Debates of Feb. 9th, 2026

The House resumed from November 27, 2025 consideration of the motion 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.

Financial Administration Act

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the debate on C-230, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The Financial Administration Act is Canada's foundational statute governing public financial management. It establishes the legal framework and principles that guide financial management across all federal departments and agencies. The act provides the statutory authority for managing public funds and federal assets. It establishes the responsibility of key officials, including the Treasury Board, departmental deputy heads and the comptroller general, in ensuring that government finances are managed effectively and appropriately.

The act covers various aspects of financial administration, including the authorization and control of government spending, the management of Crown corporations, and the safeguarding of public resources. It is critical to maintaining public accountability and transparency in government operations. It requires that expenditures be authorized by Parliament through appropriations legislation, and that spending remain within those authorized limits. This ensures that public money is spent as the elected representatives of Canadians have approved.

The act establishes the Treasury Board as the central financial authority within government, giving it the power to develop policies and practices for sound financial management. It also mandates that deputy heads maintain systems of internal control and conduct regular audits to verify compliance with the act's requirements. This creates accountability throughout the government hierarchy, from senior management down to individual spending authorities. In doing so, the Financial Administration Act provides the legislative foundation for related accountability mechanisms, including requirements for financial reporting, internal audit functions and the role of the Office of the Comptroller General in promoting best practices.

The Financial Administration Act is essential to the operation of the Government of Canada by ensuring that public finances are managed responsibly, transparently and in accordance with democratic principles. The bill before us today seeks to amend the Financial Administration Act to enhance transparency and accountability regarding large debts and obligations forgiven by the federal government. In particular, the bill would require the President of the Treasury Board to establish and maintain a publicly accessible, searchable online database of debt forgiveness.

The registry would list any debt, obligation or claim of $1 million or more that has been waived, written off, or forgiven by the Crown in whole or in part, and it would apply to corporations, trust companies and partnerships. Each entry would include the legal and business name of the debtor, the amount forgiven, the time period covered, the statutory authority for the forgiveness, and any additional details deemed necessary by the President of the Treasury Board.

Certainly, any effort to increase transparency and accountability should be commended. I want to thank the member for Simcoe North for introducing this private member's bill. As my colleagues indicated in the first hour of debate on it, we look forward to working together on the bill when it reaches the committee stage.

However, as with any measure, it is important to consider any unintended consequences that may arise from its implementation. With that in mind, I believe Bill C-230 raises a few issues that would need to be examined in committee to ensure that it would not have detrimental impacts. For example, it is worth considering concerns about privacy and commercial sensitivities, and whether the publishing of company names with specific financial details regarding debt forgiveness could unfairly harm their reputation. We must also ask whether such a registry might expose a company's competitive vulnerabilities.

Those are, to be clear, exactly the types of questions committee members should be asking in their careful consideration of any legislation, and I look forward to hearing from experts and stakeholders, as well as from the bill's sponsor, with regard to these important matters.

Bill C-230 focuses on corporations, trusts and partnerships. In the case of partnerships, there is not anything in the bill that would prevent the disclosure of a partner's name if the partner is an individual. That may raise potential privacy concerns.

There is also a need to clarify the types of amounts owed to the government that the bill would apply to. For example, Bill C-230 would apply to debts or obligations owed to, and claims by, His Majesty that are owed or that arise under federal statutes. This would cover obligations that are the direct result of a statutory requirement, such as taxes and other charges or penalties imposed by statute. It is less clear the extent to which the bill would cover loans or other amounts that arise under contractual obligations between the federal government and the debtor.

There is also the issue of administrative burden. Building a secure, searchable online platform would likely involve IT infrastructure, procurement and a requirement for integration with existing financial systems. Ongoing maintenance might require staff and budget dedicated for functions such as program updates and troubleshooting.

In addition, departments would need to identify, extract and validate all relevant debt forgiveness transactions over $1 million. Each disclosure would likely need to be vetted for compliance with privacy laws and confidentiality provisions. This might increase the workload on legal staff to manage risk of litigation from companies concerned about reputational harm.

