Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Business of Supply

This was a Business of Supply debate taking place during consideration of the government’s recent economic update legislation. Conservatives pressed the Finance Minister on deficit spending, asking when the budget would be balanced, how many homes are being built, the costs of a planned sovereign wealth fund, and details of specific spending items such as a spaceport lease, while repeatedly saying the minister was not answering their questions. Liberals defended the government’s record, saying the economy is strong, the deficit is lower than expected, and housing prices and rents have come down. The Bloc Québécois asked about the exemption of American companies from the global minimum tax in Bill C-31 and about wage subsidies for workers affected by tariffs, and the NDP asked why the government is not taxing oil company excess profits or banning surveillance pricing. Some members also raised local matters such as support for regional media.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

366 statements

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal

Linked statement

“The ethics commissioner wrote to me saying that, as finance minister, I have no power over hiring or staffing decisions at Alto.”
Official Hansard

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—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Michael Barrett

Conservative
“The minister should share his conflict of interest letter with Parliament, especially since he gave it to the media. I want to know why his ethics rules did not stop him from taking part in decisions about Alto.”
Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“The ethics commissioner said I had no conflict of interest and did not need to step away from decisions. I decided to step away anyway to be safe. I will explain this to the ethics committee soon.”
Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Michael Barrett

Conservative
“The minister said himself that there would be a conflict of interest. Did his conflict-of-interest screen stop him from talking about Alto in cabinet meetings?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, It was the minister who said there would be a conflict of interest. Those were his words. Did that screen prevent the minister from participating in discussions about Alto in cabinet?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“I followed all the rules required by law, and I followed the screen that was put in place.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, as I said, I followed all the rules required by law, and of course I complied with the screen that was put in place.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“I followed all the ethics rules and laws.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 49 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, as I said, I followed all the rules under the law and I complied with the screen that was put in place.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Michael Barrett

Conservative
“The minister has spent an hour avoiding our questions. I want him to answer whether his conflict-of-interest plan applied to this part of the bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, it has been more than an hour that the minister has been here, and he has said an awful lot of things but has not answered our questions, and that trend continues. Did the screen that the minister said was necessary to avoid a conflict of interest apply to clause 191 of Bill C-15?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“The ethics commissioner wrote to me on April 7 and said I have no conflict of interest. I put up an ethics screen anyway just to be safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, allow me once again to quote from the letter for the benefit of my colleague. He is an experienced man. I think he is even a lawyer. It comes from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and it is dated April 7̓. It says that “there is no risk of conflict of interest and that a screen is not required.” In addition, I proactively put a screen in place to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade D View analysis

Michael Barrett

Conservative
“The minister said it would be a conflict of interest for him to work on this issue. Did this part of the bill involve the project he had a conflict with?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, we take all hon. members at their word in this place, and it was the hon. minister who said there would be a conflict of interest if he were involved in discussions, debates or decisions. Clause 191 contained the High-Speed Rail Network Act. That was Alto-related legislation. Is that true?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“The ethics commissioner confirmed that I have no power over Alto. It reports to the Minister of Transport, not to me as the Minister of Finance.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I would like to quote those words again because all manner of allegations can be made in this House, but what matters is the truth. The truth is in a message sent on April 7, 2026, by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which states, “Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport, and as Minister of Finance, you have no decision-making authority”—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Michael Barrett

Conservative
“I want the minister to confirm if he voted on February 25 to remove a specific part of this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, on February 25, 2026, the minister voted on Motion No. 44, which would have deleted clause 191 from Bill C-15. Is that correct?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“The ethics commissioner told me I have no control over hiring at Alto. Because of that, there is no conflict of interest.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I will continue my quote: “...you have no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto; you do not have the opportunity to further the interest of any specific Alto employee”. I was also told that there is no risk of conflict of interest and that a screen is not required. That is what I was told by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Michael Barrett

Conservative
“The minister will not say how he voted on the bill or share his letter about a conflict of interest. He shared that letter with a newspaper. I want him to share it with Parliament.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, it is unbelievable that the minister will not even confirm how he voted on the bill. He will not provide the letter that he wrote in which he said there would be a conflict. We just want to provide transparency for Canadians. If he has nothing to hide, he certainly should be able to provide to members of the House of Commons the letter that he shared with Toronto Star. Why will he not share it?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“I sent the letter to the ethics commissioner. I have followed all the rules, and I will keep following them. Everyone in the House must follow the same rules.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the letter in question was forwarded to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. As I said, I have complied with all the rules under the law. I will continue to do so, as I am required to do and as my colleagues in the House are required to do. We are all subject to the same rules here in the House.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Michael Barrett

Conservative
“The minister set up rules to avoid a conflict of interest with Alto. But his department hired a budget contractor connected to Alto. Did those same rules apply to this contractor?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the minister told Canadians that he had a conflict of interest screen because he believed there would be one if he participated in debates, discussions, decisions or votes related to Alto, but the minister’s department then hired an outside contractor for the budget who appears to have been connected to Alto. Did a conflict of interest screen apply to that contractor?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“The member should be careful about the claims he is making against other members and their families.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 10 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis

  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 0 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, my colleague is an experienced man. He is a very talented parliamentarian, but he is making a lot of allegations. I know that his legal training should lead him to be cautious in what he says and in the allegations he makes against his colleagues, who are all honourable members of the House, as well as their families.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

Michael Barrett

Conservative
“I am just repeating what the minister said. Did Finance Canada hire an outside company to help with the 2025 budget speech and presentation, yes or no?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I have made no allegation. I have only repeated what the minister has said. Regarding what we have asked, and indeed one of the minister’s hon. colleagues asked me to repeat it outside the House, I am asking questions, and the questions are repeating exactly what the minister has said. Therefore, did Finance Canada hire an outside contractor to assist with the 2025 budget speech and presentation, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“I followed all the rules under the law. I am answering the member's questions and will speak to the ethics committee. We should treat each other with respect, and the member should be careful about what he accuses me of.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 28 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I want to get back to this point because I have been a member of the House for 12 years. I believe that my colleague has been a member for over 10 years as well. We all deserve respect. We all have the right to treat each other honourably. I have conducted myself in an honourable manner. I am answering his questions. I told him that I complied with all the rules under the law and that I would testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I think my colleague should be careful about the allegations he makes.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C– View analysis

Michael Barrett

Conservative
“I want the minister to confirm if the government gave a contractor named Émond over $12,000 to help write the budget speech.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, this is a different question. The question is about a contractor who worked on the budget speech. My understanding is that this is separate from your letter in September. It was a contract worth $12,168. I would encourage you to use your officials who are here in the chamber with you. The contract identified a vendor. The vendor’s last name is Émond, and I am wondering if the minister can confirm that this contract was awarded. It is open-source. It is published online: $12,168 to help with the budget presentation and speech. Can he confirm that?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal
“I do not understand why the member is asking this. The information is already public, and he can look it up himself.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I do not understand the nature of the question. If my colleague already has the answer, I do not see the point of asking. As he says, if the information is in the public domain, he will have the opportunity to obtain all the information he needs. We are here to answer any questions, but when it comes to questions involving information that is in the public domain, I believe my colleague is capable of obtaining it.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 122

All 46 items ·
  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 64 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 45 statements
  3. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 16 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 10 statements
  11. Oral Questions Public Safety 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions Women and Gender Equality 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Emergency Management 3 statements
  22. Government Orders Business of Supply 15 statements
  23. Government Orders Business of Supply 15 statements
  24. Government Orders Business of Supply 27 statements
  25. Private Members' Business An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping 12 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Government Orders Business of Supply 366 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements