Finance Committee on June 2nd, 2026

[Mathieu Lavigne]

Hello again, Mr. Lavoie.

I would say that we can certainly be part of the solution, but you're highlighting the possibility that other organizations could take on this role.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That would be to carry out the activation, as Mr. Laurin said.

[Mathieu Lavigne]

Keeping track of all the programs and all potential alignments between what exists in Quebec and at the federal level, as well as trying to take stock of what is actually in effect and what aligns with what, is already an ongoing challenge for our organization. I imagine it's the same for my colleagues at the Quebec Employers' Council as well.

This is a challenge we face as an organization. Imagine an SME that doesn't have resources dedicated to tracking these measures and alignments; it will certainly have a hard time managing it.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Does the Quebec Employers' Council have anything to add?

[Michelle LLambías Meunier]

I can quickly add to that.

Regarding the question of our ability to do this, we can certainly be part of the solution, because we are already implementing other support programs for SMEs and businesses. The FCCQ and the QEC do this, as well as several organizations across the region.

The idea is to work in a complementary way, not to replace expertise that already exists.

So, the easy answer is yes. However, there may be other players who are already capable of doing this. It's also true that we, too, are struggling to find our way through this chaos of information that changes every day.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Absolutely.

[Michelle LLambías Meunier]

So, that's a challenge.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Indeed.

What I've taken away so far is that there are many programs, but not all of them are being used, as Mr. Laurin mentioned. So, we need to work on getting SMEs up and running because, often, we want several new measures, but SMEs aren't able to implement them. We need to find stakeholders like you, the FCCQ and the QEC, to help them get started and support our businesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lavoie.

We will conclude this hour with Mr. Garon for two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will continue with Professor Godbout on the issue of accounting for current expenditures versus investments.

We understand that governments have current expenditures and that they make certain investments. These investments may be recorded on the infrastructure balance sheet, as is the case in Quebec. Furthermore, we can amortize a certain portion of them in the current budget over a number of years, for example. So, this is the logic by which they are accounted for, for instance in Quebec. This is also what the United Kingdom, a unitary state, does.

In the Canadian context—the committee had asked officials to perform the calculations some time ago—I believe that around 4% of public capital in Canada is federally owned. Of this percentage, the majority of the assets are already accounted for under private-sector accounting: airports, ports, among others. It turns out, therefore, that there is virtually no true public capital at the federal level.

Furthermore, when you do the accounting—as the government tried to do to explain that these amounts weren't really expenditures—it ends up being transfers that the provinces convert into investments and record on their books, as in the Quebec infrastructure plan.

This leads to situations where security at FIFA World Cup matches becomes an investment in the budget. That's what we saw this fall. I won't ask you whether this is an investment or not, because I think it's getting ridiculous.

In the federal context, where there is almost no capital, how can we establish a credible framework so we don't end up with a farce like the one we saw in the last budget?

[Luc Godbout]

The main point being made here seems to be that our research and development tax credits are, in fact, part of our investments since they will help businesses invest. I think we're stretching the definition a bit. I think that—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I'm cutting you off because there are only a few seconds left, but that's my question. When you strip away everything that's been stretched, there's practically nothing left. So why are we doing this?

[Luc Godbout]

People haven't criticized the exercise. The International Monetary Fund thinks it's a worthwhile consideration. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised concerns about what falls under the categories of operating expenses and infrastructure expenses. We share roughly the same view. We're not saying the exercise is incorrect, but we are saying that it's necessary to clarify what truly constitutes a capital expenditure as opposed to an operating expense.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their time and their work.

We will briefly adjourn the session to prepare for the next group of witnesses.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan (Calgary East, CPC)), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Welcome back, everyone. We're resuming the meeting.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

I would like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you will need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

All virtual witnesses have conducted a mandatory witness onboarding test.

You will have five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will open the floor to questions.

First, we have the CSN.

You have five minutes.

[Caroline Senneville, President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Good morning. Thank you for having us.

At the Confederation of National Trade Unions, or CNTU, we have three major concerns regarding Canada: social inequality, our economy and our democracy. Therefore, the recommendations we are making to you relate to each of these issues.

Social inequality in Canada is on the rise. In recent years, the wealthiest 20% of Canadians have become richer, while the poorest 20% have actually become poorer. So, in our view, we need to reform the tax system to make it more progressive in order to redistribute this wealth. We also need to review corporate taxation, and we must absolutely combat tax havens to ensure we have socially responsible companies.

