Debates of Nov. 27th, 2025

Budget Implementation Act, No. 1

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, but I want to make three points.

By the way, we do not say “our seniors” because seniors do not belong to anyone. I invite my colleague to stop using the term “our seniors”. We say “seniors”.

First, how can they boast about helping seniors by pointing to the New Horizons for Seniors program without any consideration for the fact that seniors's pockets are empty and that their OAS is not indexed to allow them to cope with the cost of living? There was no increase for seniors 65 to 74.

Second, how can they boast about helping local media when they are satisfied with the local journalism initiative and investments in Radio‑Canada while completely abandoning community media and private media?

Third, how can they boast about helping businesses? No one is talking about it, but the government did not respond to their request to address the labour shortage. They asked for a grandfather clause for temporary foreign workers. This is an important request back home.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her many questions.

My colleague may be right about using the words “our seniors”, but I am so fond of the seniors in my riding, and I care about them as though they were part of our extended family. Seniors have my utmost respect.

I have had some very good discussions with seniors, who ask me loads of questions. They understand very well that our budget includes measures to improve their quality of life, to help them with the cost of living and to put infrastructure in place to support them. They also know very well that they are not a homogeneous group. Some people are more vulnerable than others, and seniors agree that we should invest in programs that help the most vulnerable members of our society.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her eloquence and the way she summarized the budget. This budget allows us to invest in a systemic package that includes housing, transportation, infrastructure, SMEs, young people and older people. I think my colleague summed it up well, but I would like to focus on the issue of infrastructure, particularly social infrastructure.

These investments are not credit card spending, as she explained in response to a member across the way. These one-time and recurring investments can be a driver of job creation, which we really need in this country. Perhaps my colleague could talk to us about that?

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure is critically important. Members of Parliament and our cabinet have demonstrated the importance of investing in this infrastructure. We listen to our constituents, our mayors, and our city councilors. They told us that we need to address the infrastructure issue. Infrastructure supports the quality of life of our constituents and creates jobs in the regions, which are so important to them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Barrie South—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak fast because I have a lot to cover in seven minutes. A lot has been said about the budget implementation act over the last several days. There are a couple of highlights I want to focus on.

The first thing I want to talk about is the deficit. We heard that it is up to $78 billion. It was supposed to be $62 billion. The Prime Minister promised a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. He is raising both it and inflation. He promised to spend less. He is spending $90 billion more, and that works out to about $5,400 more in inflationary spending per household when families can least afford it. He is adding $321.7 billion to the federal debt over the next five years. That is more than twice the $154 billion that Trudeau would have added over the same period.

Let us think about that. Those are staggering numbers, and this is really going to impact affordability for Canadians. It adds $10 million to our debt every hour, and the federal debt is now $1.35 trillion. The interest on the debt will be $55.6 billion for 2025-26, and that is more than the Canadian health transfers of $54.7 billion. GST revenue is $54.4 billion, and it amounts to about $3,360 per Canadian household. The GDP has already grown. It is just getting worse.

I want to spend my time focusing on something that is not in the budget. It is a critical issue for us locally in central Ontario, particularly in the riding that I represent and the riding of the member for Simcoe—Grey, who is sitting behind me right now. We have many members who have an interest in Lake Simcoe and the health of Lake Simcoe.

The Canada Water Agency is addressed in the budget. There are minor increases in funding, but one thing that is not in the budget implementation act, nor was it in the budget, is the restoration of the long-standing demand that I have made and members whose ridings surround Lake Simcoe have made. It is about the health, sustainability and viability of that precious crown jewel. There is not one dime allocated toward the health and the protection of Lake Simcoe. I am profoundly disappointed.

We made a commitment to reinstate the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. There was $59 million initiated by the Conservative government back under former prime minister Stephen Harper. We saw measurable improvements in Lake Simcoe's health, quality and invasive species, as well as the land restoration surrounding the lake. It was having a dramatic impact. In 2019, the former finance minister came to the shores of Lake Simcoe and promised a restoration of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. Conservatives had made a commitment to restore it, and the Liberals have reneged on that offer since then. We have not seen one dime coming to Lake Simcoe.

There was an announcement of some minor funding, but in terms of that protection plan, that dedicated fund for Lake Simcoe, we have not seen it at all. Just two days ago, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition issued a report on the current health of Lake Simcoe. I will remind members again that it is the largest freshwater lake in Ontario. It is a four-season destination. The economic benefits of Lake Simcoe, as a four-season destination, are hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. It is generated in businesses, seasonal fishing and cottages. We depend on the lake for many things, not to mention drinking water, which is drawn from that lake as well.

In the report, the coalition talked about the current state of the lake. It talked about phosphorus pollution, fish habitat and fish health. It talked about invasive species. It stated, “Quagga mussels have overtaken zebra mussels; round goby are widespread; starry stonewort is entrenched, though it has gone through 'boom and bust' cycles; and in 2024, water soldier was confirmed near Keswick and Innisfil as a significant emerging threat”.

In fact, through a friend of mine, Barry Wiszniowski, I had an opportunity to fly over the lake in his aircraft. We flew over the water soldier that is now permeating and rising above Cook's Bay. It is quite relevant and prevalent in Cook's Bay right now. As an invasive species, it has the potential to create incredible damage.

