flags for Canadians. Allocation decisions made by the debt fund, according to the Prime Minister's remarks, would follow government priorities rather than pure market returns. The Liberals have a dismal track record of picking winners: for example, the billions of dollars they funnelled into EV battery plants that left the country with no return; the superclusters, for which there is a word we use now, but it is not parliamentary; the green slush fund; and the arrive scam app. The government's track record is literally funnelling taxpayers' money.

    Now they are saying to add additional post-tax dollar contributions into a fund, and they do not really have a track record of delivering. On top of that, the government's inherent ability to place such a bet successfully in any circumstance should make Canadians take the claims of big-time benefits that the Prime Minister has been touting with a grain of salt.

     There are other problems to consider related to the viability and benefit of the Prime Minister's debt fund, too, especially in the context of Canada's stalled economy. First, the Prime Minister's debt fund could create something called a crowding-out effect. By pumping $25 billion of subsidized capital into Ottawa's preferred projects, the debt fund could massively distort private markets.

    That matters because of pension funds, for anybody who has invested in a pension fund or is drawing on a pension fund right now. Banks and institutional investors already deploy billions of dollars into Canadian infrastructure and resources. They would now have to compete against a government player that is armed with massive taxpayer backing and a direct link to politics. That is a huge market distortion that could affect the stability of somebody's retirement savings, for example. The result could be higher costs for genuine private projects or capital simply fleeing for greener or more level pastures.

     In that same vein, far from a guaranteed hedge against economic risk, what the Prime Minister is proposing with this debt fund has the potential to exert further inflationary pressure on Canada's economy.

     Second, the Prime Minister's early signals of international investing with the debt fund should raise eyebrows big time on its supposed Canada strong angle. Even more Canadian tax dollars could flow abroad while pressing domestic needs wait unfulfilled. Conversely, if the debt fund's expenditures stay strictly domestic, it could become a captive buyer for Liberal-favoured ventures. Either way, this has the makings of a giant boondoggle and a mess.

     I want to say that we have seen this movie before with the Prime Minister. It was something called GFANZ, this big fund he tried to put together. What ended up happening was that members balked at the requirements to phase out financing without clear backstops or substitute goods. At the end of the day, what ended up happening was that the thing fell apart.

    Members may colour me a little skeptical, but I am not sure which investment manager would capitalize $25 billion right now under this lack of detail. I sure would not, and I will not be voting to support it, because that would be a bad decision on behalf of my constituents.

    This conundrum further underscores why this expenditure should not be referred to as a sovereign wealth fund, because decisions made with government debt have different opportunity costs to evaluate than those made with true wealth funds.

     The debt fund also has massive potential for mission creep. If the debt fund's scope stays vague, as it is right now, it will likely expand quietly once initial public scrutiny fades. For that reason, scrutiny should be paid to the fact that this expenditure will also likely duplicate existing bureaucracy, and it will duplicate and increase overhead and, conveniently, Liberal board appointees. It would be duplicating things like the Canada Growth Fund and the Infrastructure Bank.

     There are other flags that Canadians should be concerned about too. The Prime Minister mentioned that the debt fund would grow through mechanisms like “asset recycling”, which in Ottawa is often code for selling public assets on the cheap to insiders. The debt fund also has the potential to impinge on provincial jurisdiction, particularly if the debt fund capitalizes from resource export taxes or remittances of any kind.

    Resources are definitively the jurisdiction of provinces, and a move to reset constitutional order would not only be a major concern but create great instability at a time when the Prime Minister should be trying to do more to create national unity across the federation. Right now, though, it is like a little poke in the eye there. Is he going to say to companies, “Oh, hey, you have to pay a tax to get a Bill C-5 exemption or to get around Bill C-69,” instead of just doing away with the regulatory tape that is making it difficult and risky for investors to capitalize big projects in Canada?

    Aside from all these issues, there is another big problem with Canadians writing the Prime Minister a blank cheque for this project, and it is opportunity costs. With $25 billion, we could cut taxes, pay down debt or deliver direct affordability relief for struggling Canadians. Interest on the federal debt already consumes tens of billions of dollars and is more than health transfers to the provinces. Canadians will be faced with even more of the same to pay for this new expenditure at a time when inflation is already straining affordability in every aspect of Canadian life.

     If building a bigger pool of capital for major projects is what the Prime Minister is trying to solve for, arguably the structural problem Canada faces is not the lack of a debt fund but the lack of investment certainty in its regulatory and tax environment. The government should be scrapping bills like Bill C-69 to attract the capital into the country naturally and more sustainably to see big infrastructure projects built out.