It is worth asking whether compliance monitoring or audits to verify accuracy and prevent omissions would also be necessary. In a time when the government is seeking to balance its operating costs in the next three years, we must ask ourselves whether this would be the best use of scarce taxpayer dollars. Given the administrative burden the registry would pose, the monetary threshold should perhaps be increased to focus on truly significant debts.

When I look at how the government currently handles tax breaks, fee waivers and debt forgiveness, I am heartened by the degree of accountability and transparency already baked into our system. This is not to say that better is not possible, but a brief overview of our current regime may help inform this debate. The following details of debts forgiven, written off, remitted or waived are already reported publicly in the public accounts: which department made the decision, which law allowed it, how many times it happened and how much money we are talking about. Most remission orders also get published on the Privy Council's order in council website and in the Canada Gazette.

I am thankful for the opportunity to highlight a few of the important challenges the bill raises. That said, I believe the merits of the bill outweigh the challenges, which is why I look forward to the next steps in the legislative process, where a committee can examine the bill more closely.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always good to see you on Mondays, although, as you know, the same is also true for Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

I will not keep anyone in suspense today. We support this bill, which promotes transparency in the administration of the public finances. As members know, the government is a huge machine with many departments, agencies and Crown corporations. Take, for example, the Canada Revenue Agency, which operates at arm's length from the CRA minister and the government and which is owed certain debts. We support more transparency. That is basically what the member for Simcoe North is proposing today.

What does this bill propose? Basically, it proposes keeping a registry of significant debts owed by certain entities that have been waived, written off or forgiven. When a business, individual or entity owes money to the Canadian government and the government decides to waive, write off or forgive that debt, it will all be entered into a registry that can easily be consulted by parliamentarians, the media and anyone interested in the public finances. We think this is a good thing.

Obviously there will have to be rules and smart parameters governing this. We also think the bill is well written. We are used to seeing well-thought-out bills from the member for Simcoe North. This bill focuses on debts, obligations or claims worth more than $1 million that are waived in whole or in part, meaning the government partly or totally writes them off as a loss.

What would be in the registry? First, it would associate a recognizable name with the debt, obligation or claim. Sometimes businesses incorporate federally or provincially as numbered companies, and we know that people can hide behind those numbers. This requirement would allow parliamentarians, taxpayers and journalists to clearly identify the entity to which the debt, obligation or claim relates. That alone is a good thing. The registry would also state the period to which the debt, obligation or claim relates, the amount owed, the amount waived, written off or forgiven, and, just as importantly, the act under which the debt, obligation or claim was owed or arose.

Obviously, the question here is whether this would add to the burden on public administration. A registry seems like a simple thing since the data already exist. They are already in the public accounts. We just need to add a little more information, make it more accessible and intelligible and put it in a registry. The Bloc Québécois believes that the government already has all of this data ready. However, we have to be careful, because this government tends to complicate simple things and make things more expensive than they need to be. We hope that we will not end up with cost overruns of $3 billion, $4 billion, $5 billion or $10 billion for a simple registry that would make our lives easier and improve transparency.

This is a rather important bill. Of course, we have here the figures from the most recent public accounts. In 2024-25, $5.3 billion in debt was written off, while $1.2 billion was forgiven, for a total of about $7 billion. There was $166 million under the Old Age Security Act alone.

Is everything okay, Madam Speaker?

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

There is some noise coming from the gallery.

The hon. member for Mirabel can continue his speech.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, whether it is the Epstein files or Santa Claus, the names on the lists are never released. Society has come to the moral place where those who have done wrong are protected: tax cheaters, offenders living among us or parliamentarians who have worked negatively with foreign governments. Everything is withheld behind the false veil of privacy.

Why is it that the government wants to track the information of millions of average Canadians on their laptops but will not go after those who go against one of the most basic social contracts of society, paying taxes? We have a solution in Bill C-230.