In its executive summary, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition talked about what we see 16 years after the Lake Simcoe protection plan, which was a provincial initiative. It said, “The costs of inaction are mounting. Declining water quality drives higher municipal expenses for stormwater systems, with significant deferred maintenance for stormwater ponds and linear drainage assets”. It said that the “watershed remains under significant ecological stress.” The report, and the review of the report, talked about the current scientific conditions and the policy trends, and they were asking that Lake Simcoe have a dedicated fund that is directed, again, in a similar way to what the Conservatives had initiated. I think this was early 2012; I am gapping on the date, but there was $59 million, as I said, that was dedicated towards the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, so members of the coalition are asking for the restoration of that fund. Again, as I said, they are asking to “Anchor Lake Simcoe Within the Federal Freshwater Action Plan”.

My colleagues and I, in ridings that surround Lake Simcoe, have written numerous environmental ministers. We have written the Prime Minister, pleading with the government to restore the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, which was a dedicated fund that saw measurable improvements, that put boots on the ground and that worked with the conservation authorities to make sure that the health and vitality of Lake Simcoe was to be protected, not just for now, but for generations to come. It is that critical to our area, and I am disappointed that it is not in the budget.

Financial Administration Act

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

moved that Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (debt forgiveness registry), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise on behalf of the people of Simcoe North and to advance an issue that has been of great importance to me, which is increasing the level of transparency for taxpayers in Canada.

However, before I begin my remarks, I would like to acknowledge my good colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, who seconded my bill, and the member for Calgary Crowfoot, who followed this issue very closely in previous Parliaments. It is one of simple transparency for taxpayers with respect to writeoffs that the government provides in the form of forgiveness or waivers of debts owing by corporations to the government. Of course, it is not the government's money that it is writing off; it is taxpayer money that the government writes off for these individuals.

I would like to begin my remarks by setting the frame that a few years ago, the member for Calgary Crowfoot identified that there had been a large writeoff to a corporation around 2020, and he was able to ascertain from the CRA the size of the largest writeoff. I think the answer back then was about $122 million, but we did not know which corporation that was, and we still do not know.

Now the CRA provides even less transparency about its writeoff activities. It will not even disclose to Canadians the largest single writeoff every year. It hides behind the issue of privacy and even subsequent ministers have decided to keep that information private, relying on section 241 of the Income Tax Act and privacy legislation. However, I believe it is a matter of public interest which corporations these are and the reasons they receive waivers, writeoffs or forgiveness of the amounts that they owe the Crown; as I said previously, this is effectively taxpayer money.

While the CRA employs tens of thousands of individuals, many of whom work very hard every day, it focuses on everyday Canadians who work hard and pay their taxes on time or in the correct way; if they miss a payment or instalment or underpay by even a few dollars, the CRA will immediately start charging them interest and try to collect that money right away.

However, there is a process that happens out of sight of the public, behind closed doors, in which the CRA will tell a corporation that it is no longer pursuing the debt that the corporation owes the government. This practice should change.

The bill, if enacted, would require the government, on an annual basis, to provide the names and reasons for which these writeoffs are given to corporations so that the public can see in full light what is happening with their taxpayer dollars.

As I mentioned, it must be very frustrating for regular Canadians to understand that while they work hard and pay their taxes on time, some corporations get a special break from the government. Of course, some corporations may have gone bankrupt, or there may be other reasons they cannot pay; however, the fact is that this information is still kept secret from the public. It is in the public interest to understand why this is happening.

I would also like to commend some work being done in the Senate. Senator Downe has led some great work in the Senate with respect to greater transparency for the CRA. I believe that the current bill complements a bill that he has moving through that chamber, which would help identify the tax gap and report to Parliament the amounts of money that the CRA thinks it should collect every year versus what it does collect every year. I view these pieces of legislation to be very complementary.

I think it is important to also recognize that, because the government is in a fiscal position and it is in perpetual deficits, we cannot sustain a situation where the government is continually waiving the debts corporations owe it, whether through non-collection or errors in assessments in the first place. We have to do a better job of collecting the debts corporations owe the government so we can lower the tax burden on Canadians overall. This has to be a pillar of what we try to do here in this place, which is to provide income tax relief to hard-working Canadians. We can do that if we collect the money we are supposed to collect from corporations.

How big of a deal is this? Just last year, in the public accounts for the fiscal year of 2023-24, five corporations had over a billion dollars of their debts owing to the government written off. This is an astronomical sum, which has been increasing every year since about 2016-17. The rate these writeoffs are increasing is alarming. Something is happening, and I believe greater transparency would help parliamentarians provide better laws and better tools to the CRA and the other departments that are supposed to collect debts from corporations, which we could do if we had greater information.

Frankly, the general public deserves to know why certain corporations are unable to pay their debts. Could we do a better job of assessing them in the first place? Could we understand whether there are frauds being perpetrated on the Canadian public or on the Canadian taxpayer? For example, it was widely reported last year that, within the CRA, there were fake tax returns and fake refunds that were processed to a number of fraudulent, likely connected, organized criminals, not just through COVID supports, the wage subsidies and the CERB, but through filing false income tax claims and false HST claims.

These frauds perpetrated on the CRA are frauds that are perpetrated on the taxpayer. These are frauds that are perpetrated on the Canadian people, and the Canadian people deserve to understand why this is happening, how much is being lost, and what we can do to prevent this in the future. As I say, the overall objective is to ensure we can lower the tax burden on all Canadians, and we can do that if we just collect the money we are supposed to collect from the corporations that owe it.

