Public Accounts Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

This brings us to the end of our first hour.

To all the witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General, thank you for your testimony and participation in relation to the 2026 spring reports of the Auditor General of Canada. We'll see you back for additional studies in the coming weeks and months.

I'll suspend briefly to bring in our next panel. We'll reconvene in about five minutes.

Again, thank you very much. You are excused.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Welcome back, everyone.

Pursuant to the referral order from Monday, February 9, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C‑230, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence (waiver of claims register).

We have officials here today to answer any questions members might have during clause-by-clause consideration.

First, from the Canada Revenue Agency, we have Isabelle Brault, director general, legislative policy directorate, legislative policy and regulatory affairs branch. We have Jennifer Boudens, acting director general, finance and administration branch. We have Charly Norris, acting director general, collections and verification branch.

From the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Tomasz Popiel, senior director, financial management policy, and Ralphe Jabbour, director, financial management policy.

From the Department of Finance, we have Lauchlin MacEachern—that's a very Maritimes name—acting director general, legislation, tax policy branch.

Welcome, and thank you for coming in today and lending us your views and expertise if they are called upon.

I'd like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are any amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. I think that should be “will explain it,” because I'm sure every member will be speaking to them to enlighten the other members.

The amendment, of course, will be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk.

Since this is a first exercise for many new members, I'll go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. If we get it done today, great. If not, I have scheduled time after the Easter recess.

Each amendment has been given a number in the top right corner on each page to indicate which party submitted it. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. When a subamendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-230.

(On clause 1)

I am first going to call clause 1. The terminology is a little different here from when we look at reports.

G-1 is the first amendment, and I believe Mr. Turnbull will be moving that and may speak to it.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's good to be here with my colleagues.

Congratulations to Mr. Chambers on a private member's bill that I think will make a contribution to transparency in Canada. I think, with some amendments that the government has proposed, we're prepared to reasonably debate them and support the bill. I want to start by just giving kudos. It's a big deal when you have a private member's bill; you propose something and you get the parties working together. It's really what this place is supposed to be about. It's really great to see Mr. Chambers making a contribution.

I move amendment G-1, which is that Bill C-230, in clause 1, be amended (a) by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:

online, searchable database containing information relating to

Then, (b) by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the following:

pany or partnership to His Majesty — and to any claim by

I assume “pany” is the tail end of “company”.

Then, (c) by replacing lines 12 to 18 on page 1 with the following:

partnership — that was, in whole or in part, remitted, forgiven, written off or waived, under this or any other Act of Parliament, in an amount of $5,000,000 or more.

I think Mr. Chambers' original intent was to set the threshold at $1 million. The government has thought about this and feels, I think, strongly that a $5-million threshold would align with the principle of materiality, which is to reduce administrative burden and focus on what matters. These are higher profile deletions than just $1 million.

It makes sure that SMEs don't get caught up in this. An SME that earns $2 million a year, doesn't file their taxes, gets behind on things and, perhaps, goes out of business, is not necessarily the target for this. Obviously, we can debate that.

I think a $5-million threshold would also align with best practices in the G7 and the OECD peers. Again, it would potentially reduce risk of small to medium-sized enterprises getting captured in the registry.

For those reasons, we're suggesting raising the threshold to $5 million, and we hope that we'll get the support of all members on the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

There is a clerical note that is important.

This applies to you too, Mr. Lemire.

I want to be very clear on this. If G-1 is adopted, the next amendment, BQ-1, cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states in section 16.71:

Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.

There are two amendments that this could impact right off the bat. I just want to make sure everyone is clear on that; it might determine how you vote. If this amendment is passed by the committee, we will then not deal with BQ-1.

The debate is now open. Are there any speakers to Mr. Turnbull's G-1?

Go ahead, Mr. Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the perspective as well. I think this is a first for the committee, so I appreciate your going slowly.

I welcome the suggestions from the government, of course, but just to give some additional context, the $1-million threshold was intended to be easy to communicate. That was number one. Number two was to not produce a list that was thousands of names long, but in the low hundreds.

In an effort to be reasonable, I think there's probably a middle ground, I'll call it, at a threshold of $2 million. I looked at previous years, and that list could be anywhere from about 100 to 150 names long, as I understand it. To me, that's not an unreasonable number of entities. While I still think there are arguments to lower the threshold, I recognize that there is materiality.

