Debates of May 7th, 2026

Financial Administration Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for his general approach in dealing with Bill C-230. He has identified an issue that has been a priority for the government, and he has put forward something, working in a collaborative fashion. Some changes were made at the committee stage. He might have like to have added a little more value from his perspective, but he put forward the idea of working in collaboration delivers for Canadians, and I applaud him for taking that initiative.

This is more of a comment than a question: Hopefully we will see more collaboration on private members' bills and government bills in general for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comment from my hon. colleague, who is no stranger to standing up and speaking in the House. I appreciate that he took the time not just to meet with me about my bill but also to discuss an opportunity where we could maybe have it proceed. This is an example for all of us, that when we have an idea that is good for the country and has widespread support, we could toss aside some of the partisanship from time to time and work in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words when he identified me under my former riding name.

I am very pleased that the member has been able to move this legislation. It is important. The reason it is important is that we have actually seen a deterioration in the information available to parliamentarians over the last number of years. The Liberals disclose even less information than they once did when we make inquiries through questions on the Order Paper or through the access to information system. There is a real need for this legislation, and the problem is becoming more urgent, not less.

Would the member like to comment on the reason we need this legislation?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the wonderful member for Calgary Crowfoot did identify that.

At one point, the Canada Revenue Agency used to disclose what the single largest writeoff was in a particular fiscal year. That practice, all of a sudden, changed. However, from my understanding, the Income Tax Act privacy rules did not change and the Privacy Act rules did not change, so it did not make much sense that the government and the Canada Revenue Agency would provide less information to the public and to this chamber than they did previously. That really was a significant driving factor in why this bill is here before the House tonight.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague's contribution to this debate. The Bloc Québécois welcomes the idea of making our democratic system more transparent and ensuring that taxpayers have a way of finding out when the government decides to write off debts. I commend his initiative and his ability to gather support across party lines, which is not nothing.

Can he tell us more about the impact he thinks this registry would have? For example, there was the case of Chrysler, where the government forgave a $2‑billion debt all at once. If there had been a registry, what would he have thought about that? In the future, if other debts are written off, that information would become public.

How does he think that would alter public discourse?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member, as a first-term MP, is doing a wonderful job in his role and in bringing his expertise here.

Yes, if there are large writeoffs in the future that exceed the threshold, that information will become public, which then means parliamentarians and the public get more information about how their tax dollars are being used or not collected. It means we can then refocus the resources at the agency to ensure that we recover the money from corporations that is owed, or pass laws to make it more difficult for corporations to skip out on their tax bill.

I would also like to mention at this time that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue was a wonderful addition to our work on committee and helped this bill get here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-230. I referred to the efforts by the member opposite in bringing forward the legislation. The government sees the legislation, as amended, as very much part of what the government wants to see happen: more accountability, more transparency and protecting the integrity of the CRA and the system, because it is of the utmost importance. The issue of collaboration was referred to, in the form of a question. I like to think that in the last week or so, we have debated private members' bills. Today, we are talking about Bill C-230. Bailey's law was passed. We had another Conservative piece of legislation, just yesterday, that we were okay with going to committee, and that was with regard to silver alerts.

Today, we are talking about another important piece of legislation. The principles behind it are very sound. At the end of the day, Canadians do not mind paying taxes, as long as there is a sense of integrity within the system and, most importantly, a sense of fairness. People are prepared to pay taxes as long as they feel they are fair and equitable. We often talk about taxes. People are very much concerned nowadays about how the government might be able to assist with affordability. The importance of taxation policy is absolutely critical during different types of business cycles that a nation goes through. That is one of the reasons we have to have the confidence of the citizenry regarding taxation policy.

In this case, just over a year ago, the Prime Minister, for example, gave tax relief on the carbon tax. That was followed by a substantial tax cut that provided support for 22 million people. We have the GST rebate being converted to the groceries and essentials benefit program. Eleven million Canadians are going to benefit from that. Taxation policy makes a difference and matters. That is not possible unless we have the confidence of Canadians that the system is fair, accountable and transparent. This is what the government has focused a great deal of attention on. Bill C-230 would add value to that.

I had the opportunity, over the last week or so, to amplify the word “collaboration”. The government is very focused on recognizing where there is value in private members' bills, and we look to the Conservatives recognizing the same thing in government bills. Where there is value, we should try to get bills through the House and into committee, allow them to get through third reading and, ultimately, pass the legislation. Canadians want parliamentarians of different political stripes to work together, recognize where we can make a social policy change, shift or modification, whatever it might be, and act on it. That is exactly what is happening here this evening.