    Without reform in those areas, the Prime Minister's new debt fund is throwing money at a problem that money cannot solve. He also has not begun to answer why families should lend their potential retirement savings to this fund instead of traditional instruments like RRSPs or, frankly, proven pension fund managers. Nor has he explained whether, if the debt fund loses money, taxpayers will backstop it at the expense of more pressing needs. Investing in a scheme that has the potential to pay earlier investors using money from new investors rather than having any actual profit has a name, and the Prime Minister would be well served to remember that.

    At the end of the day, I do not think the Prime Minister, a supposed investment guru back in the day, would actually invest in this fund, which was put forward by him, the Prime Minister, and Canadians should not either.

    Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed this: I am disappointed that the Conservative Party does not have enough faith in Canadians and the need for us to have a sovereign wealth fund here in Canada. Many other countries around the world have such a fund. The potential contribution this can make to the economy, to Canadians as a whole, is truly something we should all be excited about. Obviously, the Conservatives want to focus more on their own political party than on building a stronger, healthier Canada.

    Does the member believe that there is value to wealth funds, whether here or at the provincial level?

    Mr. Speaker, imagine a founder walking into a VC office and saying, “Hey, I don't really know what my product is and don't really have any sort of framework to govern this, but would you give me $25 billion? You can just put it on your credit card.” That is what we are being asked to do here. The member asks if I believe in this like it is the tooth fairy or something. I am sorry, I think the tooth fairy is broke in Canada right now. We cannot rely on hope and dreams and all of these sorts of things without tangible plans. This is—

    The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.

    The government and the Prime Minister were elected a year ago, almost to the day, on essentially a single promise: to end the trade war. In April 2025, the Prime Minister promised us that the matter would be settled by June. He then postponed it to July and then September. In the end, here we are a year later, and not only is the trade war still going on, but it has gotten worse with Mr. Trump's recent executive orders. The only thing this government can come up with is to borrow $25 billion and create a fund that is neither sovereign nor independent.

    What does that say about the government's long-term vision?

     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.

    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.

     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.

    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—

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

    The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska may continue.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

     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 hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

    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.

     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.

     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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

     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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, I had the pleasure of seeing young people from Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie, where I visited several schools. I spoke with students and staff at École de Monseigneur-Gilles-Gervais and École Albert-Schweitzer. I was moved by their curiosity, their motivation and their interest in the future.

    I also had the pleasure of welcoming students on Parliament Hill from Heritage Regional High School. They came to see how our democracy works. Their questions were clear and thoughtful.

    These meetings are important. They show that we need to help our schools. They also show the need to help young people participate in civic life. I thank the principals, teachers and, above all, the students for their hospitality and energy.

    Mr. Speaker, the latest report from the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University makes it clear: Financial pressure is not easing, Canadians are not getting relief and they are being forced to adapt to permanently higher prices.

    The Liberal government's recent credit card budget shows that it is doubling down on a spend-now-pay-never fiscal policy that, for over a decade, has driven up the cost of everything from food to fuel to rent. The deficit has doubled, and for what? What tangible benefits has that spending delivered for Canadians?

    The Prime Minister often touts this new government as some vector of change, but Canadians know it is the same ministers and advisers who buried this nation in debt. Simply swapping the prime minister with the architect of that very policy fools no one. This week presented an opportunity to provide relief and change course. Instead, they doubled the deficit, and that will only deepen the drain on households already stretched to their limits.

    A better path remains possible that puts affordability and accountability first.

    Mr. Speaker, my dear Montreal Canadiens, the second-youngest team in the National Hockey League, are competing in the Stanley Cup Playoffs following an exciting season.

    It brings back memories of my childhood in Montreal, when I could watch the Canadiens practise at the Verdun Auditorium, standing just a few feet from the legends that lit up the Forum and our TV set.

    We know their names: Dryden, Savard, Robinson, Lapointe, Lafleur, Lemaire, Shutt, Gainey, Cournoyer. During those same years, when I was in high school, just a stone's throw from the old Forum, we experienced three incredible Stanley Cups.

     Three times I was in detention, smiling, for having skipped school to attend the Stanley Cup parade.

    We have just as much pride in today's young Habs.

    I now summon all the ghosts of the old Montreal Forum, with all the fans from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun and across the country, to shout, “Go Habs, go”.

    Mr. Speaker, the same old Liberals have continued their decade of credit card budgets. Not only has this costly Liberal Prime Minister embraced the same borrow-and-spend policies of Justin Trudeau, he has doubled down, doubling the deficit.

