Public Accounts Committee on March 11th, 2026

[Jennifer Boudens]

Madam Chair, when we're looking at the amount of the writeoffs, it is true that the dollar value of the writeoffs has increased over the past 10 years. However, the revenue generated by the agency has also increased over that period of time, and so we see a corresponding increase in writeoffs with the increase in revenue.

When we look at the writeoffs as a percentage of total revenue that the agency generates, it's very consistent year over year. In fact, our writeoff in 2024-25 as a percentage of revenue was 0.66%, and over the past 10 years we've fluctuated between 0.63% and 0.79%. Although the dollar value is increasing, that increase is corresponding to the growth in revenues the agency is administering.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

It's like you have seen the question that I wanted to ask you. Thank you so much. It's deeply appreciated. I would suggest that the government follow this way of addressing things. Obviously, I'm being funny.

I have another question.

We understand that inflation affects everything.

Have there been more cases over the past 10 years, or has the number of cases remained roughly the same every year?

[Jennifer Boudens]

I'm just checking my notes to see if I have the numbers, as I don't remember offhand.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

That's exactly the right way to do it. Take your time. Since we're talking about it, we might as well provide the correct data.

[Jennifer Boudens]

I have the information for the last three years here. We are seeing a slight increase in the number of cases year over year, but, overall, it remains about the same.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Thank you.

What reasons do companies cite for such a debt writeoff?

I assume that the companies take the first steps to reach an agreement.

Is it primarily the companies that take the first step, or is it rather you?

[Charly Norris]

Businesses are not aware of this. It's not an agreement; it's an administrative measure on our part that enables us to remove the account from our asset inventory. The account is still recoverable. Companies have no role to play in a writeoff.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

What are your reasons for doing that?

[Charly Norris]

In cases where the companies are no longer in business, this happens once we've verified their assets and their revenues and investigated until we can no longer find ways to proceed with collection.

These are cases where companies have not contacted us, and they have not offered to make a payment on a voluntary basis.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

In those cases, do you have a set period of time, either five years or 10 year, to write off the debt, or do you act immediately?

[Charly Norris]

We handle each case individually. We conduct investigations. If we are able to find ways to collect the debt, it can take years.

If we determine that collection is already difficult and we've done all the possible investigations, the time frame will be shortened.

If we have legal recourse against directors or shareholders—in some cases, we can hold them jointly liable for debts—we will also sue third parties, which will extend the time frame. If those individuals have appealed because they objected to the decision, it will take longer before we can close the account and write off the debt.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

How many CRA employees are assigned to processing these files?

[Charly Norris]

For the most complex files, there are about 1,000 of them.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Have you set any goals?

[Charly Norris]

No. We set expectations, but collection officers handle those accounts like any other account. They will close all the doors. They'll try to make a list of all assets.

Their goal is not to close accounts within five days, for example, or to write them off immediately.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you.

Mr. Osborne, you have five minutes.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

This is just for clarification. I understand that with the legislation regulations, even if you were to write off a debt obligation, it wouldn't prevent you from seeking recourse at some point in the future should the company or individual have the means to do so. Am I correct?

[Charly Norris]

You're correct.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Okay. Thank you.

I am generally supportive of this bill. I see room for improvement.

One of the concerns I have is that Bill C-230 does not distinguish between a debt obligation and a waiver or forgiveness. I guess either of the witnesses could elaborate on this. I would suggest that there's perhaps room for improvement there in distinguishing one from the other.

Something that quickly comes to mind is this. If government entered into a contract with a business, for example, to set up an operation, create jobs and create employment, and there was a forgivable loan, with the bill as written, if government were to write that loan off, would this company have to be identified and reported? That may or may not be the case; I'm just wondering. It may not be a good look for a company if they've met their obligations and lived up to their contractual arrangement with government, so therefore the debt is forgiven, and then they're written up and identified in a registry for having a loan written off.

Can anybody elaborate on that?

[John Daley]

From my reading of Bill C-230, proposed section 25.1, which amends the Financial Administration Act, says, “the debt, obligation or claim, in whole or in part, has been waived, written off or forgiven.” So it would include those.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Yes, I see.

Hopefully, Mr. Chambers, you're open to some sort of amendment that would distinguish between a debt obligation and the forgiveness of a loan so that if a company is living up to its obligation, creating employment or setting up an operation, it doesn't show up on a registry so that somebody could construe them as maybe being a bad actor.

I'm wondering about the technical and operational concerns with the legislation as well. Again, I'm supportive of this legislation, but any time you change legislation, there are changes to operations. Some of those can have a domino effect or have an impact on the operations of government departments or the Canada Revenue Agency. Can the witnesses provide for us—this is for when we go to make amendments or suggest amendments to this legislation—what some of those implications may be?

[Jennifer Boudens]

With respect to the administration of this, the number of accounts changes depending on the thresholds. That will change the administrative effort required by the agency in looking into and verifying that all these accounts comply with all the requirements of the bill when it is passed, in whatever format it is passed.

Unfortunately, I can't speak to my opinions on the bill or to possible amendments. I just wanted to give that context: The level of accounts does change the administrative effort for the department.

Thank you.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

If this bill is adopted as it is, do you have the capacity to make the necessary changes and adapt to the changes? What additional resources would you require to meet that administrative burden?

[Jennifer Boudens]

At this time, we have not looked into the cost of administering this bill, as it has not yet been passed. Similar to my colleague who mentioned before that they haven't done a full evaluation, it's the same at the agency. We would have to look into the cost of administering the bill as written.

Thank you.