Business
Finance Minister ducks deficit questions, talks down to critics, and rebrands reckless spending as ‘transparency’.
Liberal Finance Minister : Capital Budgeting or Creative Accounting?
At the fifth meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance (FINA) during the 45th Parliament, Minister of Finance and National Revenue François-Philippe Champagne faced pointed questions from opposition MPs over the Liberal government’s shifting fiscal strategy, the reintroduction of capital budgeting, and the growing perception of evasiveness in public accountability.
Minister Champagne began with prepared remarks, where he unveiled the decision to present Budget 2025 on November 4—a shift in the federal budget cycle from spring to fall. He claimed this new timetable would enhance transparency and predictability, especially for municipalities and provinces that align infrastructure spending with the construction season. Alongside the change in budget timing, he announced a new “capital budgeting framework,” which separates investment from operating expenditures. Champagne argued that this framework would improve clarity on how public funds are used, distinguishing between day-to-day spending and long-term investments.
He tied the new presentation format to broader affordability measures embedded in Bill C-4, which includes a middle-class tax cut affecting an estimated 22 million Canadians, the removal of the GST for first-time homebuyers purchasing new homes up to $1 million, and the elimination of the federal consumer fuel charge. The minister also acknowledged that some disability tax credit recipients had been unintentionally excluded from recent benefit programs, pledging to correct the oversight.
Opposition members, however, were quick to scrutinize both the budget approach and the minister’s refusal to answer direct fiscal questions. Conservative MP Jasraj Singh Hallan opened his questioning at the eight-minute mark by demanding clarity on the government’s fiscal anchors. Champagne responded that the government aims to balance the operating budget within three years while ensuring a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio over that same period. Hallan challenged the credibility of that claim, referencing recent projections by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) which show deficits are 80 percent higher than initially promised and the national economy is shrinking. He repeatedly asked the minister to reconcile that data with his optimistic projections. Champagne instead pointed to Canada’s AAA credit rating and comparative G7 standing, a response Hallan dismissed as detached from the realities of Canadians struggling with inflation and rising debt.
The conversation quickly grew heated, with Hallan accusing the government of using “accounting tricks” and comparing the capital budgeting move to a failed policy previously attempted by Mark Carney during his tenure in the United Kingdom. Hallan cited the PBO’s own criticism that the framework lacks a precise definition for what constitutes a capital versus an operating expense and warned that the new presentation would not change the fiscal bottom line—debt remains debt. Champagne avoided offering specifics and instead reiterated the virtue of transparency, arguing that Canadians deserve to know where their money is going.
Bloc Québécois MP Jean-Denis Garon took a sharper tone during his six-minute exchange. Garon accused the Liberals of undermining the role of Parliament by shutting out over 200 Quebec organizations from public budget consultations. He claimed the Finance Committee itself was bypassed in the process. He further challenged the minister on internal inconsistency, citing a summer push for 15 percent cuts in departmental budgets followed by a 26 percent increase in the fall supply bill, with some areas ballooning by over 300 percent. Garon bluntly asked the minister whether he had lost control of his department. Champagne responded with a long list of statistics about consultations—57 bilateral meetings, outreach in 26 cities, and nearly 8,700 online responses—but avoided addressing why the Finance Committee and many Quebec stakeholders were excluded.
The most overtly condescending exchange occurred between the minister and Conservative MP Sandra Cobián, who questioned the budget presentation change. Cobián asked why the government was altering how it displays fiscal data rather than cutting reckless spending to actually balance the budget. Champagne dismissed her concerns by pivoting to her voting record and then made a patronizing appeal to “your husband and your family and everyone in your riding,” asserting they deserve more transparency. Cobián rebutted that working Canadians can’t simply reframe their personal finances to make the numbers look better—they either have money or they don’t. When she pushed the minister for a yes-or-no answer on whether the deficit would be higher under this government than it was under Trudeau, Champagne dodged once again, citing the G7 and saying Canadians “look at many numbers.” When she reminded him that numbers don’t change—“it’s black and white”—and mentioned her own financial sector background, Champagne closed with a thinly veiled pat on the head: “That’s why I’m happy you’re on the finance committee… you’re a very smart [person].”