    These failed policies have left Canadians with the worst housing costs, worst economic growth and worst inflation in the G7. The costs to Canadians are enormous. Interest charges on the national debt this year will reach $60 billion and in five years will be $90 billion. That works out to $3,400 in interest costs for every Canadian family this year. That money goes to bankers and bondholders instead of doctors and nurses. Interest payments on our debt are now the fastest-growing item in the Liberal budget.

    The Liberals are mortgaging the future, selfishly racking up the credit card and leaving the bill for our kids and grandkids. Enough is enough. It is time to restore fiscal responsibility and put an end to these reckless Liberal credit card budgets.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to welcome to Ottawa the world leaders of the Salvation Army, General Lyndon Buckingham and Commissioner Bronwyn Buckingham, with officers of the Canadian headquarters, which is located in my riding of Don Valley West.

     Dedicated to selfless service and holding high the dignity of those in need, the Salvation Army has been helping Canadians for more than a century. Through food banks and thrift stores, shelters and housing, long-term and palliative care, youth programs, life skills training and emergency disaster response, the Salvation Army is the largest non-governmental direct provider of social services in Canada. The Salvation Army is an important partner for our federal government, helping people in need. I know every member of this House is grateful for its work in their communities.

     From humble beginnings in the United Kingdom to transforming lives in 134 countries, their faithful work continues to inspire.

    Mr. Speaker, this week, our national credit card got quite the workout with $37 billion in new inflationary spending, nearly $1,000 for every Canadian. Who pays? Canadian families forced to max out their own credit cards to buy groceries and pay the rent. For all of that spending, we still have the highest food inflation in the G7 and the highest housing prices, and now we spend more to service the debt than we do on health care to the provinces.

    When will the government stop tabling reckless credit card budgets so that Canadian families can just afford to get by?

    Mr. Speaker, if investing in skilled trades workers and opportunities for young people and helping apprentices in the pipeline finish with their Red Seals is inflationary, unnecessary spending, I guess we see where these guys are going in terms of their support.

    However, let me tell members what the Building Trades Unions said yesterday, including Sean Strickland, Robert Kucheran and so many other building trades unions. They said it would go hard, go far and they are so happy with the investment in workers across this country. They cannot believe the Conservative Party will not get behind them.

    Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister improved her self-control this time around. I am not surprised that another Trudeau holdover is pretending that everything is fine. The reality is that the Liberal government has killed the middle class. It has killed the very workers that it is now purporting to protect for more than a decade, with higher taxes and inflationary spending. The $37 billion of new spending from the latest credit card budget is only going to make things worse. Everybody knows that.

    Once again, will the government stop these delusions and stop the spending so that Canadians can actually get ahead?

    Mr. Speaker, I do not know which Canadians the member is talking about, but let me talk about some of the hard-working people across the country who are working so hard together to build up this country, people like electricians, plumbers, automotive technicians, crane operators and heavy-equipment operators. In fact, many are our sons and daughters all across this country are getting their skilled trades training, but having a hard time getting through.

    Members should know that we are going to make sure that no one gets left behind. It is more than we can say for these guys.

    Mr. Speaker, this week's costly budget update shows the Liberals are continuing their decade of credit card budgeting: more costs, more debt, more taxes, just more of the same. It turns out the Prime Minister is not some kind of financial expert. He is just another costly Liberal. His deficit is double Justin Trudeau's. He is forcing Canadians to pay more in interest on the debt than on health care. What is the result? They have delivered the worst inflation in 40 years, the worst food price inflation and the only shrinking economy in the G7.

    When will the Liberal Prime Minister end his costly credit card budgeting so Canadians can afford to live?

    Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7.

    However, yesterday in question period, I did not hear the Conservatives mention the word “workers” once, so let us hear from workers directly. Let us hear from Colin Daniels, who represents Saskatchewan Building Trades and is one of the members of the mighty ironworkers. Colin Daniels says:

     The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

    Mr. Speaker, workers are tired of seeing their paycheques devalued by Liberal inflation. That is what workers are saying across this country.

    However, after nearly a decade of the costly Liberal government, Canadians are maxed out while the Prime Minister has maxed out the country's credit card. If we want to play the quote game, do not take my word for it. Even The Globe and Mail wrote, “the Trudeau government did all sorts of things that steadily made matters worse, fiscally and economically speaking, the [new Prime Minister's] government will do almost nothing to make them better.”

