Madam Speaker, it has become second nature for me to remain focused in the House when no one is listening and when others are talking, but I know you are listening to me so that is my first win for the day.
As I was saying, we are talking about $166 million under the Old Age Security Act. That is a lot a money. Again, we do not want this to become a way to invade people's privacy either, people who have filed for personal bankruptcy, for example. I think that when we are talking about debts of $1 million or more, we are no longer talking about small tax debts or CERB repayments, which would allow us to identify a specific individual. A debt to the government is a debt to the government, but we are not talking about those small things here, and it is important to mention that.
As I said, Bill C-230 requires little or no additional work on the part of the government. If done properly, it will provide transparency at little or no cost. I think everyone will benefit from that. As I said, it prevents a business from hiding behind a number the day the debt is waived, written off or forgiven. We are not talking about individual cases, so that is good.
What kind of debts, written off by the government in the past, are involved? What kind of debts were forgiven? Were any loans conditionally repayable? For example, there was the Chrysler loan in 2008. I would remind the House that the auto sector was in crisis at the time and the federal government, along with the American government, jumped in. There were stock purchases and investments, but there was also a loan component. In 2008, $2.6 billion in loans to Chrysler were forgiven. That was part of the industrial strategy, a somewhat defensive strategy. There was a financial crisis. That shows the importance of clearly identifying these kinds of debts, because even if the government justifies them and even if ministers are accountable, this information needs to be easier to access.
Was it known at the time whether the company had a repayment plan? Was it known whether the minister had made any provision to waive or forgive the debt? These are some of the questions we are empowered to ask in the House, where it is easier to get answers without having to comb line by line through public accounts, trying to determine whether something fishy went on.
In a way, this works to the government's advantage. It can describe the situation and tell us what happened, that such and such company was involved and that it is all in the registry. That would encourage healthy debate on industrial policy, and the government can confirm that public funds were not involved and that this was one of the risks involved in the industrial policy.
Another example I could give in the short time I have left is Stellantis, the auto manufacturer that recently received substantial support from both the federal government and the province of Ontario. There are some concerns about lack of transparency from the federal government in the process. This is a significant amount, $15 billion, about two-thirds of which is under the federal government's responsibility and one-third of which is under the Ontario government's responsibility. However, since that time, the company moved its production of Jeep vehicles to Illinois and the loan conditions were likely not respected.
If the federal government decides to write off or forgive debt in the future, I think it would be a good idea to be able to see it in a registry, which would make our job easier. Members of the opposition, and even journalists, do not always have the same abilities as the government to carry out this kind of research.
I will conclude by saying that everyone in this House knows that the trade situation is far from simple. We are facing tariffs from the giant known as the United States, yet the country still represents a significant portion of our international trade. We are facing the threat of acquisitions, the threat that our companies will find themselves in a vulnerable position. Providing assistance, sometimes in the form of loans, is part of a sound industrial policy. However, granting loans comes with risk. There is a risk of not getting paid back and then having to waive, write off or forgive the loan.
These are strategic decisions, but they are government decisions and the state must be held accountable. The government must be accountable. In today's context, where the government will likely have to become increasingly active in supporting certain parts of our industrial landscape, it will be useful to ensure that this happens transparently, as I said. This will make it possible to track loans that are not being repaid.
That is why we are pleased that this bill has been introduced, and we will be voting in favour of it.