Dan Knight

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.