     Again, will these Liberals stop with the credit card budgeting so that Canadians can afford to live?

     Mr. Speaker, our spring economic update is making very smart investments and making life more affordable for Canadians. The opposition does not seem to ever want to talk about affordable housing and the success that we are having, bringing rents down for 18 months in a row.

    In this update, we can see up to 100,000 Canadian workers who are going to help build affordable housing for decades to come. We are going to make sure life is more affordable, especially for young Canadians looking for that first-time homebuyers' tax break and the ability to have a career building homes for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, during the 2025 election campaign, the Prime Minister presented himself as a rigorous economist.

    Today, Emmanuelle Latraverse of the Journal de Montréal clearly stated—as we all do, for that matter—that he is far more of a Liberal politician than an economist. In his budget update, he is increasing spending, he has no plan to balance the budget and he is setting us up for years of deficits. An economist would have imposed discipline. He, on the other hand, is currently expanding programs and putting off difficult decisions.

    Why is the Prime Minister acting like a spendthrift Liberal rather than the serious manager he claimed to be before Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the Conservatives, I am struck by how casually they treat the tariff war. We are managing the threat of U.S. tariffs. At the same time, we are here to build a strong economy. Given these circumstances, we are protecting our social safety net and reducing our deficit by $11 billion.

    We are here to support Canadians, and we will do so by maintaining the second-strongest economic growth in the G7. What is more, we will do so by having the strongest and most appropriate fiscal position of all G7 countries.

    Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to hear that I left an impression on the minister. What I am struck by is the fact that absolutely nothing has been resolved, despite what she just said. The tariffs are still in place. In fact, they actually went up for all steel-related products. This is a disaster. Too many businesses are shutting down. That is the true state of affairs.

    The members on the other side of the House are spouting fine words, but the reality is totally different. What we got from the Prime Minister's economic update was a budget containing yet more spending but no concrete solutions to the problems we face today.

    Does the minister have anything relevant to say?

    Mr. Speaker, our concrete solutions are clear. In the past six months, we have created 96,000 jobs. That is far more than would have been created by the Conservatives. In addition, we have succeeded in maintaining the second-strongest growth in the G7 and the strongest fiscal position.

    Of course we know that Canadians need help. We know that gas prices have gone up. We know that grocery prices are still too high. That is why we have a strong social safety net. That is why we are here to help Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are continuing to surrender to climate change in their economic update. There is not a penny to help our businesses cope with the new U.S. tariffs introduced on April 6, but meanwhile, oil companies are breaking out the champagne. The Liberals have poured $10 billion in public funds into trying to help them find business partners, not to mention another $25 billion through their so-called sovereign wealth fund, and they are extending the tax credits. It is our SMEs that are at risk of closing their doors, not oil companies.

    Why are the oil companies the ones that are getting all the help?

    Mr. Speaker, what we see in the spring economic update is that we are making progress in the fight against climate change and in protecting nature.

    We have finalized the methane regulations, which will reduce emissions by 400 megatonnes. We have an auto strategy. In February, EV sales increased by 47% after we implemented that strategy. We will continue to be a leader in the fight against climate change, and we will continue this work.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have enough money to provide nearly $40 billion in aid to oil companies in the economic update, but not a penny for the media, which is in the midst of a crisis and facing widespread layoffs; not a penny for seniors struggling with the rising cost of living; and not a penny for our small and medium-sized businesses facing U.S. tariffs. On the other hand, when it comes time to say yes to the oil companies, the Liberals rush to do so.

    Why do billionaire oil companies come before everyone else?

    Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague is kidding. I do not think he even believes his own words when he reads them.

    This morning, I spoke with my new colleague, my new counterpart, Quebec's minister of economy, innovation and energy, Bernard Drainville. We have agreed on several projects that are fundamental to Quebec's economy. Furthermore, we will very soon be announcing assistance for our small and medium-sized businesses in the steel and aluminum sectors. We know that the White House's interpretation of tariffs has changed. We know that businesses across the country, including in Quebec, are being affected. That is why we will be there to help them.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim that producing more oil will have no environmental impact thanks to carbon capture and storage. In their economic update, however, they have transformed their miracle solution into a new problem. They are expanding their carbon storage tax credit to include enhanced oil recovery. That means injecting CO2 into the ground to pump more dirty oil out. They want us to pay for that with a $14.5-billion tax credit, to boot.

    How can they justify that?

    Mr. Speaker, if people want to keep talking about our spring economic update, I am sure my colleague saw the nature strategy in it. The strategy includes a marine conservation area in James Bay. I should think the member would really like that.