To give greater clarity to the bill, this bill does not go after the personal, private information of individual tax filers. This bill only impacts corporations and trusts. It is currently also geared towards partnerships, but I recognize that may bring some issues, which leads me to another point. I have worked diligently on this with many members from all parties in the House, including in the last Parliament, such as the NDP, the Bloc and the government party. I believe all parties have an opportunity to do something in the public interest here.

I am encouraged by the conversations I have had. I hope we may advance this to committee if there are some issues with the legislation or some constructive suggestions from my colleagues in either party or the government. I would welcome those suggestions in the spirit of making sure we can give taxpayers and the public more information about how their tax dollars are being used. I have faith in the great folks at the CRA that, if we were to implement this legislation, they would implement this registry along with the President of the Treasury Board and other officials with the same amount of vigour they have when using the existing tax law and applying the existing restrictions in section 241, which they claim prohibit them from releasing this information.

I believe that one of the reasons we are here today is that there has been a lack of will and a lack of oversight at the CRA to make sure that this situation is not getting worse, but the numbers could not paint a different picture. The amount of corporate writeoffs are increasing at alarming levels. As I mentioned, the top five corporations had over $1 billion written off in one year. Just in 2024-25, 265 corporations alone had debts written off in excess of $1 million. These are substantial amounts. If members think about what we argue about here every day about certain amounts of money going toward various social programs, this is money that, if collected, could be either given to Canadians in social supports or reduced from their tax bill.

It is incredibly important that we take this issue seriously. When I was the shadow critic for the Canada Revenue Agency in the last Parliament, I was underwhelmed by the seriousness with which previous ministers took this issue. When they decided to hide behind the privacy restrictions of section 241, I thought to myself that we should change the law. I was lucky enough to have drawn a high number in the lottery. I believe it is an honour to be able to present a bill in this place and to present one that has a chance of potentially becoming law.

I would not like to prejudge the rest of the debate here this evening, but I appreciate the opportunity to stand here tonight to make a good-faith effort to increase the transparency for taxpayers, to improve the laws of the country and to make sure we are doing what we can in this place to help people with affordability, because we will be able to use some of the money that is recovered to help people. Whether that will be through tax breaks or whether that will be through increased social supports, it is the real reason we are here. The government is in a perpetual state of deficit. This is my good-faith effort to help it climb out of the hole it has dug for itself. I am doing what I can to help the government balance the budget. That is what we should be here to do.

I would love to see this go through this evening. I would love to hear some feedback from my colleagues from other parties. I would also like to mention the hon. member for Abitibi—Tamiskaming, the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan and the hon. member for Mirabel. I have spoken with them about the importance of this issue, both at the finance committee and at other committees. As well, I have had positive and encouraging conversations with the minister, which I very much appreciate, about giving this a fair hearing here in this place tonight. I would just ask my hon. colleagues to keep an open mind.

I appreciate the opportunity, as I said. It is an honour to have the chance to make a change to the laws of this country. I want to thank everyone for this opportunity tonight.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, this is why I love Private Members' Business in the House: We see hon. members making good-faith attempts to contribute to our country in meaningful ways. This is a great legislative initiative that has been brought forward by the member for Simcoe North. I very much appreciate him and his work at the finance committee in the past.

I know he mentioned in his remarks that there may be some issues with partnerships related to the Privacy Act. I know it was not his intention in this particular private member's bill to breach any of the Privacy Act protections for tax purposes or for individuals, but perhaps the member could suggest whether he is open to amendments in that area.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I spent a number of hours with my hon. colleague at the finance committee as he made sure that the previous government got its budget bills passed all the way through. It might have been a painful process, but the Liberals did get through it in the end.

I would say that I am open to reasonable suggestions. It was not my intention to create additional problems with respect to partnerships, because they are structured differently, of course. The primary thrust of this bill was to focus on corporations and trusts, with a strong emphasis on corporations. As I say, I would be open to suggestions regarding how to improve that portion of the bill if members think there is a better way to accomplish the objective.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Simcoe North for his leadership on this issue, which I think is grounded in one fundamental value: transparency. I would like to hear his comments on the consequences this measure could have in that regard, as well as the costs it could entail, both in terms of human resources and for the government. I would particularly like him to elaborate on the expected benefits.

What impact would this have on the treasury and how much does he estimate it would be?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my fellow colleague from the Bloc. He always has a very thoughtful question and intervention in this place.

As I mentioned in the speech, transparency is very important.

In terms of cost, I would just say that much of the work is already being done in these departments to understand what corporations owe what money. This bill would just require some of that information to be made public. Today, the people at CRA already know who owes what money. They already know what they write off because they have to publish the aggregate numbers in the public accounts every year. My estimate would be that this bill would not incur any additional costs to government. It would just require that some of the information it already holds be made public.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that this bill is coming to the floor of the House of Commons, and I thank the member for Simcoe North for bringing it forward.

He talked a bit in his speech about the urgent need for this bill because this addresses a problem that is getting worse. As recently as 2020, the CRA would at least, in an Order Paper question, give the dollar figure for the top writeoffs. Now it will not even do that, citing that it would allow people to guess or speculate which corporate entity, not individuals, may have had this large writeoff, when it is almost certainly a public company.

Does the member think that a public company that has its taxes written off by the government is entitled to its privacy and that this is not in the public interest? This is an urgent problem, and I would like him to add to his comments on its urgency.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot for his diligent work on this file and for helping me in my quest to draft this legislation.

Absolutely, I do not believe that a corporation deserves any privacy when it owes the treasury or the CRA any money that is all of a sudden waived. There should be no expectation of privacy when that occurs, especially as those amounts have gotten higher and higher and higher.