In recent years, the CRA has been waiving debts owed to government. Last year, the government waived the following debts: $4.7 billion in writeoffs, $10.9 billion in forgiveness, $0.4 billion in remissions and $2.6 billion in waivers, for a total of $18.4 billion. Writeoffs and waivers for taxes owed are done in secret because of privacy provisions under the Income Tax Act. While the CRA is pursuing small businesses and ordinary Canadians for minor amounts owed to government, it is writing off debts owed to government by corporate entities in record amounts.

Canadians deserve to know which corporations are benefiting from the CRA's decision not to collect debts to government. The solution in Bill C-230 is to create a public registry that would require the Treasury Board to publish, annually, a list of corporate entities that have debts owed to governments forgiven, written off or waived if that amount exceeds $1 million. One million dollars is a lot of money. It is not forgetting to pay back $20, or “I will get lunch next time.”

In 2023-24, 11 companies received $1.2 billion in combined writeoffs. The 11 companies account for nearly a quarter of the $4.9 billion in writeoffs approved in fiscal year 2023-24. What are these companies? Right now, we do not know. How would Canadians feel if these were publicly traded companies posting profits or even record profits? What if Brookfield was one of those companies? Right now, we do not know. Why should big corporations get enormous debt writeoffs when they target the little guy for significantly smaller amounts?

I have a message from a constituent, who writes, “They're claiming that I owe them $126 from a payroll account more than 15 years ago”.

Another constituent writes:

CRA has been holding up my return for months—with no proper timetable for a return—and meanwhile they have sent me to collections—causing me not only a large amount of stress and anxiety—but also causing me serious financial strain—in that I have had to take loans out to pay bills and support payments (which would have been covered in my return)

Another constituent is being withheld money from his mother's death benefit due to CRA delays.

He writes:

I followed every instruction I was given, yet I received no communication for months. I assumed my file was being processed, only to learn that it had been discarded. It is incredibly discouraging. This does not reflect a system that serves the people. It feels like the opposite, and that is deeply concerning.

Here's another account from a constituent:

Our mom passed away on February 28th, and her death was reported to CRA. A mistake was made and they deposited OAS into her account 2 months after her death, and then sent us a letter telling us we had to pay it back. Our dad passed away on June 8th; again, his death was reported to CRA but we have been receiving...cheques in his name. Now, we've received a letter from CRA saying they overpaid our dad's GIS for the period after our mom passed to when he passed and we owe them over $1,900.

How is an agency so incompetent that several mistakes are made [in a single] estate?

It is the Conservatives who have always advocated for transparency in government departments, tax policies and procedures. Motion 43 in the 42nd Parliament, put forward by the member for Calgary Crowfoot, was a duty of care to the taxpayer. If someone is found to be not owing, forgive the amount but also pay for legal fees.

At our recent convention, this resolution was passed:

A Conservative government shall introduce legislation requiring the forgiveness or writing off of any non-personal debt owed to the Government of Canada be publicly announced in the Canada Gazette.

Why does the Liberal government like to collect swaths of information about ordinary Canadians to place moral decision-making into its own hands but will not ever release the names of those who have violated one of the two basic tenets of our society? These are, pay one's taxes, and, pay one's fair share so we can attempt to live in a functioning and compassionate society.

The government has also not released the names regarding foreign interference. The government refused to share which federal politicians wittingly co-operated with foreign interference. The former member of Parliament for University—Rosedale only said, “our government takes foreign interference very, very seriously”. The current Minister of Justice also defended this position. This report outlined several activities, such as collaborating with countries like China, including accepting money or favours from diplomats. The National Security Intelligence Committee was chaired by the current defence minister.

Why do they not release the names?

They concealed the scope of the federal job cuts from analysts at the budget office. On November 5, 2025, the budget office asked federal managers for a breakdown of planned savings by program, but public servants and Canadians were left in the dark as to which departments would be affected or how it would impact services.

Release the names on the list.