We now have before us legislation that would ensure more accountability for corporations that write off money owed to the CRA. Uncollected money owed to the CRA impacts our general revenues. There is an obligation for government to show transparency where it can and, at the same time, respect privacy law concerns.

We need to be sensitive to the privacy laws we have. The legislation before us deals with that. It would allow the CRA, and the government ultimately, to provide more information. I believe there was an amendment brought forward with respect to the threshold. I am not 100% sure, but I think it is around the $2-million mark. That means having that registry, having that data. Information is so critically important not only from a government perspective but also from an opposition perspective. If it is done the way it could be done, the real winners are actually the taxpayers because they should have that sense of taxation policy and where it is that we are falling short.

When we think of corporations and small businesses in general, a vast majority pay their taxes at the appropriate time. They pay their debts and make sure, through those contributions, that we all benefit as a society. In regard to accountability and transparency, there is a percentage there, a very real and tangible percentage, where a significant amount of revenue is in fact lost. A better understanding of where that is coming from, as it could be the types of companies or all sorts of things, can be drawn out if that information is made available, while at the same time privacy laws are respected. We would all benefit from that.

For the Government of Canada and particularly our new Prime Minister, the issue of accountability and transparency applies to government expenditures and the collection of the finances we get in many different forms. It is being responsible with tax dollars. It is ensuring that smart decisions are in fact being made on behalf of the taxpayer. It is recognizing that when the registry is fully operational there is likely going to be a great deal of attention drawn to it. That attention is not going to be all good. We recognize that in government. However, we have standing committees that can contribute in a very positive way by going through the types of documents we would be able to draw out, which can improve the system.

I realize my time is coming to an end, but I want to emphasize one other thing, which is the incredible people who work for the CRA. The Canada Revenue Agency is second to no other agency in the world, I would argue, in terms of the degree to which it supports private individuals, the people we represent, and the businesses and so forth. It is an incredible task its workers have. It is something I personally would not want, but I applaud the efforts that, I would argue, 90% plus put in day in and day out so that governments at different levels are able to have the monies necessary to provide absolutely essential services, like health care, or supports to grow the economy, all of which are absolutely critical and the reason taxes are so important.

At the end of the day, we want transparency and accountability. We want the taxpayers to know they have a system they can have confidence in. This government will always push for people paying their fair share.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to speak to this bill introduced by my colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We work very well together. I was there when the Minister of Industry appeared before the committee. My colleague pressed her on the issue and had a rather intense exchange with her regarding the Stellantis case. I imagine that had an impact on my colleague's determination to see this bill through the legislative process.

I also read an article from October 22, 2018. It is not exactly recent, but it does show that the practices this bill aims to eliminate have been happening for a long time. The Radio-Canada article is about the Liberal government writing off a more than $2-billion loan it had granted to Chrysler. Actually, it was published by CBC News. The subheadings in the article are “Similarly opaque” and “In the dark”. These are the subheadings found in the article. That says it all. The article revealed that a $2.6-billion loan that had been granted to Chrysler in 2009 during the economic crisis had quite simply been quietly written off. To find this out, someone had to dig deep, had to search, had to consult one of the volumes of the 2018 Public Accounts of Canada to learn about it. The government certainly cannot claim to have been exceptionally transparent.

Let me say straightaway that we will be voting in favour of Bill C‑230 at third reading.

The bill aims to increase transparency surrounding debts owed to the Government of Canada by creating a public registry in the form of an online, searchable database of debts of $2 million or more that were forgiven or written off in whole or in part. The Government of Canada has an unfortunate tendency to be opaque when it comes to waiving debts, as we saw in the Chrysler case. The bill was amended in committee to clarify a number of things. For example, the minimum amount required for inclusion in the registry was raised. Other types of write-offs or benefits were also added, such as remissions and waivers. The bill was improved in committee. Although it was perfectly acceptable to begin with, it is even better now.

Additional amendments would force the government to create the registry within 18 months of royal assent and to exclude certain information for reasons related to the protection of personal, confidential or sensitive information. The President of Treasury Board will be required to provide reasons if information is excluded.