This bill is focused on the writeoffs that are in excess of $1 million. I am open to suggestions on other thresholds, but I do not believe, and I strongly agree with my colleague, that there should be any expectation of privacy when amounts of that size are written off.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-230, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I want to thank the member for Simcoe North for putting this forth. I, too, share some of the core values that I think are expressed in the bill, one of which is a commitment to tax fairness. That is very important to me, as is a commitment to transparency and accountability. That is why our government put forward the national anti-fraud strategy recently, as well as committing to a financial crimes agency, among some other commitments we have made. Some of the legislative efforts and initiatives of our government demonstrate an intersection or an alignment of values.

The government is committed to being transparent and accountable in its operations. At its core, the bill aims to make government finances more open and accountable, particularly when large debts owed to the federal government are cancelled or forgiven.

One of the ways it proposes to do this is by creating a public registry showing major financial obligations owed to the government by corporations, trusts and partnerships that have been forgiven or settled without full repayment. However, the bill would require specific conditions to be met before a debt can be included in the registry, which is important.

First, a debt must be owed by a corporation, trust or partnership. This means that the registry would focus on significant financial obligations involving organizations. Second, the current iteration of the legislation notes that the debt must be valued at $1 million or more. Third, the debt must arise under an act of Parliament. Lastly, the debt must be waived, written off or forgiven in whole or in part.

I would note that the bill does not propose to change the criteria or authority under which debts may be forgiven. Those decisions would continue to be made under existing laws and policies.

In order to create this registry, the bill includes consequential amendments to several other acts, including the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, the Digital Services Tax Act and the Global Minimum Tax Act. However, these amendments would provide the CRA and other relevant bodies with the ability to share confidential taxpayer information with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat for the purpose of populating the registry.

I would note that this may have important privacy implications, as I think the sponsor of the bill has noted. However, the bill attempts to strike a balance between transparency and privacy. It is my hope and my belief that striking a correct balance will be one item we will discuss when examining the bill in even greater detail, because it is indeed a delicate balance that needs to be carefully assessed.

While I believe that all members of the House support the high-level aims of the bill, I must raise a few concerns the government has with the proposed legislation.

One issue is that the bill does not distinguish between a writeoff of a debt or obligation and a waiver or forgiveness. If an online public registry were to be established, it would need to draw a clearer distinction between debts that are written off and those that may be waived or forgiven, just as they are presented in the public accounts. The types of debts to be included in the registry would therefore need to be clarified.

There are also potential privacy implications, as I have mentioned, with the legislation. The bill focuses on corporations, trusts and partnerships, and as a result, it does not identify individuals, which is a good thing. We support this. However, it is possible that in the case of partnerships, the name of an individual could be disclosed, in which case the Privacy Act could be engaged. The bill would therefore need to address these privacy concerns by explicitly prohibiting the disclosure of the names of any individuals.

On this side of the House, we believe that the proposed $1-million threshold for reporting debts is also quite low. The government believes that this threshold would need to be increased in order to reduce the administrative burden of maintaining the registry.

It would also follow the same materiality principles already used in government financial policies to help reduce the risk of reputational harm. For example, publicizing smaller writeoffs could discourage businesses from engaging with government programs. That being said, a new proposed registry must leverage existing reporting mechanisms so as not to strain resources and to remain consistent with current documents and procedures.

The government believes that Bill C-230 is an important piece of legislation that could potentially strengthen financial reporting and transparency. I would like to again applaud the member for Simcoe North for advancing this legislation. One of the features of Private Members' Business is that it often advances priorities that have broad support in this House.

In conclusion, in that spirit, as with any proposed legislation, it is essential to carefully examine the bill. Those of us in this House must consider not only its intent but also its practical implications for government operations, stakeholder interests and Canadians at large.

Should the House vote in favour of this bill, I trust that we will do the work of scrutinizing it at the committee stage. I look forward to working on that with the member across the way, hopefully finding a way to get another private member's bill through the House of Commons. Again, I appreciate him for his good faith attempt to address an issue that he and many government members care about deeply.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I just want to take a moment for some acknowledgements. I am fortunate to be supported by a parliamentary intern, Emily Gough. I thank her for being part of our team and for the conscientious approach she takes to her work, both for committees and for speeches. Many of the words I will read today are hers.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for public accounts, I want to highlight the initiative of my colleague from Simcoe North, his desire to hold the government to account and to be transparent. I appreciated his answer to the question I asked him about how much it would cost. He said that it would not incur any additional costs because, essentially, this data is already being collected. Why not make it public? That is an interesting point.

His bill aims to create a public registry, in the form of an online, searchable database, of information on any debt or obligation owed by, or any claim made against, a corporation, trust company or partnership. To avoid the public disclosure of all debts, obligations and claims, the bill also specifies that it would apply exclusively to debts, obligations or claims over $1 million that have been waived, written off or forgiven, in whole or in part. The registry would specify the name of the corporation, trust company or partnership.

I also like the fact that our colleague included the concept of business names to prevent companies from hiding behind a number. I am sure that my colleague feels the same frustration I do when I look over public accounts and see some companies identified by a number only. This creates a certain degree of anonymity in contracts. I wish companies that win government contracts were always identified by their business names so it would be easier to find them in government documents. The registry would also specify the amount that was waived, written off or forgiven by the government, the period to which the amount relates and the act under which the debt, obligation or claim was owed or arose.