However, at the end of the day, if an entity, no matter whether they're large or small, does trigger the threshold, I think it's an important measure of public transparency for this information to be known to taxpayers and effectively also to parliamentarians, so while I would strongly prefer to keep a $1-million threshold, I do think that in an effort to be collaborative with the government and to understand where they're coming from, I'd be open to considering something slightly less than $5 million.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Chambers, are you moving a subamendment with a figure in mind or—

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'm not sure I'm allowed to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right. Then I'll leave it to one of your colleagues.

Go ahead, Ms. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I will move the subamendment to make it $2 million. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right. We're now debating the subamendment to set the threshold at $2 million for the disclosure.

Mr. Lemire, the floor is yours.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would have liked to keep that amount at $1 million. However, I understand the spirit of compromise, so I'll support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I appreciate the attempt to find a middle ground, as Mr. Chambers said, and although we preferred a $5-million threshold, I think the number of companies or partnerships or trusts that would be disclosed, as Mr. Chambers has indicated, is reasonable, so I think we're prepared to support the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm hearing agreement. Is it agreed that the subamendment at the $2-million threshold is passed and approved?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

(Subamendment agreed to)

Now we're back to G-1 as amended, at the $2-million threshold.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're turning to G-2.

Mr. Turnbull, I'll recognize you again.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Do I understand correctly that BQ-1 had a line conflict, so it was not admissible?

Okay. Thank you very much.

I will move the following amendment. It's G-2 in your package.

The amendment is that Bill C-230, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 1 to line 7 on page 2 with the following:

poration, trust company or partnership;

(b) the amount that was remitted, forgiven, written off or waived;

(c) an indication of whether the debt, obligation or claim was remitted, forgiven, written off or waived;

(d) the fiscal year in which the debt obligation or claim was remitted, forgiven, written off or waived;

(e) the Act of Parliament or agreement, arrangement, contract or other instrument or act under which the debt, obligation or claim arose;

(f) the Act of Parliament under which the debt, obligation or claim was remitted, forgiven, written off or waived; and

(g) any other information that the President of the Treasury Board considers appropriate.

If I may, I'll just motivate this a little bit with some supporting arguments.

I think this adds more information to the proposed registry. It increases transparency. I think it reduces the risk of misinterpretation. It adds clarity.

I'm always conscious of what we disclose to the public and how they may interpret it. In this case, I think including the amount; an indication of whether the debt, obligation or claim was remitted, forgiven, written off or waived; the fiscal year in which it was written off, forgiven or waived; the act of Parliament under which the claim arose; and so on and so forth actually adds significant clarity to the information that we're opening up to the public.

For those reasons, I hope that members will support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Tesser Derksen, would you like the floor?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to my colleague for the proposed amendment.

I have a question—and this may be going to our guests who are here today—about how the registry will actually appear.

If someone is searching for information that is covered under privacy regulations, would it be redacted? Would it not appear? I'm curious as to how this is actually going to look to someone who's accessing the registry.

[Tomasz Popiel, Senior Director, Financial Management Policy, Treasury Board Secretariat]

We are still waiting for the full text of the bill to be completed. From there, we can start to investigate how we would implement the registry. At this time, we don't have concrete plans for how the registry would be implemented, but we understand from the text of the bill that it would have certain requirements. Those might include searchability, for example, and we would ensure that this is put in place.

I think you understand that we have to work with multiple departments to gather the information. The Treasury Board Secretariat would be the central house to have the database and the searchability tools, but we would then gather the information from departments across the government and ensure that it meets the requirements of the legislation.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Thank you.

It becomes a question just because the whole issue around redacted text seems to be at the forefront of a lot of people's minds right now due to what's going on south of the border. Obviously, it's a very different situation here. I highlight what type of message it sends in a higher-level way when there's material text that's redacted versus text that is just not there and there's no indication that something has been redacted.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Could you just enlighten us, Ms. Tessa Derksen, in terms of the related debate south of the border?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

I was referring to the Epstein files and all of the redactions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay.

Mr. Turnbull, I understand you have your hand up.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I was just going to make two other quick points.

I understand that these changes would also help align the new registry with broader public accounting practices and remove a misalignment between the registry and part II of the Financial Administration Act.

Mr. Popiel, could you clarify that for us?