To summarize, the bill “amends the Financial Administration Act to require that the President of the Treasury Board establish and maintain a public registry of large debts and obligations owed by certain entities to His Majesty, as well as claims by His Majesty against such entities, that have been [written off or] forgiven”. It also makes “consequential amendments to other Acts”.

I will summarize the bill. It adds a section to the Financial Administration Act stating that the President of the Treasury Board must establish an online, searchable database containing information about a corporation, trust company or partnership once certain criteria are met. First, the value of the debt or obligation must be $2 million or more, as in the Chrysler case. Second, the debt, obligation or claim must be owing, meaning that an act of Parliament requires the state to demand repayment when the debt comes due. Third, the debt, obligation or claim must have been totally or partially written off, forgiven, remitted or waived.

A write-off, like the one granted to Chrysler in 2018, means that the government believes it will not be able to recover its money and therefore decides to remove the debt from its books, for example in the event of bankruptcy. A partial write-off would mean that the government agrees to write off part of the amount but still demands repayment of the difference. For example, if a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, the government may estimate that it can recover only a fraction of the debt. Forgiveness means that the government formally forgives a debt and legally releases the debtor, for example when the person who owes the money proves that the government made a mistake. This is perfectly normal.

The bill is good because it is fairly specific in this respect. For example, it states that the registry must include certain information, such as the name, as well as any business name, of the corporation, trust company or partnership. A numbered company must be included using its identifiable name, not just its actual number on the registry. The registry must also include the following: the amount that was remitted, forgiven, written off or waived; the period to which the amount relates; the legislation under which the debt, obligation or claim arose; and any other information that the President of the Treasury Board considers appropriate. The registry must be established within 18 months after the bill comes into force. The remainder of the bill makes consequential amendments to other acts. All of that is very sensible.

We know that the government already has all of the data required by the bill available in house. Some of that data is published in the public accounts, where we can find out the total amount of debt written off by department and the number of ministerial approvals, meaning the number of times the minister approved the write-off or forgiveness of a debt, obligation or claim, and the legislation under which the debt, obligation or claim arose. Other than that, there are no details that will enable us to identify the company or the amount lost. That is a lack of transparency.

For example, in the Public Accounts of Canada 2025, volume III, section 2, we can see which department approved the write-off or forgiveness of debts, obligations or claims. We see the total amounts. For 2024-25, for example, we know that the government gave up more than $7 billion, including $5.3 billion in write-offs and $1.2 billion in debt forgiveness. However, we know virtually nothing about the rest. That is a problem.

We also know, for example, that under the Old Age Security Act, the government wrote off more than $166 million in 2024-25. That is quite a lot of money, when we think about it. It is staggering that the public does not have access to this information, that they cannot find out any details about what happened, why it happened, which company was involved and under which law. We are talking about several billion dollars last year.

The upcoming bill is going to provide access to this information. Because of that, parliamentarians and journalists will be able to do a better job. The general public will be able to learn more. Experts will also have access to more information that they can use to understand the behaviour of certain companies and study solvency and other matters. This is a good thing, especially since Bill C‑230 is not going to create a mountain of work for public servants or cost a fortune to implement, considering that the government has already compiled all the information internally. The bill would simply make it all public. That is about it, just that.

In conclusion, I repeat that we enthusiastically support this bill and we will support it at third reading.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to rise on behalf of the wonderful citizens of Calgary Midnapore to speak on their behalf.

The citizens of Calgary Midnapore recently went through something all Canadians went through, and that is tax filing at the end of April. Of course, this is the time when we all must do our duty to society and pay our fair share of taxes. At least, this is what we are supposed to do. Of course, there are always those who make the decision to not file their taxes. There are those who perhaps cannot pay what they owe or are reluctant to pay what they owe.

Certainly, it is a problem that compounds over time, but the majority of Canadians, certainly more than a fair share of Canadians, want to do the right thing, and that is pay their part to society and contribute to this incredible nation that we live in. One way we do that is by paying our taxes.

I want to thank the member for Simcoe—Grey, who had the foresight to recognize that there was this lack of oversight in Canadian society and that there are corporate members who are not necessarily filing taxes for one reason or another. They owe an amount of tax to our society but are not paying it, and it is not being recognized that they have not kept their commitment to Canadian society in not having paid these amounts.

I just want to take a moment to thank the member for Simcoe—Grey, who went through so much effort and recognized this was a problem. He is an expert in finance. I have been in his office when he has CNBC on and is following the financial markets, so it is no surprise to me that he would have this type of thinking and that he would recognize this as something that needs to be fixed.