    We will keep going. We are once again investing in international climate finance. Canada is a global leader in international action, in methane and in nature conservation. That is what we see in the economic update.

    Mr. Speaker, this week's economic update proves that nothing has changed. In fact, the Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's soaring deficits and is also doubling down on 10 years of costly credit card budgeting. Now the media reports that the government is considering recycling capital from public assets like airports to put into the new so-called wealth fund.

    I ask this Prime Minister, how much of Canada's public assets does he plan to sell to fund more wasteful Liberal spending?

     Mr. Speaker, despite the headwinds we are experiencing here in Canada, Canada has a strong fiscal position. Let us take a look at the facts. Wages are up by 4.7%, outpacing inflation. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We are creating pathways for young Canadians, making sure they have skilled jobs, specifically 100,000 Red Seal skilled jobs. We are doing that while bringing Canadians along with our Canada Strong fund. This is the way we build a country strong, and we are going to do that with Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has doubled Trudeau's deficits, and now Canadians are lining up at food banks and are unable to afford groceries. Now the Liberals want to sell off national infrastructure and put the money into their sovereign debt fund. We have seen this before with the failed Infrastructure Bank, which is losing money and is built on deficits.

    Does this Prime Minister understand that his spending spree is leaving Canadians with more debt and higher costs?

    Mr. Speaker, with our spring economic update, what we are doing is supporting workers and young Canadians. We are making sure that life is more affordable for Canadians. We are building strong and safer communities, and again, introducing a sovereign wealth fund to make sure that Canadians can have direct access to the success of Canada. That member is from Ontario. I do not know what she has against our Major Projects Office, which is building the Darlington nuclear project in Bowmanville and Canada Nickel's Crawford project. These are just some of the investments we are making here in this province, and that is the way we are going to build our country strong.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say this is a new government, but the only things that have changed are the colour of the Prime Minister's socks and the size of the deficit. This Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, maxing out the country's credit card and forcing Canadians to pay more to bankers and bondholders rather than roads and hospitals. Even The Globe and Mail sees through this, saying, “it's clear that the Liberals have no intention of changing their high-spending ways.” Maybe that is why the Liberals are sending more money to the media in their fiscal update.

    Why is the costly Liberal government pretending that “new” means “improved”?

    Mr. Speaker, while that party doubles down on offering nothing for Canadians, we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. We just tabled the spring economic update, which confirms that we have the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We also announced the sovereign wealth fund, which will spark massive investment in our country, a fund by Canada for Canadians. It is time for that party to get off the sidelines and help us build Canada strong.

     Mr. Speaker, I wish that member were laser-focused on answering a question for once. This budget proves that nothing has changed: the same Liberal excuses, the same Liberal spending addiction, the same Liberal credit card, just with a much higher limit. Canadians are paying more for groceries, more for rent, more in taxes, while this Prime Minister doubles down on the same failed borrow-and-spend policies that gave Canada the worst inflation in 40 years.

    I have a simple question: Why should Canadians be forced to make the credit card payments for this Prime Minister's reckless spending?

     Mr. Speaker, he may say we give the same answers, but they hand the same questions around from member to member.

    We are focused on building the strongest economy in the G7. We are focused on making life more affordable for Canadians. At home, we are cutting taxes. We just launched the groceries and essentials benefit. We just cut the federal excise tax on fuel. Combined with the carbon tax cut, that is 28¢. Our spring economic update confirms our fiscal position is strong.

    We have the leader to build Canada strong. They have a leader who has never worked a day outside of this House.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised a “new government”, but we do in fact see more of the same. We see more costly spending, more taxes and, ultimately, more prices to pay for Canadians. Whether it is the grocery store or the gas at the pumps or their mortgages that they're trying to pay month to month, Canadians are struggling to make ends meet because of the costly policies of the government. The only thing that these costly Liberals seem to be interested in balancing, of course, is their political spin, which is exactly what we are seeing today.

    Will they admit that they, in fact, have failed Canadians and promise to do better going forward?

    Mr. Speaker, the more precise they try to sound, the more Canadians should be deeply suspicious of their claims, because they zoom in when the world view does not actually reflect anything they are talking about here.

    Let us talk about the facts: 20 trade and security deals have made a 40% increase in non-U.S. trade; wages are growing faster than inflation; we created more jobs than the U.S. last year; house prices are down; rents are down; overall inflation has been within bounds for months and months; the MOU with Alberta has created durable climate action, new energy production and record production in Alberta; and we do all that with the strongest fiscal position in the G7.

