House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prices.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard Members debate a Conservative motion to eliminate federal gas and diesel taxes for the remainder of the year and repeal the Clean Fuel Standard. Conservatives argue this provides necessary relief for families facing inflation. Liberals defend their approach, citing targeted benefits for lower-income Canadians as more effective. The Bloc Québécois opposes the motion, contending that tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy and oil corporations, arguing for measures that instead address the underlying cost of living. 50500 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping Second reading of Bill C-264. The bill, Bill C-264, is a private member's motion by Conservative David McKenzie to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, aiming to expand export potential for Canadian energy by allowing tanker shipments off the British Columbia coast. While supporters argue this will boost economic prosperity and energy security, opponents from the Liberal and Bloc parties contend it threatens vital ecosystems and harms Indigenous relationships and reconciliation. 8200 words, 1 hour.
Adjournment Debate - The Economy Jacob Mantle questions the inclusion of pension assets in government debt calculations. Ali Ehsassi defends the government's economic approach. Grant Jackson critiques the lack of specific initiatives to increase domestic food production, while Ehsassi asserts that the government’s comprehensive support measures and structural investments are adequately addressing affordability. 2400 words, 15 minutes.
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27 Members debate the Department of Finance’s main estimates in a committee of the whole. The Conservative Opposition repeatedly challenges the Minister of Finance on fiscal management, including rising debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio, and infrastructure, arguing the government has failed to meet its own fiscal targets. The Minister defends the government’s record, highlighting generational investments in housing, infrastructure, and the economy, citing expert projections of Canada's strong fiscal position compared to other G7 nations. 37100 words, 4 hours.
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, I do not know why, when we do these exercises, we need to talk down industry, why we need to talk down Canadians, why we need to talk down what people are doing. Let us talk about the industry. This is an olive branch. I am happy to put him in touch with astronauts—
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Chair, is it a coincidence that the formal Liberal premier of Nova Scotia sits on the advisory board and the chief lobbyist is none other than a former senior staffer to the current Minister of Justice?
How else does a nearly bankrupt—
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
The Assistant Deputy Chair Conservative John Nater
We are out of time. I will allow the minister a brief response.
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Again, Mr. Chair, in the spirit of collaboration, I am extending an olive branch to my colleague to put him in touch with astronauts so that he can learn how a launch site in Canada would be in the best interest of Canada's national security.
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Marc-Aurèle-Fortin Québec
Liberal
Carlos Leitão LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Chair, it is my turn to talk about Bill C-30 and to talk about the economic context in which our economic update was presented recently and, especially, the Canadian economy. What we have witnessed in the last year at least, since I have been here, is that our colleagues from the official opposition have developed this skill of offering really simplistic solutions to what are highly complex and serious problems.
In that context, let us talk about the economic update. It was an economic update, not a budget, but of course, there were some fiscal measures that were also announced in the budget. What does the economic update tell us? To start with, the economic update tells us that the deficit for 2025‑26 in fact turned out to be about $66.9 billion rather than the $78.3 billion that had been forecast back in the November budget, so there was an improvement of about $11 billion in the public accounts of the government, of the country.
Why was the deficit less than expected? It has nothing to do with the high price of oil. Conservatives talk about the GST on oil and say that it causes oil prices to go up and that is where the government makes its money, etc. No, the deficit was $11 billion less than what had been anticipated earlier because the economy in 2025 was much stronger than what had been expected. Government revenues were higher, and government spending was lower. That is where that $11 billion comes from.
Not only is the economy of Canada a resilient economy that has been able to withstand severe shocks, but it grew at a reasonable pace when compared with our neighbours and peer countries. The economy of Canada is not broken. We are in fact leading the way among the G7 countries, which is recognized by our peers.