I also want to thank him for taking the time to work with the other parties to gain their collaboration in bringing the bill forward and seeing it successfully to this stage in our process at the House. That is something very rare and special to do. I have never drawn higher than 238th in the private member's bill draw, so I am very grateful that, first of all, he had this good fortune; second, that he was able to see this idea; and third, that he had the tenacity and the persistence to work through the bill with the government. I would also like to recognize the government's piece in this collaboration.

Of course, as sitting members of the public accounts committee, we went through the bill in detail. We thought about all of the different aspects that would have to be considered. There was compromise on all sides, and again I want to thank the member for his compromise in that regard as well, because it is very easy to get very stubborn when it comes to one's own legislation. There could be something that they think should be a part of the bill, that they think is more accurate or that they do not want to include, but the member went beyond that.

Of course, we know that the Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for collecting debts owing to the government, but in recent years, the CRA has been waiving debts owing to the government in record numbers. Last year, the government wrote off $4.7 billion. It forgave $10.9 billion. In remissions it had $0.4 billion, and in waivers it had $2.6 billion. This is a total of $18.4 billion, which at this point would actually be close to 25% of the deficit we have, not only this year, but also last year.

At a time when we are encroaching upon $1.63 trillion in national debt, which we will get to by 2030, every single dollar counts, so I am grateful that the member saw this as the right thing to do for society. It is important for corporations to pay their fair share. At this time when we are in need of such fiscal prudence and responsibility, everyone is required to pay their fair share at this time, and that includes corporations.

The member for Simcoe—Grey is not the only one who recognized this lack of oversight, this lack of acknowledgement, of people who are not paying their fair share. There are media outlets such as The Globe and Mail, and Bill Curry of course has done an excellent job of following the public accounts committee and the Treasury Board. Speaking of which, I am going to do a little promotion. On June 2, I am looking very much forward to taping, with the ArriveCAN team, the ArriveCAN second-year anniversary, and we will be distributing that at the end of June.

Bill Curry has been fantastic in terms of following stories such as these. CBC News also did a story on the $133 million written off that was owed by a single taxpayer, so this definitely is something that needed to be addressed. Write-offs and waivers for taxes owing to the government were done in secret because of privacy provisions in the Income Tax Act, and the member wanted to bring these numbers to light.

Historically, while the CRA spends a lot of time pursuing small businesses and ordinary Canadians who owe minor amounts to the CRA and to Canada, some major corporations have gone unaccountable and unnamed. The legislation would create a public registry that would require the Treasury Board to annually publish a list of corporate entities that had debts owing to the government waived, forgiven or written off.

The amount we put forward originally, the member was thinking, was somewhere from $1 million to $5 million. The number that was landed upon was $2 million, which is certainly a substantial amount, but I think it is a good amount that would really provide corporations with an incentive to pay their taxes so they do not end up on this list as well.

The contents of the public registry would have to include the following information in relation to each debt: the name, including any business name of the corporation, trust company or partnership that owes the debt or obligation to which His Majesty has a claim; the specific amount that was waived, written off or forgiven; the period to which the amount relates; the act under which the debt, obligation or claim arose; and any other information that the president of the Treasury Board may require.

The enactment would amend the Financial Administration Act to require the president of the Treasury Board to establish and maintain this public registry of certain large debts and obligations owed by businesses to His Majesty, as well as claims by His Majesty against businesses that have been waived, written off or forgiven. It would also make consequential amendments to other acts.

Here are some observations in relation to this. In 2023-2024, 11 companies received $1.2 billion in combined write-offs for tax debt and other obligations, and 11 companies accounted for nearly one-quarter of the $4.9 billion in write-offs in fiscal year 2023-2024. We are talking about a small number of bad players.

The bill's being passed would be a huge step in the direction of transparency. Certainly, on this side, we have always attempted to fight for transparency, such as in the appointment of a parliamentary budget officer who will always stand up for transparency and call the government out on things that do not appear to be accounted for.

Of course, we advocate against tax increases and new tax measures for everyday Canadians. Why should corporations get enormous debt write-offs when they target the little guy for significantly smaller amounts?

In summary, I want to again thank the member for Simcoe—Grey for bringing forward the legislation. The right thing to do in society is to pay one's fair share that is owed to Canada and to one's fellow citizens. In addition, we are unfortunately in a terrible fiscal position, with significant debt as well as deficits, including $65 billion this year alone, and deficits for the last 15 years. The piece of legislation that is before us looks to remedy this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member for Simcoe North has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair tonight, and I want to thank you for your hard work as well and your counsel along the way on this bill.