The hearing ended with administrative approvals for committee budgets related to the study of Bill C-4 and the broader budgetary process. Members also requested that the minister table documentation supporting his claim that committee consultations justified the budget cycle change.
While François-Philippe Champagne smugly leaned on Canada’s credit rating and G7 stats like they were magic talismans, what he flatly refused to do was answer the actual question: how much deeper is this government dragging the country into debt? The Finance Minister, with all the polished charm of a career bureaucrat, dodged specifics on deficit numbers like they were radioactive. And when pressed on his new “capital budgeting framework”—a classic shell game move where you don’t fix the spending, you just re-label it—he offered not clarity, but condescension.
Opposition MPs weren’t buying it, and neither should Canadians. Every party in the room, from the Bloc to the Conservatives, smelled the spin. They asked basic, good-faith questions about fiscal responsibility—questions any serious government should welcome. Instead, Champagne waved it all away as confusion, political theatre, or worse, ignorance. In one jaw-dropping moment, he even lectured a Conservative MP about what her husband and family deserve to know, before patting her on the head with a “you’re very smart.”
This is arrogance. And it’s fueling a growing realization across the country: this government isn’t just broke on ideas—it’s morally bankrupt on accountability. The fall budget debate hasn’t even started, and already the mask is slipping.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Business
Will Paramount turn the tide of legacy media and entertainment?

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The recent leadership changes at Paramount Skydance suggest that the company may finally be ready to correct course after years of ideological drift, cultural activism posing as programming, and a pattern of self-inflicted financial and reputational damage.
Nowhere was this problem more visible than at CBS News, which for years operated as one of the most partisan and combative news organizations. Let’s be honest, CBS was the worst of an already left biased industry that stopped at nothing to censor conservatives. The network seemed committed to the idea that its viewers needed to be guided, corrected, or morally shaped by its editorial decisions.
This culminated in the CBS and 60 Minutes segment with Kamala Harris that was so heavily manipulated and so structurally misleading that it triggered widespread backlash and ultimately forced Paramount to settle a $16 million dispute with Donald Trump. That was not merely a legal or contractual problem. It was an institutional failure that demonstrated the degree to which political advocacy had overtaken journalistic integrity.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
For many longtime viewers across the political spectrum, that episode represented a clear breaking point. It became impossible to argue that CBS News was simply leaning left. It was operating with a mission orientation that prioritized shaping narratives rather than reporting truth. As a result, trust collapsed. Many of us who once had long-term professional, commercial, or intellectual ties to Paramount and CBS walked away.
David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount marks the most consequential change to the studio’s identity in a generation. Ellison is not anchored to the old Hollywood ecosystem where cultural signaling and activist messaging were considered more important than story, audience appeal, or shareholder value.
His professional history in film and strategic business management suggests an approach grounded in commercial performance, audience trust, and brand rebuilding rather than ideological identity. That shift matters because Paramount has spent years creating content and news coverage that seemed designed to provoke or instruct viewers rather than entertain or inform them. It was an approach that drained goodwill, eroded market share, and drove entire segments of the viewing public elsewhere.
The appointment of Bari Weiss as the new chief editor of CBS News is so significant. Weiss has built her reputation on rejecting ideological conformity imposed from either side. She has consistently spoken out against antisemitism and the moral disorientation that emerges when institutions prioritize political messaging over honesty.
Her brand centers on the belief that journalism should clarify rather than obscure. During President Trump’s recent 60 Minutes interview, he praised Weiss as a “great person” and credited her with helping restore integrity and editorial seriousness inside CBS. That moment signaled something important. Paramount is no longer simply rearranging executives. It is rethinking identity.
The appointment of Makan Delrahim as Chief Legal Officer was an early indicator. Delrahim’s background at the Department of Justice, where he led antitrust enforcement, signals seriousness about governance, compliance, and restoring institutional discipline.
