Public Accounts Committee on March 25th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 29 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. I believe all members are attending in the room, but of course the remote option is available on the Zoom application.

I'd like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. If we get into a debate, please raise your hand and catch my eye or the clerk's. We will endeavour to keep an accurate speaking list.

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

We have with us today the officials from our last meeting on Monday, who were very good about rearranging their schedules to be here so unexpectedly. We have officials from the Canada Revenue Agency, the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat. I want to thank you all for being here. I hope it will be brief. I think it might be, but if not, we're pleased that you're here to answer our questions.

We're going to resume where we left off on Monday, March 23, with the consideration of amendment G-3.

(On clause 1)

Mr. Chambers, I had said I would recognize you right off the bat. I understand you're going to pass things over, but the floor is yours, please.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate everyone's patience while we had an ability to have discussions among the parties.

I appreciate our officials being back with us again today, and also the thorough suggestions and answers they provided at our last meeting.

Mr. Chair, I believe I am in a position to withdraw the subamendment that I had jumped the gun on making and turn the floor, with your indulgence, over to the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right. Very good. We can hand it over easily.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor. I believe you have something to propose to us.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

I'm really glad that we were able to resolve the issue that was in contention at the last meeting. I didn't think we were that far apart, but we were looking for a solution. We have since resolved that.

The legislative clerk has notified me that there was a slight issue of clarification with the French translation of the version that we had sent along, and we now have a new, slightly revised version that will clarify that. I'll just raise this issue that the clerk raised to me just before the meeting, so we can all be clear. Basically, the solution we found is to have the specification of the reason for each deletion within the registry: whether it's sensitive, personal or confidential information. That would be identified. I think that's what we had come to as a solution, so the language should reflect that in both English and French.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chair, I think we need just a moment to make sure that I've received that new version. I can't read it into the record, so I'm going to ask my colleague Ms. Tesser Derksen to read it in, because I can't amend my own amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Sure. You said you needed a few moments. Do you want me to suspend?

I'll suspend for a couple of minutes. We'll come right back.

This meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call this meeting back to order.

I'm going to recognize Ms. Tesser Derksen, please.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm moving a subamendment to create proposed subsection (3.1). If you'd like me to read that into the record, I can do so.

The proposed wording is as follows: “If any information is excluded from the registry under subsection (3), the President of the Treasury Board must identify in the registry whether the information was excluded for reasons relating to the protection of confidential information, personal information or sensitive information.”

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. That has been sent to everyone by email for your review.

Ms. Tesser Derksen, if you have any more comments on it, the floor will be yours, but I think the subamendment is self-explanatory.

First I'll turn to Mr. Chambers. Are you satisfied with it? All right.

Is there any debate on the subamendment as proposed by Ms. Tesser Derksen?

Our colleague from the Bloc Québécois would like to speak.

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

Just in the spirit of the matter, since information is referring to a business, is “information” the right term?

What I was looking for is the reason or justification. If a business is excluded from the registry under subsection 3, the President of the Treasury Board must specify it in the registry and provide the reason for this exclusion. So, if any information is excluded from the registry, can we know whether it was excluded for reasons relating to the protection of confidential information, personal information or sensitive information or whether it's according to the reasons stated in the bill?

I don't know if it's a question of language, because I don't believe I have the necessary skills to compare with what's proposed in English, but I think the idea is to ensure an excluded business can be identified and that the justification for this exclusion is available.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I think the attempt at a solution that we discussed last time, when we were at this slight impasse, was to identify, in every case in the registry where there was information that was not being disclosed, whether the reason for the redaction or the non-disclosure of that information was that it was personal information, confidential information or sensitive information.

I think there are those three reasons. If you're looking for a lot more detail than that, I don't think that's what we had agreed on. I would suggest that this is a version of.... Well, I think it gives a reason and a rationale for why those elements were not disclosed in the registry.

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

I think it's more assertive than clear, but we can live with that.

I also think the French version should instead say “si une information est exclue”, because it's on a case-by-case basis when it comes to businesses. I'd put it more in singular. Every time a business is excluded, we want to know why, and the justification is one of the three factors mentioned.

I'm not an expert, so if the legislative clerks are comfortable that the information we want can be provided, then I can support that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just give us 10 seconds.

I want to suspend again for a couple of minutes to seek clarification. We'll come right back to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I bring this meeting back into session.

What's happened is that Mr. Lemire's grammatical change is to remove the “s” in the French text on “exclues”, based on what he said, based on discussion with the legislative clerk and then based on their checking as well that this would be correct.

Is it agreed to do that? Could I have the approval? Just a voice vote is fine, unless I hear any nay votes. We will have a voice vote on approving the subamendment with the grammatical change that was made in the French version.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Now, this might seem a bit counterintuitive if you have not done this before. We'll now go through the bill and we'll pass the clauses, and then there is another amendment, G‑4, which we'll address at the end. I'm going to flag that now, because folks might wonder why we're finishing up the bill before doing all of the amendments.

Shall clause 1 carry as amended?

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to)

That brings us to the bill as drafted.

Now we're moving to G‑4. This is a new clause.

Mr. Turnbull, would you like to address this, please?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'll read the following motion into the record. It's amendment G‑4. It is that Bill C‑230 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 3 the following new clause:

“Coordinating Amendments

Bill C‑15

8(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply if Bill C‑15, introduced in the 1st session of the 45th Parliament and entitled Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 (in this section referred to as the “other Act”), receives royal assent.

(2) If subsection 126(2) of the other Act comes into force before section 6 of this Act, then that section 6 is deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.

(3) If subsection 126(2) of the other Act comes into force on the same day as section 6 of this Act, then that section 6 is deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.”

This is a coordinating amendment that I believe just attempts to align and create consistency between clauses in Bill C-230 and existing legislation, including Bill C‑15, which is the budget implementation act. This ensures that the legislation works coherently with other acts and avoids duplication or conflicts.

Bill C‑15 would also repeal the Digital Services Tax Act, and subsection 126(2) would make the repeal retroactively effective as of June 20, 2024, the date of its original enactment.

It's for those reasons that we've put forward this amendment. It's to ensure consistency.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Chambers, I'll turn the floor over to you. If you'd like the officials to validate what Mr. Turnbull just said, we have them here.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Perhaps I'll just confirm. I think I know the answer.

This does not change any substance of the bill, as far as you're aware. Is that correct?

[Isabelle Brault, Director General, Legislative Policy Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency]

There's no concern.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much.

On the wonderful advice of our officials, I think this is acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right, then, we're looking for a voice vote on G-4, which would create a new clause, clause 8.

(Amendment agreed to)

That is passed. Very good.

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.