It is my pleasure to have listened to some very thoughtful speeches from my colleagues in this place, including my friend from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, who shares a committee spot with me on the international trade committee. I certainly appreciate his advice and counsel on that committee. He himself has a private member's bill he has introduced with respect to forced labour, which we are looking forward to supporting so it can get through the chamber and come to a vote.

With respect to the overall objectives of the bill, I would just mention that bringing integrity back to the system so Canadians have trust in it is important. As mentioned by my hon. colleague from Calgary Midnapore, there have been many journalists who have also helped keep this issue front and centre, including Mr. Bill Curry from The Globe and Mail, who has had a specific focus on this issue.

There are a number of great members on the public accounts committee. I am not able to mention whether they are here tonight, but I was very thankful that they brought their thoughtful questions to committee to help the bill get here. In fact, this was the first bill that went to the public accounts committee in almost 25 years, as I am told by the researchers at the Library of Parliament. We were not quite sure what we were doing there, but we were guided very well by the analysts, the clerk and the great chair, the hon. member for Saint John—St. Croix, who did a great job and even had an amendment of his own that helped get this bill over the line.

I would be remiss not to mention my staff: Roman Chelyuk and Kyla Canzanese, who is no longer in my office and now works at the mother ship in the whip's office, controlling all of the things we do in this place. I want to thank them for their wise counsel along the way.

As mentioned by the member for Calgary Midnapore, yes, the deficits are large, but we are here to help. I am here to help. This bill is here to help. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to bring it forward here this evening.

Of course, one can never forget to thank the most important people in our lives, our families. I want to thank my wife and children, Davie and Cooper, who are probably not watching this at home, but I will share the clip with them later.

I appreciate the opportunity, again, to stand here. It is an honour to have a chance to propose changing the statutes of this country. I certainly appreciate this and take this issue with great respect, and I hope we have moved the ball forward in progressing on this very important issue on behalf of taxpayers. It is, indeed, a matter of the public interest.

With that, I was always told to quit while I am ahead and take the win when I can have it. At this point, I believe I will ask that the House adopt this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this bill be carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Labour

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend from Simcoe North. Those who started watching at late show will not know what just happened. In any case, that was a good moment.

I am speaking tonight to a question that I asked in question period on January 28, related to what the government had announced as intended cuts to the civil service. I was particularly concerned because within my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands and elsewhere on Vancouver Island we were getting news that people involved in the critical work of emergency response in the case of oil spills were already receiving their pink slips. They were being told that they were to be removed from their position. It appeared to be everyone in that department. On the same day, the Public Service Alliance of Canada held its own press conference to say that it was informed that about 8,000 workers of the federal civil service were to be terminated.

Since the time I asked the question, it is now confirmed that about 800 of those people are from Parks Canada. Today, I heard from concerned constituents that an interpreter position within Gulf Islands National Park Reserve is being terminated, an essential connection for the visiting public on Saturna Island. The list goes on, including many workers within Environment and Climate Change Canada, particularly those who do critical work in understanding and tracking what we are doing to respond to climate change, which is less by the day so there is less to track. However, there is no question that we are seeing significant cuts to the civil service.

We are seeing some reduction in an area where I am very concerned. We could see cuts in federal spending, which is in the billions of dollars, on outside consultants. We have civil service workers with expertise and if they are put in the role of delivery, they are a lot less expensive than asking Deloitte or McKinsey or other billion-dollar management consultants all around the world that have been getting too much of the public purse in Canada to do the work that we should be doing internally with our own public sector workers. I saw a recent statement that the Government of Canada, in budget 2026, was going to cut by 20% the amount it is spending. That still, by my calculation, leaves us spending about $4 billion on outside consultants, which are for-profit agencies from outside Canada for the most part.

What are we cutting here? Again, there are cuts in science, agricultural research stations across Canada and the oceans protection plan, which appears to no longer exist. We are looking at significant cuts across the board. As I said, the Public Service Alliance of Canada representatives are estimating 8,000 workers.

The answer I got on January 28 was from the minister himself, which is somewhat unusual. The President of the Treasury Board did stand to answer my question and did say that there were going to be cuts through voluntary measures. However, I rather think, as ever, that when a government is putting through significant cuts that affect the services that Canadians want, it does tend to downplay it and say that it will do it by attrition, that it will find some people it could give a buyout package to and encourage them to leave now, knowing that their job is hanging by a thread anyway.