    Welcome back to reality.

    Mr. Speaker, let us focus on the facts. The Liberals are spending so much that they have actually doubled Trudeau's deficit. That is quite the accomplishment, because Trudeau's deficit, of course, was massive in nature, historic, in fact, so the fact that the government has doubled it is quite something. The reason this matters so much is not that they spent so much money, but that they did it and incurred debt, and that debt lands on the backs of Canadians, whether it is families or seniors or students, who are doing their very best to make ends meet.

    The government can do something about it, so why does it insist on being an incredibly costly, ineffective Liberal government?

    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to run through the list again. I am not sure they would be so happy to hear it.

    However, let us talk about this. In a time when we have global strife, wars in Iran and Ukraine and trade wars with the United States, Canada is standing at the top of the pack. We are number two in economic growth in the G7. We have the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We are investing in families and communities.

    There is so much that we need to do, and we are just getting started. We welcome the members opposite to get on board with us all.

    Mr. Speaker, this costly credit card budget means more debt, more costs, more spending, more taxes, more of the same. Out-of-control deficits have taken the breath away from working Canadians with $407 billion in interest over the next six years. Nothing has changed, and nothing will change for the future of today's 18-year-old first-time voters if the government is not stopped dead in its tracks. By 2031, they will be the workforce, facing an additional $462 billion in national debt.

    What have Canadians gained from the Liberals doubling Trudeau's deficit and charging the next generation with their credit card budgeting?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     We are going to wait until everybody calms down.

    The hon. Secretary of State for Rural Development.

     Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that as a result of the spring economic update—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Members still have not calmed down. I am appealing to everyone's better angels.

     The Secretary of State for Rural Development.

    Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan is proud to be part of Canada, and Canadians know that Saskatchewan offers much: oil, gas, potash, gold, uranium, copper, people, energy and ideas.

    Now that we know we can all build Canada together, I remind Canadians not to compare us to perfection, but to compare us to the other guys. I have done some research on whether—

    We will have to wait to hear the research later.

    The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

    Mr. Speaker, for months now, the Liberals have been insisting that there are no issues with Cúram. They keep saying that it is not true that pensioners are having trouble receiving their OAS. They are saying that it is not true that there are cost overruns and, above all, that there is no need for an inquiry or to hand over documents.

    In a dramatic turn of events, the government announced in the economic update that it is giving $451 million to Cúram and the Canada Revenue Agency to “ensure seniors receive their benefits accurately and on time”.

    If there are no issues with Cúram, what is this money for?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their government to pay them their benefits reliably. The modernization of the system is one of the best ways we have to protect the benefits Canadians depend on.

    The members opposite would rather have Canadians use an outdated system that was breaking down.

    Mr. Speaker, what do they have to hide? The Liberals have just proven that a public inquiry is absolutely necessary. They know that Cúram is causing problems with the processing of OAS pensions because they are spending an additional $451 million to fix the problem.

    They know that there have been cost overruns. They have just added to them. In short, they have proven that the two problems are real and that they have been aware of them for years, even when former prime minister Justin Trudeau was in office.

    However, as recently as Monday, the Liberals were still filibustering at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to hide information. What do they have to hide? When will they hold an independent public inquiry?

    Mr. Speaker, I have been in front of committee at least twice talking about this, and our officials have also appeared at committee to talk about Cúram. We are, as the member opposite knows, within budget, and we are proceeding exactly as the member opposite has urged us to do, which is with urgency, to make sure that people are not on wait-lists and that the most urgent cases are seen. We have seen a decline by at least 20,000 cases on the waiting list, and more are to come.

    Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal government is proud to add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, families are making tough choices. According to a Dalhousie University report, Canadians are no longer buying what they need, but what they can afford. Parents are skipping meals to feed their children. The Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, and one in three Canadians now has to go into debt to eat.

    How much more evidence will it take before the government realizes that its costly budgets are hurting Canadian families?

    Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to see how the opposition focuses on the negative when there is good news.

     Sports are the cornerstone of our nation. Thanks to the spring economic update, we are making a generational investment of $750 million. This is the largest investment in 20 years. The people of Thérèse-De Blainville and that MP's constituents must be pleased to have this investment for their villages, towns, and communities.

    We are building Canada strong by working together and investing in our sports and in our youth.

    Mr. Speaker, I am not the one being negative, they are. They are twice as negative as the former Liberal prime minister, Justin Trudeau. They have twice as much debt. Who is being negative? They are; they are in the red.