Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 25th, 2026

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I apologize. The BDM—the benefits delivery modernization system—went from $1.6 billion to $6.6 billion.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You're talking about the system Mr. Lemire was asking about before.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, sir.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

This is a multi-year system covering a number of benefits that are to be provided. My understanding is that we have been adding a number of functionalities to better serve Canadians. The minister responsible has answered a number of questions on this in the House, and I think you were present. There have been questions and answers provided.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Five billion dollars is a lot.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. That is the time.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for coming here and answering all of our questions.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

It's always a pleasure.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Do you have anything else you want to add, any responses that you weren't able to provide before?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

First of all, thank you very much for the work of the committee and the chair. I think it's very important.

The take-away for Canadians watching at home tonight is that we saw that we needed to do a course correction. I demanded, along with Secretary Long, a 100-day action plan from the agency. The agency took that very seriously. They reported back to me and the secretary on a number of occasions.

Colleagues should know that this is an agency, so there's a board and chair of the board. They looked at a number of things in order to improve services when it comes to the number of calls responded to and the time people have to wait, such as providing new self-service functions, getting more functionality and seeing how they can modernize the IT system that supports our agents.

This is what responsible government is all about. You see something that needs to be improved. You ask the experts for an action plan. You monitor the action plan. I insisted that the results be made public and transparent because the trust of taxpayers and Canadians is paramount. I said that we're going to regularly post the outcome of the work that the agency has been doing.

What I would say to Canadians watching tonight is that this is a work in progress. I'm not here saying that everything has been resolved. What I'm saying to Canadians is that we took the issue very seriously, and that all employees of the agency—all 51,000 of them—are dedicated to supporting Canadians, especially as we're entering tax season.

With the measures we have taken, the technology we have implemented and the resources we have added, we are in a better position today than we were when the Auditor General presented the report. I want Canadians to know that we have done the work, that we are going to continue to do the work and that we will implement best practices to make sure we have a best-in-class agency so they can be reassured that when they call the agency, the answer is accurate, the service is professional and we are good managers of the very precious tax dollars they send to the agency.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

How will people who speak different languages navigate some of the new tools that you've introduced online?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I can say a few words there, and I'm sure Ms. Serjak can add to that.

This is a part of the functionalities we're adding. Different newcomers to Canada have sometimes been less familiar with some of the benefits and some of the tax rules we have. We have made a particular effort to support them so they can understand their obligations and the benefits to which they might be entitled. That includes, for example, functionality to support them in different languages in different parts of the country. We're very conscious of that. This is also part of us trying to provide the best possible services to every Canadian who interacts with the agency.

For people watching at home, we answer 32 million calls a year. I appreciate that we may not have been perfect on every call, but we are really taking measures to make sure the experience Canadians have with the agency is professional and that Canadians feel they have value for their money.

When you answer 32 million calls a year, and 300,000 during the tax period per day, you expect a high volume. That's why I'm so grateful for the men and women, like Ms. Serjak, who come to this committee and answer the questions of parliamentarians. I've met a number of them. They all want to do their very best to support Canadians, and we should, as parliamentarians, be there to support them.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

For seniors and those who may not have access to digital devices, how will they still be served? Will the automatic tax filings help?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That's a very good question. Mr. Stevenson also raised that with me before appearing at the committee.

We need to be mindful that some Canadians may be less familiar with technology or may not have access to the Internet in remote or rural regions. Most Canadians are connected, but there are still places where it might be more difficult. We're very conscious of that.

That's why we always have an alternative. Sometimes we say “digital by default” because it speeds up.... That's why I say that people can have access 24-7, whenever they want the services, because they are digital. It's also about having an option so they can talk to an individual, for those who would prefer to do that.

When people have been locked out of their accounts, 300,000 people, you can appreciate that as a good manager and steward of public money, we want to suggest that people do that online, as they do with other devices. That way we can free up the time of our agents to support seniors and people who may need more assistance because they're less familiar with the benefits or the tax code.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

That is your time, Ms. Yip.

Minister, I want to thank you for coming in today, as well as your associate from the CRA. I hope the next time you're manning the lines at CRA, you'll let us know. I will use that as an excuse if my taxes are filed incorrectly after chatting with you.

I want to thank witnesses for participating in this study on the Canada Revenue Agency contact centres.

This brings us to the end of our first hour. I will suspend this meeting for about five minutes for us to get ready. I'll excuse the witnesses now.

Thank you very much again for coming.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Welcome back.

We will now get started.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 9, 2026, the committee is commencing consideration of Bill C‑230, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts (debt forgiveness registry).

I'd like to welcome our witness, the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Adam Chambers, MP for Simcoe North.

Mr. Chambers, you have the floor for an opening statement of approximately five minutes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity and the invitation to be with you this evening.

For those watching at home, it's a very odd experience for a member who is normally questioning witnesses to be in the witness chair, but I have a feeling that not many people will be watching. Anyway, we'll see how it goes.

I take this opportunity very seriously. When a member of Parliament has a chance to make a change to the statutes, it's a lottery system. I was very lucky to be drawn high in the lottery this time. I had a chance in the last Parliament as well—I was lucky enough—but I would say that I learned from that experience. I believed that I had a great bill then, and I still believe it was a great bill, but I didn't do as much work behind the scenes as I should have. It was a good learning experience.