I never did get a clear answer to my specific concern about the workers who are supposed to be ready, although we know that, if ever there were ever a spill of diluted bitumen, we do not have the technology to clean it up. I hope that tonight we can get a clear answer.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, as members may recall, the government made a clear commitment to Canadians to be fiscally responsible and bring discipline to the federal budget.

We were also elected with the mandate to spend less on government operations so that we can invest more in workers, businesses, defence and nation-building infrastructure that will grow our economy and strengthen the country. As part of this effort, the government launched the comprehensive expenditure review to meet its commitment to responsible, cost-effective spending that delivers results for Canadians.

This review required federal organizations to bring forward savings proposals, to spend less on the day-to-day running of government by targeting programs and activities that are not core to their federal mandate, that are duplicative or that are not aligned with government priorities. Organizations also considered ways to work more efficiently, leveraging existing and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, where it makes sense.

Budget 2025, tabled last November, presented the results of this review, which identified savings across government of $13 billion annually by 2028-29. This will include decreasing the size of the public service by approximately 16,000 full-time equivalents. It will also look to reduce 1,000 executive positions over the next two years. The reductions are being managed with fairness and compassion, relying on attrition and voluntary departures to the greatest extent possible. That is why we have the early retirement incentive.

Organizations are required to follow established workforce adjustment policies outlined in collective agreements or, in the case of executives, career transition measures. Both set out clear processes and supports for employees who may be affected.

In a workforce adjustment situation, there are specific provisions governing how this is done that are co-developed or negotiated with bargaining agents. Indeed, the government is leveraging all available tools to limit involuntary departures. This includes the proposed early retirement incentive, a program that would provide an opportunity for eligible employees to retire without a penalty for early departure.

These reductions are being carried out fairly and responsibly, in line with the government's obligations as an employer. They are part of a necessary and major “recalibration” in government spending that will redirect funds to investing in Canada. They are what this moment calls for and an investment in our future.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I am not impressed with the government's attempt to run balanced budgets when we now have a $66.9-billion deficit. We also know that where there are funds that could be accessed through reasonable shifts in taxation, such as a wealth tax, those opportunities are being avoided. So too is a financial transaction tax that would affect no one but multi-billionaires.

We also see a boost in subsidies to fossil fuels, and there is a real cost in the climate impacts that will happen across Canada, not to mention specifically the one I keep trying to find an answer for: cuts to the workers who should be ready in the case of oil spill emergencies. In fact, we do not have people to maintain the vessels that were purchased for oil spill emergencies, in what I would call the greenwashing of saying, “We are prepared,” and with no oceans protection plan.

Where are we now for the impacts of the build Canada strong major projects?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that as the government goes through this process in a fair and compassionate way, we are also committed to ensuring the services that Canadians rely on and that Canadians will get.

We are absolutely committed to Canadians, to providing better services for Canadians but also being fiscally responsible.

Taxation

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 17, I asked the government a question, and the response provided by the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada was unacceptable, which is why we are here now for this debate this evening.

I stated the following:

...after more than a decade of Liberal policies, life is unaffordable. The latest MNP consumer debt index report states that 70% of British Columbians say rising food prices and gas prices are straining their finances. The Liberals voted against reducing taxes that increase the cost of gas by 25¢ a litre. They voted against removing taxes on food that drive up the cost of groceries.

Then I asked the government:

Why will the Liberals not provide Canadians some relief by adopting our Conservative plan to cut taxes on gas and food, and make life more affordable for Canadians?

My question was on fuel and grocery costs, things Canadians need and purchase every day. In response, the Liberals decided to put up a housing minister, who parroted preprocessed Liberal talking points about housing. By refusing to deliver reliefs that are within its reach, the Liberal government is refusing to recognize the problem, refusing to make life more affordable, and forcing more Canadians to be reliant on government rebates just to put food on the table.

When I had a group of students in my office this week, they were genuinely concerned for their future because of the massive increases not just in the cost of their education but also in the cost of daily living. They have almost given up on the dream of owning a home that their parents were able to achieve. I do not know what it will take for the Liberal government to realize that its inflationary policies are part of the problem these students and other Canadians are facing.

