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.