With this bill, I didn't want to waste my opportunity. I think I've put forward a bill that should in principle receive widespread acknowledgement and support.

There is a growing trend where large debts that corporate taxpayers owe the treasury are being written off. We've just heard from the finance minister about the health of the finances of the nation. The good news is that I want to help. I think that if we have a better understanding of the debts that are being written off by the government, maybe we would write off fewer debts and we would be better at collecting those debts. Taxpayers would have more taxes, more revenue, in the coffers to be used to support social programs or maybe even used to cut taxes for the rest of us.

It is patently unfair that the primary tax authority, the CRA, will aggressively chase regular citizens and companies for very small amounts. As you know, if you are late on paying your taxes and you owe even nominal amounts of money in the hundreds of dollars, the interest clock starts ticking on the day you are assessed as owing that amount. The CRA will keep coming after you until you pay, but behind closed doors, hundreds of millions of dollars that corporations owe the government are being written off. For corporations that owe the government these kinds of monies and have that debt written off, I think there should be no expectation of privacy.

Effectively, these are public funds that are not being collected on behalf of Canadians. These are amounts that have been assessed and that these taxpayers owe, and for whatever reason they're being written off. The government used to disclose the largest single writeoff: just the amount, but not the name of the taxpayer. Something has changed in the last couple of years, and now the government will no longer even answer what is the single largest writeoff. That is going in the wrong direction.

When we had the opportunity to probe a previous minister of CRA and officials, I was not satisfied that they were taking this issue very seriously. That is the reason this bill is before Parliament today. I believe that taxpayers deserve more transparency, and effectively, I think that's going to help all of us in this room do a better job. We can hold people accountable for the decisions they're making, and we can help to collect the money that people owe the government and effectively owe Canadians.

With that, I would appreciate any questions from my fellow colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Chambers.

We're going to proceed with two rounds. The first round is for three members at six minutes each, and then we'll plan on a second round with five members for various times. We'll see how we're doing if questions persist.

To begin, Ms. Kusie, you have the floor for questions for the member for six minutes.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chambers, for putting forward this bill.

You've identified the issue and have found that it has cost taxpayers billions, without any transparency. You've brought forward a solution that not only will provide transparency for Canadians, but as you said—I share the same hope—will save taxpayers' dollars by making CRA think twice before giving million-dollar writeoffs to corporations.

I want to give you the opportunity to explain why you introduced this bill and why you think it's important.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate it.

Starting in about 2015, the total for writeoffs was just over $3 billion. That number has steadily climbed. Last year, it was announced that over $7 billion was written off.

This is an issue where I think there are a number of challenges occurring at the CRA. In many respects, I have a lot of sympathy for what the government has asked the CRA to do.

The government has asked the CRA to do a number of things that are well outside the CRA's core mandate. However, the CRA's core mandate would be ensuring that taxes owing are paid and that people are complying with the Income Tax Act.

I don't believe that enough enforcement measures have been occurring at the CRA, and this is a way to ensure that we keep the CRA focused on its primary objective, which would be collecting taxes and debts owing to government.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

You spoke a lot about transparency in your opening statement, and I agree that it is crucial for the CRA to be transparent with taxpayers. However, in 2024, it was the previous Liberal CRA minister who ordered the department to go on a witch hunt for whistle-blowers who exposed millions in incorrect refunds.

Can you speak to what your bill will do for transparency at the CRA and whether you think it will create a better culture of transparency at the CRA and with senior managers there?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes, I believe that it will be a helpful addition for public discourse. I think any time any corporation has a large amount written off, this, just as a matter of public interest, ought to be disclosed.

I recognize that the government likes to say it's new, but I take issue with the fact that previous CRA ministers were not seized with this growing problem that was growing right in front of their eyes, even spending more time looking to go after whistle-blowers instead of dealing with the ultimate problems.

My belief is that there have been very serious large-scale frauds perpetrated on the Canadian public. The Canadian public has not been made aware of the size of those frauds and the amounts of money that have been lost to the very sophisticated schemes. That's part of the reason there has been less transparency. Frankly, it's likely embarrassing that large amounts of money have continued to go out the door and that we haven't been able to stop it.

I want to look forward. This bill will help reinforce a focus on the CRA's primary, core mandate.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

In 2018, the CRA wrote off over $133 million in taxes owed by a single corporation. We don't know which corporation that was. It could have been written off for Brookfield, SNC-Lavalin or any one of the well-connected corporate insiders of the Liberal Party. Any of them could be possible.

Would the public registry cover that time period and publish the name of that corporation from 2018, for example, or would it only apply to the tax years that would come after Bill C-230 is adopted?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

With the way the bill is currently drafted, that would apply in the future. It is not retrospective, although I would welcome any suggestions from committee members if they would like to go back.

I would highlight the fact that the government and the CRA have actually made a lot of tax changes that have been retroactive, collecting money from taxpayers by retroactively changing the tax code. I think retroactive transparency would also be in the public interest.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Would this registry cover all writeoffs given to a corporation in a single year, or would it just publish writeoffs where the dollar amount for a specific instance is over $1 million? For example, let's say that a corporation receives a $700,000 writeoff in June and then in October it receives another one for $350,000, putting the total over $1 million. Would that company be listed on the registry for that year?