This information is important because Quebec and Canadian taxpayers are the ones financing the various companies to which the government grants loans. In 2024-25, the government wrote off $7.3 billion, according to the 2025 public accounts. Of that amount, $5 billion was written off by the Canada Revenue Agency. However, it is impossible to determine how the government deprived itself of such a large sum. Is it because of taxes not paid by individuals? Were they EI overpayments? In short, without any details, we can only speculate.

Fortunately, the work of journalists has helped us see things a little more clearly. According to an article in The Globe and Mail, the government wrote off or forgave more than $18 billion in debt and other obligations in 2024, a $13-billion increase over the previous year. That is more than the Quebec government's deficit. This followed another report by the same media outlet showing that 11 companies accounted for a quarter of the $4.9 billion that had been announced before the year-end balance sheet. In 2023, $1 billion of the $5 billion in write-offs applied to just five cases.

Why does the government not disclose the names of the companies that benefited from these huge gifts? It seems to me that these sums should be repaid. The money could be used to fund housing, fund health transfers, and ensure that we do not run up a $78-billion deficit. While my former colleague from Terrebonne, Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, was fighting to help small and medium-sized businesses get more time, the government was offering huge gifts to large companies.

This lack of transparency is even more troubling when we look at what is happening on the ground, in regions such as the Gaspé Peninsula, where business owners have been struggling just to survive. While large companies quietly benefited from tax breaks worth billions of dollars, small businesses are struggling to repay modest emergency loans taken out during the pandemic. A business owner borrowed $56,000 to develop local tourism, only to discover that, despite having been extended, the repayment deadlines were still impossible to meet for a highly seasonal business facing inflation and rising interest rates. All she was asking for was more time.

We have similar cases in my region of Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Community futures development corporations have told us that these cases are not unique. In our regions, very small businesses, even non-profit organizations, were unable to repay their loans on time. Meanwhile, big corporations like Chrysler have benefited from debt forgiveness in the past. This double standard is unacceptable. Small and medium-sized businesses should not be left behind while large corporations quietly benefit from decisions made behind closed doors.

That is exactly the reality that my colleague, Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, who was rightfully elected in Terrebonne in 2021, pointed out to the government for more than two years. She consistently called for more flexible repayment terms for the Canada emergency business account, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses facing high inflation, economic uncertainty and the real threat of having to shut their doors. When Ottawa finally announced minor adjustments, it became clear that the measures fell far short of meeting the needs of Quebec's small businesses. Extending certain deadlines by a few days or months does nothing to help seasonal industries, tourism operators or family businesses that are already struggling due to rising interest rates.

At the same time, the Auditor General revealed major shortcomings in the management of the emergency programs, including the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars were entrusted to a multinational corporation without proper oversight. Once again, ordinary entrepreneurs are subject to strict repayment schedules, while the federal government is much more lenient toward these large corporations and outside contractors. This imbalance undermines public confidence and reinforces the need for greater transparency. This is in addition to the $2.5 billion in foregone revenue from the 1% annual tax on vacant or underutilized housing that was introduced in January 2022 and repealed by the government in its latest budget.

The need for greater transparency becomes even more apparent when we recall the ordeal faced by Chrysler, one of the federal government's most significant and least explicable financial decisions in recent history. Nearly 10 years after the U.S., Canadian and Ontario governments bailed out Chrysler and General Motors during the financial crisis, Ottawa quietly wrote off $2.6 billion in debt that Chrysler had never repaid. This decision appeared only as a line item in the Public Accounts of Canada, without any explanation, identification of the company concerned, or justification for the loss to taxpayers.

Subsequent reports revealed what the Auditor General had pointed out years earlier, that the federal government had not required a restructuring plan, had not monitored the use of funds, and had not ensured meaningful accountability. The initial $1.25-billion loan to Chrysler accrued interest for nine years, only to be forgiven in its entirety. Meanwhile, the new entity, which is now profitable, has no obligation to repay Quebec and Canadian taxpayers. A similar loan granted to General Motors, worth over $1 billion, also remains outstanding.

That is precisely why we agree in principle with the intent of this bill, while recognizing that its provisions deserve to be studied in greater detail in committee to ensure that it is implemented responsibly and effectively.

It is important to take action. Quebec taxpayers have to pay back their debts. The latest report from Employment and Social Development Canada showed that it had recovered $2.7 billion of the $3.2 billion in overpayments. However, when it comes to big corporations receiving billions of dollars, this government is clearly showing that not everyone is equal under the law.

What my colleague from Simcoe North is proposing is another tool for transparency. However, there are concerns about the protection of individuals, which clearly requires further study in committee. Still, as mentioned, the $1-million threshold makes this bill worth studying. We agree in principle, but we want this bill to be carefully studied in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to take part in this debate on Bill C-230, concerning transparency. First, here is a quick explanation of what the bill is all about. In Canada, and in other countries around the world, the government sometimes enters into agreements with businesses or individuals who owe money for unpaid taxes. Sometimes, agreements are reached.

The bill seeks to increase the transparency surrounding this mechanism, which allows large corporations that reach agreements with the government to have certain debts written off. The bill seeks to ensure that debts over $1 million that are written off are publicly listed in a registry that would be available to all Canadians.

That is essentially what the bill we are debating today is all about. We just heard members from the government and the other opposition parties express interest in moving this bill forward and in reaching an agreement in principle to study what it is. Before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to commend the bill's sponsor, the member for Simcoe North.

