Debates of May 26th, 2026

The Economy

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice had been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates, Ms. Alexandra Mendès in the chair)

Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27

[The Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The House is now in committee of the whole to consider all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.

Today's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Finance. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the Bloc Québécois. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member recognized by the Chair will be allocated 15 minutes. These periods may be used for both debate and for posing questions. Should members wish to use this time to make a speech, it can last a maximum of 10 minutes, leaving at least five minutes for questions to the minister or the parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of the minister.

When members are recognized, they shall indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, what portion will be used for speeches and what portion for questions and answers. Members who wish to share their time with one or more members shall indicate it to the Chair.

When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's or the parliamentary secretary's response should reflect approximately the time taken to pose the question, provided that at least 15 seconds are allotted to each response, since this time will count toward the time originally allotted to the member.

The period of time for the consideration of the estimates in committee of the whole this evening shall be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each. I also wish to indicate that, in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

In addition, pursuant to order made earlier today, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

At the end of the time allotted for debate, and when no more members wish to speak, whichever comes first, the committee shall rise and the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day. We may now begin the debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Chair, for clarity, I am speaking for five minutes and then sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk and the member for Calgary East, for five minutes each, after I have concluded.

In 2015, the minister's government promised to run modest deficits that would fund unprecedented infrastructure spending and would allow the budget to balance itself, as they put it. Instead, they created a structural deficit for 10 years, and, 10 years later, they have broken the same promise that they made back in 2015 about infrastructure.

Perhaps tonight will be the night when the minister will finally answer this question and tell me in what year the budget will be balanced.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Madam Chair, it is a real pleasure to be spending the whole evening with my colleagues. My colleague will be happy to learn, because I know he will be very interested, that we made generational investments in infrastructure, housing, productivity and innovation. The plan of Canada, according to the International Monetary Fund, is the way forward in order to create growth. I am sure tonight my colleague will be very happy to know that the country is going to be building the strongest economy in the G7 and that we have made generational investments in infrastructure.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Chair, the minister has not answered the question. He has just repeated the same promise that they have been breaking since 2015.

Canada's current interest costs for this year are $54 billion. Is that amount more or less than the current federal health transfer?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, my colleague will be happy to learn, because tonight is a learning exercise for my colleagues, that in fact the percentage, when we look at the debt charge of Canada, is pretty low by historical standards. It is close to 2%. If we look at the historical figures in the 1990s, they were around 6%. I would say that Canada is in a very strong fiscal position.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Chair, Canadians are not going to learn anything tonight if the minister will not answer any questions.

The interest on Canada's debt is projected to rise by 50%, from $54 billion to $81 billion, in 2030-31. Is that more than future health transfers are budgeted for?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, as I said, it is going to be interesting for Canadians to learn that the projected debt charge, as a percentage of GDP, for 2026-27 will be 1.7%. That is far below the peak of 6.5% that Canadians faced in the 1990s.

What I am saying is that we are on a very solid fiscal track.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Chair, that is another non-answer.

The per family debt charge is about $3,400 right now, this year. How much does he think a Canadian family can afford to spend on interest on the federal debt?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, again, it is going to be a very interesting evening. I look forward to the question because, in fact, what I was saying is that the debt charges, as a percentage of GDP, are not only lower than they were in the 1990s, but they are below the historical average of 40 years, which was 3.2%. I think the member should be happy to see that the country is on a very solid fiscal track.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Chair, they have been claiming for years that there would be a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but there is not. The debt-to-GDP ratio is rising.

Is the debt-to-GDP ratio higher this year than last year, yes or no?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, the member will be pleased to hear that the International Monetary Fund just stated that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. Actually, we have the second-fastest growth in the G7.

I am sure that my colleague will be happy to report to his constituents that the country is on a good fiscal track.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Chair, the answer is that the debt-to-GDP ratio went up, even though that is the fiscal anchor that they have been claiming for most of the last 10 years. They have broken their fiscal anchor.

How much interest per household does he think Canadian families can afford for his debt?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, I will be happy to remind my colleague, who is a learned member of the House, that we have two fiscal anchors. One is a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. The other is to balance the operating budget with revenues by 2028-29. Those are the two fiscal anchors of the Government of Canada.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Chair, those are new ones. He has discharged and cut loose every anchor that they have assigned for themselves. What is going to be their new fiscal anchor they make up next year when this fiscal anchor is cut loose like so many before it?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, in the spirit of teaching my colleague some of the facts, let me quote Kevin Page. He said, “The hard target of a balanced operating budget in 2028‑29 will put more constraints on the government than would fiscal rules tied to changes in the size of the economy”. This is coming from Kevin Page.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Chair, I am going to start with a positive question. We are very pleased to see that the minister was able to reach an agreement with the City of Laval concerning the scandal over the Canada Revenue Agency, which had demanded $1 million from Laval taxpayers in connection with the former corrupt mayor. Ten years later than Revenu Québec, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, finally came to terms with the City of Laval.

Why did the minister refuse to come testify before the committee for two and a half months?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Madam Chair, I would be pleased to come testify in committee. However, as my colleague said, I made a commitment to find a solution in the interest of the people of Laval. That is exactly what we did, to the satisfaction of the mayor of Laval, Mr. Boyer, who personally expressed his appreciation for the work we accomplished together to resolve this situation.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Chair, it took the Liberal government's CRA a decade to do the right thing, which was a decade longer than it took Revenu Québec.

The minister was elected at the same time as me, in 2015. The Prime Minister put him in cabinet almost immediately, which means that he has been one of the senior ministers in the Liberal administration for the past decade. That makes him one of the top architects of the debt that grew to over $1 trillion over that decade.

Can the minister tell us what the interest on the debt costs Canada every year?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for saying such kind things about me. It is true that we were both elected at the same time, in 2015. He is right. I have always worked to advance the interests of Canadian citizens. It is true that, during those years, we presented a generational investment plan to grow the economy and have the strongest economy in the G7. That work continues now that I am the Minister of Finance.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Chair, the minister seems to forget that he was elected in 2015 on a promise to run three small deficits and achieve a zero deficit in 2019. He did none of that. On the contrary, even when the global economy was doing well, the government did not set any money aside. That would have been the right thing to do. However, the man with a trillion-dollar debt, that is one thousand billion dollars in debt, cannot tell us how much the interest on that debt costs.

He talks about intergenerational investments. Does he realize that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for this government's debt and reckless deficits?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, my colleague will be pleased to see that, in fact, the projected deficit is $11 billion lower than what was projected in budget 2025. Under my leadership, we have presented a deficit that is $11 billion lower. Agencies around the world have seen that Canada has taken a serious position on taxation, that we are fiscally responsible and that we are acting with the rigour that the current situation demands.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Chair, what a shame that the minister seems to have such a selective memory. Just 15 months ago, his predecessor said the deficit would be $31 billion. What is the deficit now? It is $68 billion.

However, the good news is that the minister has eliminated the excise tax. That is a good thing. On the other hand, we wanted more. I can understand that, for a Liberal, eliminating a tax is a giant leap forward. For Canadian families, however, these are small steps. What we want is to go further.

Why did the government put the brakes on tax cuts when it was off to a good start?

We would have liked the government to follow our plan.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, my colleague is an experienced member of Parliament for whom I have the utmost respect, and he knows it. Two-thirds of the $7 billion in additional revenue we have received has been allocated to help Canadians. Like him, I know that the primary concern for Canadians is affordability. It is the cost of housing, the cost of food and the cost of gas. He will be pleased to announce to his constituents in Quebec City that we have taken action on all three fronts to make life more affordable for Canadians.