The Liberal government could remove the fuel standard tax and the industrial carbon tax to instantly reduce the cost of fuel and groceries for Canadians, but it continues to make things worse with inflationary spending that Canadians are forced to repay with interest. Speaking of interest, the debt the government has piled up will that mean roughly $3,400 per Canadian family will go toward serving the federal debt's interest this year alone. That is just interest, not repayment of the debt.

I will repeat my question from April 17 once more, this time in hopes that the government will give Canadians an answer they really need and deserve, instead of preprocessed talking points from the minister's office: Why will the Liberals not provide Canadians some relief by adopting our Conservative plan to cut taxes on gas and food to make life more affordable for Canadians?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, government is well aware that affordability is the single most pressing issue for Canadians, which is why we focused on delivering targeted support where it matters most.

The world is changing rapidly, and not always for the best. It is increasingly fragmented, complex and unstable, and for far too many, it is also more expensive. We cannot control the conflict in the Middle East, the war in the Ukraine or the tariffs that are transforming global trade, but what we can choose to respond to is building the strongest economy in the G7 and providing targeted supports to those who need it most.

Over the past number of months, we have supported Canadians with concrete measures to make everyday life more affordable. To make essentials, such as groceries, more affordable, we introduced the Canadian groceries and essentials benefit. This measure builds on the GST credit and will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians, starting with a one-time top-up on June 5. Combined with a 25% increase to the benefit over five years, as of July, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 a year and a single individual will receive up to $950.

To lower costs for Canadians, we have suspended the federal fuel tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels until Labour Day. This measure is expected to reduce the cost of filling up at the pump by more than $5 on a 50-litre tank. Benefiting more than 25 million Canadians, it will reduce operating costs for truckers and businesses in the food, agriculture, housing and construction industries.

We have also lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%, providing tax relief for 22 million Canadians. In 2026, this change means savings of up to $420 a person or $840 for a two-income family.

More than 6.5 million Canadians can now access affordable dental through the Canadian dental plan. We have also made the national school food program permanent to provide meals for up to 400,000 children each year. This program saves families with two children participating in school up to $800 on groceries.

First-time homebuyers are saving up to $50,000 through the removal or reduction of the goods and services tax on eligible new homes. Canadians are now paying less in banking fees as well with the changes that we have made to banking fees in this year's budget. We have also expanded access to low-cost and no-cost bank accounts for Canadians, with up to 50% more debit transactions at a cost of no more than $4 a month.

These measures are making life more affordable for Canadians.

In the spring economic update, we announced the intention to reduce the contribution rate to the Canadian pension plan base rate from 9.9% to 9.5%, effective January 1 of next year. This was achieved due to the co-operation of all provinces.

We look forward to introducing more measures and making life more affordable for Canadians.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was more preprocessed talking points from the minister's office and no real answers for Canadians.

The parliamentary secretary said that they are aware of the affordability issue, but are they aware that the government is responsible for it? There are the ever-increasing deficits, and this year's deficit is two times what former prime minister Justin Trudeau would have had. Billions of dollars are now being paid out in debt payments.

The member mentioned what they cannot control, the war in the Middle East and external issues, but they can control Liberal taxation and Liberal deficit spending. Why will the Liberals not take the steps that they can take? The Liberal government could take steps to relieve the pressure on Canadians. Why will it not take them?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition party can control certain things. We know what they would do if they ever formed government. They would get rid of the $10 a day child care. We know this because they voted against it. We know that they would get rid of the dental plan, increases to old age security and the school food program because they voted against them. They also voted against reducing taxes for first-time homebuyers.

On this side of the House, we are working to make life more affordable for Canadians. We hear a lot of talk from the Conservative party, but we do not see action. The only action we see is voting against programs that would make life more affordable for Canadians.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am following up on a question that I asked about the crisis in youth unemployment.

Life is very challenging right now in this country, especially for youth and for young families. People who are struggling to get their start in life struggle to access employment. They struggle with housing affordability. This makes it difficult and leads to delays in family formation.

We know, statistically, that if we ask women how many children they want to have and compare that to our current fertility rate, there is a gap of almost one child per woman. Many Canadian families are not having as many children as they would like to have. I think that has a lot to do with challenges in employment and challenges in housing affordability, these basic challenges in getting started in life here in Canada because of how difficult those start-up costs are.