Another way to combat inequality is to continue investing in social protections, education and health care. We also need social infrastructure, such as housing.

Furthermore, for the past 10 or 15 years, the CNTU and other labour unions have been repeating that we absolutely must overhaul the employment insurance system, which is not at all fulfilling the purpose for which it was created. In our economy, which is experiencing upheavals, this has become clear. The government is rolling out a host of pilot projects and temporary measures, some of which it extends and others it does not. We believe the entire system needs to be overhauled to ensure it functions properly, rather than relying on ad hoc measures.

Still on the topic of taxation and inequality, we are very disappointed to see that the capital gains tax was not raised as a previous government had announced. In our view, that would have been a good way to combat social inequality.

We are also concerned about our economy. We believe that Canada needs a strong industrial policy that recognizes the contribution of each of Canada's regions. Canada is a large country, and each region faces its own difficulties and challenges.

One recurring challenge concerns the forestry sector. Of course, the latest tariffs are hurting us, but we've been facing tariffs in the forestry sector for decades and have been in a trade dispute with our southern neighbour over this issue. It's time for us to adopt a strong industrial policy in this area to support, of course, workers, but above all, communities. There are places that are almost entirely dependent on a single industry. The closure of forestry companies or businesses linked to this industry would cause major difficulties for certain regions. Their entire social fabric risks unravelling if we do not address this issue.

Another issue that we truly view as an economic one is the environment. We know what's happening south of the border, but everywhere else, investments are being made to build a greener economy, because that is our true future for the coming decades. So, we must continue to invest in a green economy and in the technologies of the future.

I must tell you that, even though the CNTU understands that we have to deal with fossil fuels and that we can't get rid of them overnight, for us, they're part of the old economy. So, it's time to make the shift toward a new economy—a green economy, of course—while working with workers to ensure they don't bear the brunt of this transition. If we want this transition to succeed, we need to give ourselves time to do it and start right now, rather than acting solely out of urgency.

Another topic we'd like to discuss with you is culture. It is very important to protect our culture within our economy. This is a key factor in negotiations, particularly with our U.S. neighbour. It is very important for us to protect what makes Canada unique, such as the francophone community, among other things.

I think the trade conflict with the United States has made Canadians realize that they don't want Canada to become the 51st state of the United States. Therefore, we must support the francophone cultural industry, of course, as well as the non-francophone one.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you, Ms. Senneville. That's time.

[Caroline Senneville]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Next, we have the FTQ for five minutes.

[Colin L'Ériger, Director, Research Service, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you very much for inviting me to testify as part of the pre-budget consultations.

My name is Colin L'Ériger. I am the director of the Research Department at the FTQ—the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec—a Quebec-based labour federation with 600,000 members across all sectors and regions of Quebec.

We know that Quebec and Canada face many challenges. Several have been mentioned, including the trade war, climate change and the housing crisis. Therefore, we will focus our remarks on what the federal government could do to address these issues, which affect the members we represent.

First, it is a matter of supporting workers during these turbulent times. The vast majority of the FTQ's membership is in the private sector. Unfortunately, our affiliated unions operating in the sectors most affected by tariffs are seeing bad news pile up week after week, such as partial or complete business closures.

At the FTQ, we are realistic. We know that we cannot change the economies of Quebec and Canada overnight. However, that does not mean there is nothing we can do. As I mentioned earlier, at the FTQ, we believe that establishing an industrial policy is an extremely promising way to capitalize on the strengths of Quebec and other regions of the country, as well as on the needs of the population. Obviously, it should focus on revitalizing the manufacturing sector—particularly in secondary and tertiary processing—as well as on research and innovation, in order to add greater value to Canadian products.

There's also the issue of buying local. We must encourage and promote the consumption of domestically produced goods, particularly through preferential public procurement and purchasing policies. Steps in this direction have already been taken in the latest budget.

Next, there is the issue of employment insurance. We have seen a rise in the unemployment rate over the past few years. I believe the pandemic has truly highlighted the fact that the employment insurance system no longer adequately meets the needs of workers. Fewer than four out of ten unemployed people are eligible for benefits, even though they all pay premiums. Reform is urgently needed. The brief we submitted contains several recommendations in this regard, including making many of the temporary measures permanent.