That brings me to the next point I want to make, which is that this proves that Canada really has considerable fiscal strength. Our fiscal house is in order. We have a deficit of 2.1% of GDP, which, when we compare it to peer countries, is perfectly manageable. That deficit is projected to go to 1.4% of GDP by 2030, so the deficit is on a downward track. The debt-to-GDP ratio is at about 41% and will remain around that level in the fiscal framework into 2030 as well, which gives Canada a AAA rating. How can a country with a AAA rating have a broken economy? It does not. It does not make sense. We have a AAA rating because our fiscal house is in order and because our economy is growing despite the severe headwinds and shocks.
By the way, I remind all members of the House and all those listening to us with great enthusiasm that this Friday, the GDP numbers are coming out for the first quarter. I do not know what those numbers will be, but I am pretty certain that Q1 GDP growth will be fairly strong.
We hear this business that Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. No. In fact, we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7 despite the shocks and the very uncertain context in which we are operating. I would like to take some time to talk about that context. It is important to talk about the economic context because context is everything.
Our colleagues from the opposition keep on saying that “2014 was this, 2014 was that, and 10 years later, blah blah blah.” The context is very important. We could go all the way back to 2007-08 and the financial crisis. I will not go that far, but I think we could because the world economy did go through a severe shock in 2007-08. The adjustment that took place afterwards took some time and left some scars globally.
What has happened since 2020? We had the pandemic. The economy shut down. Governments in the OECD area shut down their economies because no one knew what was going to happen. Everything was stopped. To prevent a massive depression, because that was what was going to happen if nothing was done, governments in the OECD area spent massively to support their economies.
The Conservatives will say we wasted all that money. If governments had not done that, then the OECD economies and the global economy would have slipped into a major depression. That was a big shock in 2020. It was then followed by an economic rebound, a very sharp rebound, that took place in late 2021 into 2022, and it was a rebound in the context of broken supply chains. The result of that was massive upward pressure on prices.
Inflation took off in the OECD area. It was not a “Liberal deficit”. Were the Liberals also responsible for the U.S. deficit, the German deficit and the French deficit? Let us be serious. It was a result of the sharp rebound with broken supply chains, compounded by the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine led to, among other things, a very sharp increase in the prices of oil and other products, like grains.
The global economy was already unbalanced in 2022-23. It was a very different environment than what we had before. New solutions and new proposals had to be put in place because the times were very different. As if that was not sufficient, then what did we have in 2024-25? A new administration in the United States decided to trigger a trade war. The world as we knew it is no longer the same.
The United States, our trusted ally, no longer wants to buy things from Canada, because it claims it does not need anything from Canada. It does, but that is what it claims. Therefore, we have this weird world of 50% tariffs on aluminum from Canada in the name of the national security of the United States. The U.S. actually needs Canadian aluminum.
We have a very complex world. The tariff war is real. The tariff war is something we did not ask for. The tariff war is what is leading to profound adjustments in our manufacturing sector and in our economy as a whole. As our Prime Minister has repeated over and over again, this is not just a simple adjustment. This is a rupture in the world as we knew it, and the world now is different. The world has changed. That is something provincial premiers have fully realized. Whether it is Mr. Ford in Ontario, Ms. Smith in Alberta or Mr. Moe in Saskatchewan, all Conservative premiers, they have realized the world has changed and Canada has to adjust to this new world order.
Then, as if that was not enough, we have the war in the Middle East, which has led to a doubling of oil prices. That is a very different context that requires serious measures, which is what was done—
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
The Assistant Deputy Chair Conservative John Nater
The member's time has now expired for his speech. I invite him to ask questions of the minister.
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Chair, I have some questions for our excellent Minister of Finance.
I am sorry about where I am sitting because we will have to turn. I did not choose my seating arrangement strategically.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance could talk to us a little about what it really means to have a AAA credit rating.
When he travels and meets with colleagues from other G7 countries, what does it mean to him that Canada has a AAA credit rating? What is the benefit of that for all Canadians?
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Saint-Maurice—Champlain Québec
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Finance and National Revenue
Mr. Chair, it is refreshing to hear a colleague who was once a minister of finance talk to us about issues and real things.