The youth unemployment crisis is a big part of it. It is very clear that what the government is doing or says it is doing in this regard is just not working. Listening to question period today, I heard that the government wants to celebrate, allegedly, this initiative or that initiative, but the overall numbers paint a clear picture, which is a metastasizing, unprecedented youth unemployment crisis that is connected to and contributes to challenges that families are facing as well.

Conservatives have taken a very constructive approach to the employment file. We have developed and offered the government concrete solutions to these problems. Obviously, the government is the government. It has the power to implement these things and we do not, but we have put constructive solutions on the table and asked the government to implement all or part of what we put forward.

This fall, we put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan, a clear plan addressing the youth unemployment crisis, with proposals to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are.

Just today, we announced another suite of policy initiatives, this time targeting the challenges that young families are facing. We are proposing substantial parental leave reform that would make life easier for those who are trying to start a family. These policy proposals involve flexible parental leave, allowing a person on parental leave to pause and resume that leave.

We proposed learning on leave, allowing anyone to take courses of study while they are on parental leave so that they can upgrade their skills and strengthen their ability to meet the labour market again once their leave is over.

We also proposed a caregiving exception to EI parental leave benefit clawbacks. This would allow somebody who is caring for their own children to also do paid caregiving work on the side. Perhaps while they are watching their own child, their neighbour pays them to watch their child as well. Removing the clawbacks associated with earning in this situation would increase the availability of child care, which, in many cases, notwithstanding the exaggerated promises of the government, simply is not available to many parents.

We are working hard to propose constructive solutions to the very real and practical challenges facing youth and young families today.

I would like to know why the government has not taken the opportunity to embrace these solutions. I think it would be a political win for them and it would be a win for youth and families.

Will the government take on these good ideas that we have proposed?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to look at good ideas, but we are also acting and putting in place measures that really make a difference for Canadians.

We could not agree more that Canadians are looking for hope and real solutions. Preparing Canadians for good jobs is a top priority of ours, especially during these challenging times. We are renewing Canada's workforce strong, team Canada strong. It is a $6-billion promise to protect our workforce and our capacity to grow the workforce, because without skilled workers, we cannot meet the moment.

That is why, under team Canada strong, we will recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal workers in the next five years. This is critical, because within seven years there will be more than 410,000 vacant skilled trades positions across Canada. There is no time to waste. Team Canada strong will expand our union training and innovation program, so that union-run training centres can upgrade their facilities and invest in modern equipment.

Small and medium-sized businesses will be supported when they hire new first-year apprentices. The build Canada apprenticeship program will help employers hire and train apprentices, providing them with up to $10,000. Once certified as a Red Seal tradesperson, they will receive a $5,000 completion bonus. The new apprenticeship training grant means that apprentices can receive an income top-up of $400 per week while they are getting technical training. This comes out of a total payment of $16,000 per apprentice.

We know that there is more that needs to be done to weather the current storm. That is where the labour market development agreements and the workforce development agreements come in. These represent a $2.9-billion annual investment in training and employment assistance services to help hundreds of thousands of Canadians upgrade their skills and find employment. Our programs help workers complete their studies, build their skills and access opportunities that lead to successful careers.

Since 2019, Canada summer jobs has helped more than 600,000 young people find summer employment. This summer, the program will support up to 100,000 jobs for youth between the ages of 15 and 30.

All told, we are supporting over 175,000 opportunities for youth and students this year under the student work placement program, the youth employment and skills strategy, and the Canada summer jobs. In 2026-27, the student work placement program will support up to 55,000 work-integrated learning opportunities with employers for post-secondary students. Over 34,000 employers and 420 post-secondary institutions have participated in this program.

We are focused on delivering the results that Canadians need and creating the opportunities that will strengthen the economy.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was not really an answer to what I asked.

Here are the facts. We have a metastasizing youth unemployment crisis in this country. There are various factors and many factors of government policy that are contributing to it. We have put forward constructive solutions in the area of supporting families that I talked about today, reforming parental leave, and also in the area of addressing youth unemployment. We have been very constructive and clear with the government. The Liberals say they are willing to listen, but they do not really listen or respond to these constructive proposals we put forward.

The member spoke about changes that the government has made in training. Here is what the government did in the last budget. It rendered ineligible vocational institutions to receive student grants. If someone studies at a university, they can get a student grant, but if they study at a vocational institution, preparing them for a specific vocational career where there are shortages, the government has cut that out.

What we suggest is that the government not discriminate against students at vocational institutions. Would the Liberals at least listen to that constructive idea?