Then there is the issue of a public and universal drug insurance plan. Two weeks ago, we held a seminar with our members on group insurance. Many told us about the runaway increase in group insurance costs, to the point where people are wondering whether they'll still have group insurance or if they'll have to give it up. In Quebec, we have a rather unique system. In short, the situation is quite untenable at the moment. Costs continue to rise, and a significant portion of the population—about 10% in Quebec and even more among the most vulnerable groups—is going without medication due to lack of funds.

Of course, there was Bill C‑64 on prescription drug coverage, which we welcomed and which was passed. It is a step in the right direction. However, it is now important to devote all necessary efforts and investments to implementing this vital program in order to reduce public health care costs and ease the financial burden on households. This collaboration between the federal government and the provinces is desirable and can be achieved while respecting each jurisdiction's areas of responsibility.

Next, there is the housing crisis. This issue is of great concern to the FTQ. Rent and real estate prices are completely out of step with workers' ability to pay. We see the effects of this every day, whether in the increased reliance on food banks or the rise in homelessness. Just because we're seeing a slight increase in vacancy rates in some markets doesn't mean the crisis is over.

This is becoming a problem not only for the quality of life of the members we represent, but also for the vitality of the economy. All the dysfunctions we see in the housing market are harming the job market. In fact, people are moving less and less, for fear of losing affordable housing. This loss of residential mobility is a loss for the economy. Furthermore, all the money spent on housing is money that isn't being reinvested elsewhere in the economy. There are many studies on this subject, which you've surely seen.

So, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. A wide range of solutions will need to be implemented, but it is very important that the federal government significantly increase investment in social and community housing. Furthermore, we need targets to address the needs of the most vulnerable people and those with the greatest housing needs.

In conclusion, we must reiterate the importance of combatting climate change. We must mobilize public funds to combat climate change, support sectors with a promising future, and promote projects aimed at achieving carbon neutrality. These actions must also be part of a just transition framework—meaning that the workers who will be affected by these changes must not be the only ones to bear the costs. This is a collective effort, so the costs must be shared collectively. Certain communities must not be the only ones affected. This just transition plan must also allow workers to fully participate in planning the decarbonization of their economic sector.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you very much.

Next, we have the National Police Federation.

[Brian Sauvé, President, National Police Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today as part of your 2026 pre-budget consultations.

My name is Brian Sauvé. I am a sergeant in the RCMP, and I am also the president of the National Police Federation, the union representing about 20,000 members of the RCMP across Canada and internationally.

The federal government has emphasized the need for fiscal responsibility, nation-building investments and protecting Canadians in an increasingly complex security environment, including in the Arctic. Our recommendations will speak directly to those priorities.

Public safety procurement is not a back-office function. It's a mission-critical issue. When procurement fails, our officers end up carrying expired equipment and working with 20th-century tools against 21st-century threats. This is bad for members' safety, bad for public safety and bad for the federal balance sheet.

Today, RCMP equipment procurement is split across internal RCMP units, central agencies and Public Services and Procurement Canada. Because no single entity owns the full life cycle, from business case to contracting to renewal, projects get delayed, retendered or simply overtaken by other priorities. Life-cycle management is piecemeal, and there is no one office that is clearly accountable for ensuring that critical equipment is replaced before expiry rather than years later.

We have lived the consequences. For example, the RCMP service pistol replacement took more than a decade from life-cycle expiry to contract award, while comparable police agencies completed similar procurements in two years or less. Body-worn cameras and other core technologies have followed similar multi-year paths. Across just the pistol and body-worn camera procurement programs, these delays have driven a conservatively estimated cost overrun of $6 million in wasted spending, avoidable inflation and redundant tendering, as well as the cost of keeping legacy equipment on life support instead of replacing it once with the right tools.

The government has already demonstrated, through the new Defence Investment Agency, that it is willing to treat mission-critical capabilities differently with a strategic road map and a single point of accountability. That same logic must now be extended to public safety.

Our primary recommendation is that the government establish a public safety procurement secretariat and a public safety industrial and procurement strategy parallel to the defence industrial strategy, initially focused on RCMP equipment but scalable to other public safety agencies. This would create clear ownership from start to finish, streamline approvals, align RCMP and PSPC under a single mission-critical framework, and embed life-cycle planning so equipment is renewed on schedule and on time. Every dollar invested in that streamlining will be repaid many times over in reduced delays, fewer failed competitions and less money wasted.

