Crown Corporations Hand Out $190 Million in Bonuses Amid Fiscal Scrutiny

Newly released government records reveal that Canada’s Crown corporations awarded more than $190 million in bonuses to executives and staff during the 2024–25 fiscal year.

Notable Payouts:

• The Business Development Bank of Canada topped the list, distributing over $60 million in bonuses. Reports indicate that every executive received a payout, averaging $216,000 each.
• Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) followed with approximately $30.6 million in bonuses. Nearly 99% of executives were recipients, with average bonuses around $42,900.
• Despite posting $385 million in operating losses, VIA Rail paid out $11 million in executive bonuses.
• The Canada Infrastructure Bank issued $8.6 million in bonuses, with 83% of executives receiving an average of $197,000.

Other Crown entities, including Canada Post and the National Capital Commission, declined to share bonus figures, stating they had “nothing to report”.

Between 2015 and 2023, federal departments and agencies collectively distributed over $1.5 billion in bonuses — often despite falling short of performance targets.

Critics argue that these payouts place an undue burden on taxpayers, especially as Canada’s national debt continues to climb. Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation criticized the practice, saying bonuses “shouldn’t be handed out like participation trophies” and called for an end to rewarding underperformance with public funds.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Mark Carney has instructed Crown corporations to identify spending reductions of up to 15% by 2028, prompting calls for bonus programs to be among the first areas considered for cuts.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree is facing mounting criticism following the release of a leaked audio recording that appears to reveal his personal misgivings about the federal gun buyback initiative.

The recording, allegedly captured by a tenant residing in a property owned by the minister, features Anandasangaree expressing skepticism about whether local police forces are equipped to implement the program effectively. He also alludes to political pressure from Quebec as a driving force behind the policy, implying that the Liberal government is pushing forward to honor a campaign commitment.

In a moment of levity, the minister reportedly jokes that he would help bail out the tenant if they were arrested for intentionally flouting the rules.

Tracey Wilson of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights said that Anandasangaree willingly engaged in a ten-minute conversation about the program, during which he acknowledged its flaws. According to Wilson, the minister even suggested that, given the chance to start over, he might abandon the initiative altogether and instead focus on cracking down on illegal firearms.

The buyback plan has long been a target of criticism, particularly from Conservative voices who argue that it unfairly penalizes responsible gun owners while failing to address the root problem of criminal gun activity.

1. Credibility Crisis for the Gun Buyback Program

• The minister’s apparent doubts about the feasibility and enforcement of the buyback initiative undermine the government’s public messaging.

• If a senior cabinet member privately questions the program’s effectiveness, it raises concerns about internal coherence and policy integrity.

• This could embolden critics who argue the program is more symbolic than practical.

2. Fuel for Opposition Attacks

• Conservatives have long framed the buyback as a “gun grab” that punishes lawful gun owners. This leak hands them fresh ammunition.

• Expect intensified scrutiny in Question Period and campaign messaging, especially in rural and suburban ridings where firearm ownership is more common.

3. Quebec’s Influence and Regional Tensions

• The minister’s reference to Quebec’s political pressure could stir resentment in other provinces, especially those already skeptical of federal overreach.

• It may also revive debates about regional favoritism and the role of Quebec in shaping national policy.

4. Impact on Liberal Cohesion and Messaging

• If more internal dissent surfaces, it could fracture the party’s unity on gun control — a key plank in their public safety agenda.

• The Liberals may need to recalibrate their messaging or risk appearing out of touch with both their own ministers and the broader public.

5. Trust and Transparency Concerns

• The casual tone of the minister’s remarks — including the joke about bailing out someone who breaks the law — could be seen as flippant or dismissive.

• This risks eroding public trust in the seriousness with which the government approaches firearms policy and law enforcement.

6. Strategic Reassessment Ahead of the Next Election

• With the next federal election on the horizon, the Liberals may be forced to reconsider the buyback’s political cost.

• If internal polling shows the issue is alienating swing voters or energizing opposition bases, they might pivot toward more targeted anti-crime measures.

