François-Philippe Champagne

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“Canada is a large country, so we must invest in infrastructure. Our budget does this so we can sell goods to other countries and stay strong.”

“Mr. Chair, my colleague understands that, in a large country like Canada, we need to make generational investments in infrastructure. That is exactly what we presented in budget 2025. I think Canadians understand that if we want to build a resilient country, if we want to export, we need to build infrastructure across the country.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“You should ask the Minister of Transport these questions. That minister is in charge of this project.”

“Mr. Chair, based on the answers I gave earlier, my colleague will understand that these questions should be directed to the Minister of Transport, who is the minister responsible for this project.”

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“Canada needs modern infrastructure. That is why our budget invests a lot of money into building it.”

“Mr. Chair, my colleagues will see that the Government of Canada is making generational investments in infrastructure. The country needs modern infrastructure. That is why, in budget 2025, I presented a major infrastructure plan.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“I have always treated other members of Parliament with respect, and they deserve it. I follow all the rules that the law requires, and I will keep doing that.”

“Mr. Chair, like all my colleagues here, in the years I have served in the House, I have always treated my colleagues with the utmost respect. I believe that all members of the House are entitled to the same respect. I have already stated on several occasions that I have complied with all the rules required by law. I will continue to do so, as I am required to do, and as all my colleagues in the House are required to do.”

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

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

“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.”

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“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.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

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

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →
• Little substance
  ?

  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 →

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“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.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

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

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“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.”

“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”—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“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.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“I followed all the ethics rules and laws.”

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

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

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

“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.”

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“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.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

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

“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—”

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“I followed all the rules under the law. I will answer questions about this when I speak to the committee in the coming weeks.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“I followed all the legal rules about this.”

“Mr. Chair, I am pleased to inform my colleague that I have complied with all legal requirements regarding this matter.”

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“I support our plan for a national wealth fund. It gives ordinary Canadians a way to invest in our country and share in the wealth we create.”

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 42 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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 48 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“The International Monetary Fund says Canada has the strongest public finances in the G7. Our economy is growing faster than almost all other G7 countries. The opposition should cheer for Canada's success.”

“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%. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Hon. François-Philippe Champagne: 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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 42 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 →