The member for Simcoe North was elected in 2021. I can assure the House that, in the last four years, he has made a very great impression on everybody who works with him. We have heard the other parties saying that he is a very strong man and parliamentarian. I am very proud to work with him. He is very bright, wise and hard-working, and we understand why; it is because he previously worked with the late hon. Jim Flaherty, the famous former finance minister in the Stephen Harper government.

Let us get back to the heart of the debate surrounding this bill. As I said earlier, agreements are sometimes reached between a government and companies that do not pay their debts, taxes and duties. Agreements may be reached to set all that aside and write off the debt.

There is a difference between someone who has a minor problem and is a little behind on their payments, and debts totalling billions of dollars. As The Globe and Mail reported in recent months, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, wrote off $18 billion last year. That is terrible, when we think about it. The CRA is literally hunting down small and medium-sized businesses in order to get every last cent that is owed to the government. If, God forbid, hard-working Canadians with modest incomes are $200 or $300 short on their tax return, the CRA is quick to come down on them and make them pay. Interest begins to accrue on day one, even though sometimes the information they get from the CRA is incorrect. I will discuss that later.

We learned that large companies got out of paying a full $18 billion, even though they were supposed to. A debt of $4.7 billion was written off. The government waived $10.9 billion and companies were exempted from paying $2.6 billion. We are talking about a total of $18 billion. We could do a lot with that money, but the government is simply waving it off. Companies owe this money, but they are not paying it back.

That is why the bill aims for transparency, so that Canadians can know which companies have reached an agreement with the government to avoid paying a debt of more than $1 million. We are not targeting small businesses or citizens who owe $200 in taxes, but rather those who owe more than $1 million in taxes, who have not paid and who have made an agreement with the government not to pay. I believe that Canadian taxpayers have a right to know so that they can then judge the government's decisions.

In a democracy, the more transparency the better for society. However, we understand that agreements protecting confidentiality and information are a fact of life. Let us be clear: The purpose of the bill is not to disclose corporate secrets. Rather, it seeks to determine how companies are managed to understand why taxes that should have been paid were not. That is why we need to see what kind of agreement we can reach in this regard, and that is the purpose of this bill. It is a very good thing.

A responsible government is not afraid to go public about decisions that affect businesses. Transparency makes it easier for people to engage in healthy and honest debate when it comes to judging government decisions. Canadians deserve to know why companies are not paying all of their taxes. They have to pay, just like everyone else. It is an obligation. Why, then, are large write-offs not disclosed? I must admit that, when I first began studying this bill, I was quite surprised to learn that so much of the money that should have been paid had in fact not been collected. Last year it was $18 billion.

I am the national revenue critic for the official opposition. I took over the role following my colleague from Simcoe North. As members can see, I was in good hands. However, I still have a lot to learn before I can be as relevant and effective as my colleague from Simcoe North. That said, it is quite clear that the Canada Revenue Agency really needs to improve its image, and that is to say the least. There is nothing more important for a taxpayer than to ensure that they pay the exact amount of taxes owed to the government.

However, the Auditor General's report, released just over a month ago, gave a very scathing review of the current situation at the Canada Revenue Agency. Mores specifically, it reveals that telephone wait times are approximately twice as long as expected. When someone does manage to reach an agent who is supposed to provide accurate and relevant information, the Auditor General's report on the CRA says that the information provided is incorrect 83% of the time.

Imagine a worker who cannot afford an accountant and has to fill out his tax return on his own. He is told that everything is fine, that he has to complete line x by writing in amount y, and that it will be correct. However, four times out of five, the information he is given is incorrect. Then, unfortunately, a few weeks later he receives a notice from the CRA demanding full payment of the $200 or so he owes because of a delay, because he did not fill out his return correctly. Now the interest is accruing rapidly, but the information he was given was incorrect. The whole story is pretty astounding. It is quite shocking to learn that $18 billion has not been collected as it should have been from businesses and individuals.

That is why this bill seeks to make information available and ensure that everything is done properly. We have heard some highly relevant comments from our colleagues about protecting confidential information and data. I want to assure everyone in the House that the purpose of this bill is not to expose these companies, much less reveal their corporate secrets. If by chance these companies have entered agreements that allow them to avoid paying $2 million, $3 million or $4 million in taxes owed, then it seems only fitting that Canadian workers should be informed.

Obviously, our party supports the steps taken by our colleague from Simcoe North. We have observed that both the government and the opposition parties agree in principle, while pointing out the fact that we will have to work effectively in committee. That is the beauty of democracy. Those who watch and listen to question period already know that our debates can be quite harsh at times. That goes without saying. On the other hand, when we can find common ground with all the parties in the interest of ministerial transparency, to give Canadians more information, then Canadians are the first to benefit.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where the member ended off, because I think there is a great deal of merit to that.

What most Canadians witness when they tune into Parliament, for those who do tune into it where it is televised, is often question period. However, what we see in question period is not necessarily reflective of what is outside of it. We see a lot of co-operation. Based on what I have heard, both from the introducer, the member for Simcoe North, and from the parliamentary secretary, I get the sense that maybe they had a great deal of discussion about the issue of taxes and the Canada Revenue Agency. At least that is the sense I am getting.

If we look at the process, it tells me that at times, it can work to the advantage of all Canadians when positive things take place in our standing committees. The best I can tell, the member, who plays an important role in opposition, has gone to a committee and found through the committee experience an area where we are somewhat vulnerable, at the end of the day bringing forward legislation that would provide more transparency and accountability. It seems to be very reasonable.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary's comments, and on behalf of the government, he expressed some genuine concerns the government has. This bill will, in all likelihood, go to committee, and I hope that members on all sides of the House will look at ways we might be able to improve it.