Similarities

1. Liberal Party Sponsorship

• Both initiatives were introduced by Liberal governments as part of broader gun control efforts.

• Each was framed as a public safety measure aimed at reducing gun violence.

2. Controversial Reception

• Both policies sparked intense backlash, especially from rural communities, firearm owners, and Conservative politicians.

• Critics argued that the measures targeted law-abiding citizens rather than criminals using illegal firearms.

3. Enforcement Challenges

• The long gun registry faced logistical hurdles in registering millions of firearms.

• The buyback program now faces similar concerns about enforcement, especially at the municipal level, as highlighted in the leaked audio involving Minister Anandasangaree.

4. Regional Tensions

• The registry was seen as disproportionately affecting Western and rural provinces.

• The buyback program has also stirred regional sensitivities, particularly with Quebec’s influence being cited as a driving factor.

Differences

Political Lessons and Legacy

• The long gun registry became a political liability for the Liberals, especially in Western Canada, and contributed to the rise of populist opposition movements like the Reform Party.

• The current buyback program risks repeating history if it’s perceived as ineffective, costly, or politically motivated — particularly given the leaked audio suggesting internal doubts and regional pressure.

Jean Chrétien’s Long Gun Registry (1995–2012)

• 1995: Bill C-68 passes, creating the Firearms Act and mandating registration of all firearms, including non-restricted long guns.

• 1996–2002: Implementation struggles with cost overruns, technical issues, and resistance from gun owners.

• 2002: Auditor General reports the registry cost nearly $1 billion — far above initial estimates.

• 2006: Stephen Harper’s Conservative government begins dismantling the registry.

• 2012: Registry officially scrapped for non-restricted firearms; data deleted (except in Quebec, where legal battles ensue).

Trudeau-Carney’s Gun Buyback Program (2020–Present)

• May 2020: Following the Nova Scotia mass shooting, the Liberals announce a ban on over 1,500 models of “assault-style” firearms.

• 2021: Buyback program announced to compensate owners for turning in banned firearms.

• 2022–2024: Delays in rollout; questions arise about logistics, costs, and enforcement.

• 2025: Leaked audio from Minister Anandasangaree reveals internal doubts, reigniting debate.

Public Opinion: Then vs. Now

What’s Changed?

• Technology & Transparency: Today’s digital landscape means leaks (like the Anandasangaree audio) spread instantly, amplifying backlash.

• Framing: The registry was seen as bureaucratic; the buyback is framed as moral and reactive to tragedy — but both face accusations of symbolism over substance.

• Political Landscape: The rise of populist and regional parties has made gun control a wedge issue, especially in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Today’s deep dive into the leaked audio involving Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree revealed more than just a moment of political vulnerability — it opened a window into the broader tensions surrounding the Liberal government’s gun buyback program. The minister’s candid remarks, captured by a tenant, cast doubt on the program’s enforceability and hinted at regional political pressures, particularly from Quebec. These revelations have intensified criticism from Conservative voices and reignited debates about the program’s legitimacy and effectiveness.

We then examined the political implications of this controversy, highlighting how it threatens the Liberals’ credibility, fuels opposition attacks, and risks alienating key voter blocs. The buyback’s resemblance to the Jean Chrétien-era long gun registry — another Liberal-led initiative that faced fierce backlash — underscores the cyclical nature of gun control politics in Canada. Both policies were framed as public safety measures but struggled with cost, enforcement, and public trust.

By comparing timelines and shifts in public opinion, we saw how gun control has evolved from a bureaucratic registry to a reactive ban-and-buyback model. Yet the core challenge remains: balancing safety with fairness, and symbolism with substance.

As the next election looms, the Liberals face a familiar crossroads — whether to double down on a controversial policy or pivot toward more targeted, pragmatic solutions. The echoes of past missteps are loud, and the political stakes are high.

A group of elected officials from Vancouver Island is calling on both provincial and federal governments to intervene and address the escalating challenges facing the coastal forestry sector.