But the deeper and more meaningful shift is occurring at the ownership and editorial levels, where the most politically charged parts of Paramount’s portfolio may finally be shedding the habits that alienated millions of viewers.The transformation will not be immediate. Institutions develop habits, internal cultures, and incentive structures that resist correction. There will be internal opposition, particularly from staff and producers who benefited from the ideological culture that defined CBS News in recent years.
There will be critics in Hollywood who see any shift toward balance as a threat to their influence. And there will be outside voices who will insist that any move away from their preferred political posture is regression.
But genuine reform never begins with instant consensus. It begins with leadership willing to be clear about the mission.
Paramount has the opportunity to reclaim what once made it extraordinary. Not as a symbol. Not as a message distribution vehicle. But as a studio that understands that good storytelling and credible reporting are not partisan aims. They are universal aims. Entertainment succeeds when it connects with audiences rather than instructing them. Journalism succeeds when it pursues truth rather than victory.
In an era when audiences have more viewing choices than at any time in history, trust is an economic asset. Viewers are sophisticated. They recognize when they are being lectured rather than engaged. They know when editorial goals are political rather than informational. And they are willing to reward any institution that treats them with respect.
There is now reason to believe Paramount understands this. The leadership is changing. The tone is changing. The incentives are being reassessed.
It is not the final outcome. But it is a real beginning. As the great Winston Churchill once said; “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.
For the first time in a long time, the door to cultural realignment in legacy media is open. And Paramount is standing at the threshold and has the capability to become a market leader once again. If Paramount acts, the industry will follow.
Bill Flaig and Tom Carter are the Co-Founders of The American Conservatives Values ETF, Ticker Symbol ACVF traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Ticker Symbol ACVF
Learn more at www.InvestConservative.com
Business
Parliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending
PBO slices through Carney’s creative accounting
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to cut spending following today’s bombshell Parliamentary Budget Officer report that criticizes the government’s definition of capital spending and promise to balance the operating budget.
“The reality is that Carney is continuing on a course of unaffordable borrowing and the PBO report shows government messaging about ‘balancing the operating budget’ is not credible,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Carney is using creative accounting to hide the spiralling debt.”
Carney’s Budget 2025 splits the budget into operating and capital spending and promises to balance the operating budget by 2028-29.
However, today’s PBO budget report states that Carney’s definition of capital spending is “overly expansive.” Without using that “overly expansive” definition of capital spending, the government would run an $18 billion operating deficit in 2028-29, according to the PBO.
“Based on our definition, capital investments would total $217.3 billion over 2024-25 to 2029-30, which is approximately 30 per cent ($94 billion) lower compared to Budget 2025,” according to the PBO. “Moreover, based on our definition, the operating balance in Budget 2025 would remain in a deficit position over 2024-25 to 2029-30.”
The PBO states that the Carney government is using “a definition of capital investment that expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice.” The report specifically points out that “by including corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits and operating (production) subsidies, the framework blends policy measures with capital formation.”
The federal government plans to borrow about $80 billion this year, according to Budget 2025. Carney has no plan stop borrowing money and balance the budget. Debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $55.6 billion this year, which is more than the federal government will send to the provinces in health transfers ($54.7 billion) or collect through the GST ($54.4 billion).
“Carney isn’t balancing anything when he borrows tens of billions of dollars every year,” Terrazzano said. “Instead of applying creative accounting to the budget numbers, Carney needs to cut spending and debt.”
-
Energy23 hours agoIt should not take a crisis for Canada to develop the resources that make people and communities thrive.
-
Fraser Institute2 days agoCourts and governments caused B.C.’s property crisis—they’re not about to fix it
-
Alberta1 day agoFederal budget: It’s not easy being green
-
Alberta2 days agoChatGPT may explain why gap between report card grades and standardized test scores is getting bigger
-
Education2 days agoJohns Hopkins University Announces Free Tuition For Most Students
-
Business1 day agoWill Paramount turn the tide of legacy media and entertainment?
-
Business2 days agoParliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending
-
Energy1 day agoA picture is worth a thousand spreadsheets