A couple of things have happened. One is that a member has brought forward a private member's bill based on issues that have surfaced here in Parliament. By raising this issue and bringing it forward in a private member's bill, which is programmed, I must say, it will ultimately be able to pass through the system, in essence because he was low in the numbers. He has taken advantage of that, as I or any other member would, to try to make a real difference.

It is encouraging to see this type of legislation come forward. I hope to see it go to committee and to see some amendments made to it, because it sounds like there will be a need for amendments. My colleague made reference, for example, to the $1 million figure. That seems potentially reasonable. We will hear more about it when we go to committee.

There is a great deal of concern about privacy. When I was talking with the parliamentary secretary, I asked him if he had a question on that, because I had a question I was interested in related to the partnership issue and its impact on privacy. Does the member have any concerns in regard to privacy protection?

I also have thoughts on the release of information. Could that be, in certain situations, to the detriment of workers potentially and the community as a whole? For example, there might be something of national security at a particular company. It could be something that might ultimately prevent a company from going in a certain direction, which could cause more harm. I think seeing potential concerns addressed at the committee level, because there is only going to be two hours of debate at most on this issue, has a great deal of value.

The member started off talking about the CRA, which was referenced earlier today with respect to the budget legislation. In the question I posed, I highlighted the important work the CRA does. I know that a lot of criticism is levelled at the CRA, and understandably so, especially in certain situations, but as a collection agency, if I can put it that way, working on behalf of the government, I believe it is one of the very best in the world in terms of the service it provides for all of us. When I say “all of us”, I am not talking about parliamentarians; I am talking about Canadians as a whole.

We go through some very difficult times, whether as corporations, as partnerships or as individuals. A few years ago, we were hearing a great deal about individuals having issues with CERB payments, with the wage loss program, for example, where there was no doubt abuse that had taken place. Sometimes it was intentional, and sometimes it was not. When it was not intentional, was there going to be any grace given?

When I had an opportunity to talk to the CRA on behalf of my constituents, what I found was that CRA does have a great deal of discretion, and not only for corporations, although someone pointed out that, I think he said, five corporations had $1 billion in debt written off. That is a heck of a lot of money for five corporations or businesses, if I am quoting the person correctly.

There does need to be accountability and transparency in situations, but we also recognize that there are extenuating circumstances at times that might actually justify not sharing information. A good example of that is the private individual. There are individuals who do abuse and who do break laws within our taxation system. There are privacy laws in place in order to protect. I would suggest that the same principle applies universally with all individuals or all the different sectors that go through the Canada Revenue Agency, but for a vast majority, that is not an issue.

I am very sensitive to the issue in terms of how we can protect the integrity of the system while at the same time provide additional transparency and accountability.

I have spoken previously on this issue in regard to investment when it comes to dealing with tax avoidance and evasion. Over the last number of years under the Trudeau government, substantial monies, into the hundreds of millions of dollars, have gone into looking at ways in which we can recuperate even more money in those two areas. Whether it is initiatives like budgetary initiatives to try to deal with the issue of tax fairness, or legislation like this, it is about tax fairness, accountability and transparency.

We need tax dollars. All governments need tax dollars. Canadians do not mind paying taxes if in fact they believe they are being treated fairly and if, at the end of the day, there is a benefit.

This is something all of us have a responsibility to move towards, because we want to keep the high level of respect for the CRA. If there are things we can do to increase transparency and accountability, I think that is a positive.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to speak to this bill. I feel quite strongly about the issues within it. This came to my attention a few years ago as a problem when, in an Order Paper question, which, unlike a question during question period, is something the government is required to answer. The government is not allowed to just tap dance around and refuse to answer an Order Paper question. To refuse would actually be a contempt of Parliament, so Order Paper questions are a good way to try to force real answers from the government.

In response to a question about the nature of tax losses, writeoffs by the CRA from large corporate filers that have had their tax obligations to the Crown, to the people of Canada, written off, the information we received back was very minimal. If I recall correctly, we did get the dollar figures for the larger writeoffs that had occurred. It actually generated some speculation in the media about who these corporate entities might have been, but they were not named. At least we had an idea of the scale of the large writeoffs that had occurred at the Canada Revenue Agency.

In subsequent years, though, the CRA has taken an even less transparent approach to these questions and outright refused to answer them, citing privacy. We are not talking about individuals; we are talking about corporate filings. The CRA is citing privacy, meaning that the concern is that it would be possible to guess the identity of these corporate filers having their taxes written off.

This bill is a great step forward in clarifying and giving legal direction to ensure the publication of this important information. However, I would like to stress that this is a pretty small step in the problem of ever-increasing writeoffs. Why is the agency failing to collect taxes? What is going on that is triggering these writeoffs? If we knew who it was, we would be able to identify maybe whether it was a matter of bankruptcy, and we would be able to know whether there was maybe public money that is tied up as well, or whether there were subsidies paid to the business. We would have a better idea of the whole overall problem if we had that information.

It is part of a pattern of ever-decreasing transparency from the government. This is a trend that is getting worse. It is actually very unfortunate that we are having to resort to legislation for something that the CRA really ought to be doing on its own and consciously chose to stop, or even that it is reducing the amount of information it gives to Canadians.