A Sector in Decline

Forestry operations along British Columbia’s coast are in steep decline. The industry is grappling with a combination of high production costs, dwindling demand for traditional forest products, inadequate infrastructure (especially in transportation), labour shortages, and complex regulatory hurdles. These pressures are taking a toll on mills, small forestry businesses, and the communities that rely on timber for economic survival.

A major concern is the erosion of competitiveness compared to forestry operations in other regions. Rising transportation expenses, slow permitting processes, and increasingly stringent environmental regulations—without adequate support—are making coastal forestry less sustainable. The consequences have been stark: mill closures, job losses, and shrinking municipal tax bases, which in turn strain local services.

What the Coalition Is Proposing

Island representatives are urging governments to implement a coordinated support plan, which includes:

• Infrastructure investment: Funding for roads, ports, and rail to lower transport costs and improve market access.
• Innovation incentives: Support for value-added wood manufacturing to reduce reliance on raw log exports.
• Regulatory reform: Streamlining approval processes while maintaining environmental protections.
• Labour development: Training and retention programs to address workforce shortages, especially in remote areas.
• Indigenous partnerships: Strengthening collaboration in forest management and economic development, with respect for Indigenous rights and expertise.
• Trade support: Exploring new markets and reducing export barriers for forest products.

Why Urgency Matters

Forestry remains a cornerstone of economic stability for many Island communities, particularly in remote and forest-rich areas. With shifting global demand and intensifying competition, leaders warn that without swift intervention, the region risks long-term economic damage.

They also emphasize that a weakened forestry sector threatens responsible forest stewardship. Financially strained operators may be forced to cut corners or forego sustainable practices—jeopardizing both environmental health and future viability.

A visitor to Sayward found themselves in a tricky situation when their drone became stranded—30 metres high in a tree perched on a cliff near the Sayward wharf. What followed was five hours of determination, inventive thinking, and the remarkable generosity of the Sayward community.

From an electrician who showed up with a bucket truck, to the unforgettable arrival of Adam—a skilled tree faller who rappelled down the cliff with Mission Impossible flair—the people of Sayward came together in the most extraordinary way.

What started as a moment of stress and disappointment transformed into one of relief, deep gratitude, and a renewed belief in the power of kindness and ingenuity. Immense thanks to Adam & Melissa, Megan, Mike, Hans, Frank & Faith, and the wider Sayward community—you reminded us what true neighbourliness looks like.

Video Credit Grey Whale Tales and Trails

Ninety-six executives from Canada’s oil and gas sector have signed an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, urging the federal government to take stronger action to support resource development. The letter, titled “Build Canada Now”, argues that regulatory and fiscal barriers are discouraging investment and preventing the industry from reaching its full potential.

The signatories, which include senior leaders from companies such as Suncor Energy and Enbridge, say that while recent steps like the creation of a Major Projects Office and an Indigenous advisory council are positive, they fall short of what is needed to ensure long-term growth.

Main concerns raised by the industry

• Regulatory hurdles: The letter points to measures such as the Impact Assessment Act, proposed emissions caps, and tanker restrictions as creating uncertainty and delays for major projects.

• Investment climate: Executives argue that Canada lacks clear and competitive policies compared to other jurisdictions, which makes it harder to attract and retain investment.

• Economic opportunity: The industry maintains that oil and natural gas development could create jobs and generate significant economic activity, but only if conditions are improved.

Proposals in the open letter

The group is calling for:

1. Simplified and more predictable project approval processes.
2. Clear timelines for regulatory decisions.
3. Reconsideration of policies that restrict operations, such as unlegislated emissions caps.
4. A more competitive fiscal framework, including changes to how carbon costs are applied to major emitters.
5. Greater roles for provinces and stronger opportunities for Indigenous communities to participate as partners in projects.

Broader implications

The executives warn that without prompt action, Canada could miss what they describe as a “generational opportunity” to strengthen its economy and support global energy needs. They argue that delays and regulatory uncertainty risk driving away investment and reducing Canada’s competitiveness.

The letter concludes by stating that industry leaders are ready to work with the federal government, provinces, and Indigenous communities to build a more reliable framework for resource development.