I think that the people of Laval must be very proud to hear my colleague share his experience. It is a great privilege to serve with a colleague who was once the finance minister of a great province like Quebec. I salute him and thank him for his economic statement.
He is right, and it is refreshing to hear comments and questions like these because, essentially, what is being said is that two G7 countries, Canada and Germany, have an AAA credit rating.
What does that give us? It gives us the fiscal capacity to make generational investments, similar to those that our colleagues in Germany made.
We are doing it in infrastructure, obviously in housing, productivity and innovation, as well as effort.
I will have a lot more to say in response to the next question.
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Chair, the International Monetary Fund released its annual report a short time ago, which includes very encouraging remarks about Canada and the Canadian economy, despite the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the global economy. The IMF had some really positive things to say about us.
When the minister is abroad, speaking with his counterparts and with investors looking to invest here, what advantage does he get out of the fact that the IMF has such high praise for Canada?
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, it fills my heart with joy because, here in the House, we often hear the opposition criticizing the government, but when it comes to the International Monetary Fund, we know that it looks at global economies and offers an informed and impartial assessment.
In that regard, it can be said that the International Monetary Fund has held up Canada as an example of a country with the strongest public finances in the G7. We can imagine the growth of these countries.
I will simply provide a few figures. Canada has the second-fastest growth in the G7. Italy is at 0.5%, Japan is at 0.7%, Germany and the U.K. are at 0.8%, and France is at 0.9%. Meanwhile, Canada stands at 1.5%.
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, even my Conservative colleagues should be applauding this evening. I know it is a bit late, but they still have enough energy to cheer on Canada and the resilience of our economy, our workers and our industries.
It is a pleasure to build Canada strong together and to build the strongest economy in the G7.
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Chair, the economic update includes many measures, but I would like to focus on one in particular and ask the minister if he can comment on it. Unfortunately, we do not have much time.
I am thinking in particular of the investment fund, the Canada Strong fund, which I think is an excellent idea.
Could the minister comment on that?
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, 30 seconds is not very long, because building Canada strong obviously requires a strong team Canada, a strong team of workers who will build this country.
The sovereign wealth fund is a unique opportunity to build collective wealth, but in a very Canadian way, since it will enable ordinary people, that is, individual investors, to invest in and own part of this collective wealth that we are going to create together.
I think it is a great initiative. It is typical of Canada to want to build. That is why we want to build Canada strong for all.
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, on September 10, 2025, the minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, saying that if he were involved in any decisions, discussions or debates related to the Alto project, he would be in a conflict of interest. Is that correct?
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Saint-Maurice—Champlain Québec
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Finance and National Revenue
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to inform my colleague that I have complied with all legal requirements regarding this matter.
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.
The question is about the letter the minister wrote in September 2025. Will the minister table that letter in the House, and at the ethics committee when he appears on June 11?
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, as I said, I have complied with all the rules under the law. I will have the opportunity to testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the coming weeks, and I will be happy to answer any questions my colleagues may have when I appear before the committee.
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, this evening the minister has the opportunity to inform Canadians and the House about the conflict of interest he said he would be in if he participated in votes, decisions, discussions or debates on Alto. This is why the minister put in place a conflict of interest screen. Is that not correct?
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to quote an excerpt from the letter written by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on April 7, 2026: Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport, and as Minister of Finance, you have no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto; you do not have the opportunity to further the interest—
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, it was the minister who said there would be a conflict of interest. The letter the minister provided to the Prime Minister should be furnished. Because we know it was shared with media, it should certainly be shared with parliamentarians.
Why did the ethics screen the minister put in place not prevent him from participating in discussions, decisions, debates or votes related to Alto?
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, allow me to finish quoting the letter, which says that “there is no risk of conflict of interest and that a screen is not required.” Those are the words of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. However, in the interest of integrity, I took it upon myself to proactively implement a screen. I will have the opportunity to explain myself before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the coming weeks.