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 (opens in a new tab)

366 statements

Michael Cooper, St. Albert—Sturgeon River

Conservative
“The government is paying a company $20 million a year to lease land that the company rents from Nova Scotia for less than $14,000. This company has never launched anything into space. Is this a good use of money?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the answer is zero. They have zero track record of launching anything into space. The Liberals are paying Maritime Launch Services $20 million a year to lease land that Maritime Launch Services does not even own, which they are leasing from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $14,000 a year. They are then flipping it to the federal government, earning a 1,300% profit. Is that value for money, yes or no?

François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue

Liberal
“I support Nova Scotia, our astronauts, and our space industry. The launch site in Canso is important for our national security.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 37 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 32 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, the member went after the space industry. He went after a launch site. He is now going after Nova Scotia. I do not know where this is going to end, but one thing I can tell members is that I am going to stand with the people of Nova Scotia. I am going to stand with our astronauts. I am going to stand with the space industry. I will remind him that I am happy to put him in touch with astronauts. He would learn that Canso is a particular site from which to launch and something we need in terms of national security.

Michael Cooper, St. Albert—Sturgeon River

Conservative
“I want the minister to explain why we bought land back from a failing space company for 13 times what it paid.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, to review the inconvenient facts for the minister, we have a nearly bankrupt company that has no track record of launching anything into space flipping Crown land back to the taxpayers for a 1,300% profit. How does any of that make sense?

François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue

Liberal
“I am here to answer questions. We should be celebrating Canada's space program, including sending a Canadian around the moon, investing in our space industry, and building a launch site in Canada.”
  • 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 am here to answer the questions from the member. What I find sad tonight is that there would be a way to celebrate the great success of our astronauts, the fact that we have launched a Canadian around the moon, the fact that we are investing in our space industry, the fact that we will have a launch site in Canada, and it is going to be part of the resilience of—

Michael Cooper, St. Albert—Sturgeon River

Conservative
“I want the minister to admit that this is just to reward friends of the Liberal party.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I will put it to the minister. This is about rewarding Liberal insiders. Is that not what is going on?

François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue

Liberal
“We should not insult Canadian workers and businesses. I am offering to connect the member with our astronauts to talk about our space industry.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 18 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, 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—

Michael Cooper, St. Albert—Sturgeon River

Conservative
“I want to know if this company got special treatment because its lobbyist worked for the justice minister and a former Liberal premier is on its board.”
Official Hansard

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—

François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue

Liberal
“I want to connect the member with astronauts. They can explain how a rocket launch site in Canada helps our national security.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“Canada's economy is strong, not broken. Our deficit is lower than expected because our economy grew, and our debt is manageable. Global problems like the pandemic, wars, and American trade tariffs have hurt economies everywhere, but Canada is handling them well.”
Official Hansard

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—

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“I want the Minister of Finance to explain what having a top credit rating means for Canada. How does it help Canadians, and what does it mean when he meets with other world leaders?”
Official Hansard

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?

François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue

Liberal
“Canada has a top credit rating, just like Germany. This gives us the money to make big investments in housing, infrastructure, and innovation.”
Official Hansard

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, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“The International Monetary Fund had good things to say about Canada's economy. I want to know how the minister uses that praise when speaking with foreign leaders and investors.”
Official Hansard

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, Minister of Finance and National Revenue

Liberal
“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.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

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.

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“I support the new Canada Strong investment fund. I want the minister to tell us more about it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 40 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, 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, Minister of Finance and National Revenue

Liberal
“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.”
  • 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
  • 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
Official Hansard

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.

Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes

Conservative
“The minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister saying he would be in a conflict of interest if he worked on the Alto project. I want him to confirm if that is true.”
Official Hansard

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?

François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue

Liberal

Linked statement

“I followed all the legal rules about this.”
Official Hansard

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

Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes

Conservative
“I want the minister to release the letter he wrote in September 2025. I want him to give it to the House and to the ethics committee when he speaks to them on June 11.”
Official Hansard

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, Minister of Finance and National Revenue

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

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.

Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes

Conservative
“I want the minister to admit he had to step away from decisions about Alto because he had a conflict of interest.”
Official Hansard

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?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 122

  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