Beyond procurement, we support the government's budget 2025 commitment to add 1,000 RCMP personnel to federal policing over the next two and a half years, which I guess is what we're down to now. Canadians expect that promise as 1,000 police officers dedicated to tackling organized crime, cybercrime and foreign interference. Anything less than 1,000 sworn members, whether they be regular, fully sworn police officers or special constables with police officer status, falls short of that expectation and commitment and of long-standing expert recommendations to bolster federal policing capacity. These positions must be sworn, and they must be truly additional, not simply lateral transfers that leave other parts of the RCMP short-staffed.

Finally, we urge the committee to support a public safety broadband network. A PSBN is critical infrastructure for a modern, resilient Canada. It would give first responders secure interoperable communications built by leveraging existing telecom infrastructure. It would directly support Arctic sovereignty and northern security, improve broadband-based emergency services and align with the government's goals around rural communities. Threats from wildfires to foreign interference occur every day, and our communications infrastructure must be built for that reality.

Taken together, these recommendations represent practical investments that will save money over time, strengthen national security and support the government's nation-building agenda.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you, Mr. Sauvé.

We go next to Unifor for five minutes.

[Lana Payne, National President, Unifor]

Great. Thank you very much.

On behalf of Unifor, I want to thank the chair and the members of the committee for this opportunity today. As mentioned, I am the national president of Unifor. My name is Lana Payne. Unifor is Canada's largest private sector union, representing 320,000 workers from coast to coast to coast, in every sector of the economy.

I want to speak to you today about the economic reality that is confronting workers and why the budget must respond with effective measures, including well-developed industrial strategies, to protect Canadian jobs. Canada's economy and labour market are showing cracks, with private sector industries and workplaces facing mounting pressure. These pressures are converging on Canadian workers from different directions.

First, the Trump administration's trade war on Canada continues to hammer critical manufacturing industries, including in the auto, aluminum, steel and wood products sectors, resulting in far too many idle plants, shift reductions, layoffs and delayed investments.

Second, workers are facing rising precarity, with not enough supports to lean on. This precarity includes the privatization of public assets, unchecked automation and AI use, contract flipping and misclassification, workforce restructuring, and contracting out. If we want an economy built on good jobs, fair wages and growing productivity, we need to put Canada on a new track. Budget 2026 is a critical opportunity to spark this shift by reshaping where investment dollars go and what kinds of jobs are created.

Unifor's budget recommendations build on three key policy pillars that our union brought to Ottawa earlier this year. The first is to sell here and build here. Companies that sell into Canada must build and source from Canada as well. The second is worker-centred industrial strategies. We need comprehensive industrial strategies that prioritize workers, job quality and transitional skills. The third is promoting good union jobs. Rather than watering down labour rights and attacking the right to strike, the federal government should be strengthening labour conditions and standards and improving the conditions for fair and free collective bargaining to take place.

We recommend that the federal government's buy Canadian procurement policy be strengthened, including by applying it retroactively to large, strategic, nation-building procurements, like the decision over who will build Via Rail's long-distance fleet coach cars.

On trade, we recommend that the federal government disqualify U.S. suppliers from preferential treatment in the forthcoming policy for reciprocal procurement, and that we identify further points of leverage on which to influence the direction of the ongoing CUSMA talks. We urge the federal government to use all available statutory tools to prevent companies from offshoring Canadian production.

We want to see government establish strict conditions for federal funding programs, to ensure that any firm receiving public funds must adopt union neutrality agreements to promote good union jobs. When it comes to improving workers' supports and protections, Unifor recommends that government make temporary special EI measures permanent while committing to a comprehensive employment insurance reform, including increasing income replacement rates and the duration of benefits.

Lastly, we strongly urge government to refrain from making amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would undermine the right to strike and fair and free collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector, where Unifor happens to represent 70,000 workers.

Our submission also outlines a series of targeted supports across multiple sectors of the economy, including auto, telecommunications, aerospace, transportation, critical minerals and energy, to name just a few. On forestry, we are looking forward to the release of the task force report on a sustainable forestry sector for Canada.

I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak. I look forward to any of your questions.