I know in Private Members' Business we cannot debate back and forth, but earlier tonight we heard praise for the CRA and the wonderful work it does. No doubt there are thousands of good, solid and hard-working people at the CRA, but we have an army in this country of 59,000 tax collectors, and they are writing off these enormous amounts. They fail to collect from offshore filers and give special breaks to offshore filers. They do not answer the phone, and they do not give correct information when they do get to the phone. There are some really serious problems at this agency, and this bill is just one small piece, which I support vigorously to try to improve the CRA.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Health

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals spent more than $54 million on the vaccine injury support program. Global News reported that over $36 million of that money went to one consulting firm, Oxaro. However, out of the 3,300 claims from Canadians, more than 1,700 were still waiting for answers.

Now that the government has cancelled Oxaro's contract, after admitting the program failed, how much money has the government recovered from Oxaro?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, let me be clear. The allegations regarding Oxaro's management of the vaccine injury support program are unacceptable. This program was created to support vulnerable Canadians, and it is evident that it has not operated in the way that Canadians deserve.

This is why, from the moment our new government became aware of these issues, we acted decisively. The Minister of Health directed that every option be considered. She instructed the Public Health Agency of Canada to expedite its audit of both the program and its third party administrator. That audit is under way, and we will make its findings public as soon as they are available. We need to see the full results of that audit.

Our commitment is unwavering. We will take whatever action is required to ensure vulnerable Canadians receive the support they need and that all Canadians can trust that their tax dollars are being managed responsibly. If the audit recommends stopping payments to the current administrator, we will do that. If the audit recommends recovering funds or taking further action, we will do that as well. As the minister has said repeatedly, nothing is off the table.

We also know that the previous government, while well-intentioned, stood up this program in haste. It did not review how similar programs operate in other jurisdictions, including right here in Canada. When the Minister of Health recognized this gap, she directed officials to redesign the program using best practices. We learned that Quebec, along with every G7 country, administers this type of program internally, not through a third party.

That is exactly what we are doing. As announced in August, beginning April 1, the Government of Canada will assume full responsibility for delivering the vaccine injury support program. Operational details are still being finalized, and we will share them openly as soon as they are available and ready. What matters most is that we are fixing what was broken. We are restoring accountability, and we are ensuring that Canadians who need this program can trust it.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, here we go again with some more of the Prime Minister's speaking points.

I really do not understand the parliamentary secretary's approach to this answer. It was a very simple question. Meanwhile, there are 1,700 people out there with serious injuries, and the government has decided not to answer anything.

I will ask the question again. How much money has the government recovered from Oxaro for their mismanagement of the vaccine injury support program, just the number?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that everyone recognizes the problem with the vaccine injury support program.

Our new government acted immediately to fix these problems. We are bringing management of the vaccine injury support program back to the government and have instructed the Public Health Agency of Canada to expedite its audit of the program and the company delivering it.

Despite what the member has said, I already answered the question. The audit is ongoing, and as soon as it is completed, we will make those results available. We will keep all options on the table moving forward, so that vulnerable Canadians, and all Canadians, can have faith that we will be there for Canadians when they need the help and that we are spending tax dollars in a way that is transparent and accountable.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, tonight I am following up on a question I raised previously about the ongoing youth unemployment crisis in this country. Youth unemployment is persistently high, still well over 14%, more than a full percentage point higher than it was a year ago. Over 440,000 young Canadians between 15 and 25 are currently unemployed.

In this context, Conservatives put forward our Conservative youth jobs plan, calling on the government to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are, and we identified some very specific proposals for achieving that result. Unfortunately, with this budget, we are not seeing progress; we are seeing the government move backward.

I want to highlight tonight, in particular, some significant new problems created by this budget in the area of training.

We called on the government to fix training by offering relatively more support to students seeking in-demand skills. That is, if students are pursuing studies in a field where there is a desperate need in the labour market for people to do those kinds of jobs, we think it is reasonable for government-funded grants to magnify the market signal to help students see and understand that there will likely be more economic opportunities if they pursue studies in that field.

Liberals decided, effectively, to go in the opposite direction, because in the budget on page 217, the government proposed to eliminate student grants for students going to private institutions. In the post-secondary system, we have public, we have private not-for-profit and we have private for-profit, but the issue is that there are many vocational programs that are simply not available in public institutions.

For certain kinds of programs, someone who is interested in a particular career will, as a student, opt to go to a private institution, and there is obviously nothing wrong with that. These are good careers that are needed, and this reflects demand in the labour market. Telling students who are trying to access skills and in-demand professions that they can no longer access student grants because of the institution they are going to, but continuing to offer those same grants at the same level to students at universities, is not fair.

It does not seem reasonable to say this to a young person studying traditional Chinese medicine, to be a chiropractor, to work in the beauty industry or to work in other industries where the formation is generally not offered at universities. To say their field is not worthy of student grants, but that somebody who studies philosophy, public policy, as I did, or some other program at a university should have access to a full grant, seems to me like profession prejudice, like discrimination against students who are opting for careers that do not involve a university education.

We need to be honouring, dignifying and appreciating the careers that people work hard in, regardless of whether they involve studies at a university. However, the government is proposing a differential, discriminatory system with respect to training, which is that if someone studies in those critical, in-demand professions where the formation is only available at private institutions, they lose access to student grants, but if they are studying any kind of university program, regardless of how relevant it is to the labour market, they do get those grants.

Conservatives think this is unfair. We think this budget moves in the opposite direction and introduces more discrimination and unfairness in the training system. What is the government's response to why it put that discriminatory provision in the budget?