The federal government may not want to release information for the benefit of Canadians, but it is eager to pass legislation to infringe upon the privacy and actions of ordinary Canadians. Bill C-8, an act respecting cybersecurity, states that cabinet “may...prohibit a [telecom] service provider from using all products and services provided by a specified person” if it “believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat”. This order may be kept secret. No warrants are required. This was also attempted in Bill C-2.

Bill C-63, in the last Parliament, proposed increasing the maximum sentence for hate speech, which carried a sentence of five years to life under the Criminal Code. This would have placed it among the most serious offences, such as manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault, which also carry life sentences. That could have effectively resulted in someone being sentenced to life for hate speech, while someone convicted of the sexual assault of a minor receives a maximum of only 14 years, or it is a maximum of 10 years for an individual found guilty of assault with a weapon.

The bill also proposed that anyone who breaks any other federal law motivated by hate be found guilty of a hate crime and subject to a maximum of a life sentence, yet it is no problem at all to forgo paying millions in taxes.

When it comes to protecting their friends and political interests, the Liberals have no problem withholding information or giving cover to their allies to do so. However, when it comes to our privacy and personal information, such as who we like, what we like, where we eat, where we shop or who we communicate with, the Liberals have no problem holding us to account and taking away our rights.

Paying one's fair share of taxes is a basic tenet of Canadian society that allows for the smooth functioning of our society. This is why Bill C-230 should come to pass. Canadians could be made aware of who is paying their fair share to society and, more importantly, why. The government does not want Canadians to know, perhaps because of who is on the list.

What pieces of indigenous art are missing? What are the names in the green slush fund documents? Who approved ArriveCAN? We may never know, but the government has the opportunity, in this moment, to shed some light on society and hold everyone to account regarding paying their fair share.

Let us pass Bill C-230 and work towards starting to achieve this.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

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

Before I begin my speech, I would like to very briefly address a tragedy in my community. I recently met with a grieving mother in Penticton who lost her son when he was swarmed, assaulted and beaten until he died. That horrifying event occurred four and a half years ago, yet it has still not gone to trial. Justice delayed is justice denied to the family and friends of victims and to this mother. A full and fair day in court should not take almost half a decade.

Returning to the legislation, I want to thank my esteemed colleague the member for Simcoe North for bringing this important legislation forward. He has been a great colleague to me, and I know he is widely respected across this entire chamber.

This legislation addresses one of the most important aspects of governance: transparency in our taxes. Now, while there has always been disagreement across the House on how tax dollars should be spent, there has been an agreement among all parties that we should always be able to see where they are spent. This is what makes this legislation so important. It seeks to cast transparency on potentially billions of dollars lost every year with no window for the public to understand why.

Just a few years ago, a Conservative colleague of mine discovered that the Canada Revenue Agency had written off $133 million in taxes owed by just one taxpayer. Was this a person? Was this a corporation? The CRA would not say. The CRA did not have to say. Can Canadians know if this was a person or a corporation that benefited from public subsidies? No. When the Liberals approved $1.2 billion in 11 separate corporate tax debt writeoffs in 2024, were Canadians allowed to know which corporations were involved? No.

In Canada today, corporate debt owed to the Canadian government through the Canada Revenue Agency can be written off, waived or forgiven entirely in secret. There is no requirement for the CRA to tell Canadians which corporation had these debts written off or the reasons they were written off. There is no explanation of how nearly 60,000 public employees at the CRA were unable to collect these enormous outstanding debts.

There is a curtain here that disguises millions, if not billions, in lost collections owed to the government. In fact, just last year, the Liberals wrote off $18.4 million in outstanding taxes, and billions owed by corporations. That is not right. Ultimately, these are tax dollars lost that Ottawa would move to collect from Canadians elsewhere to make up the revenue shortfall.

Residents and small businesses in my riding do not often get this type of treatment from the CRA. When their taxes are outstanding, or even just slightly off when filed, they see the letters in their mailbox, the voice mails on their phone and the emails in their inbox. They see interest charges and collection attempts. We see them in our offices regularly. Regular citizens are chased down for small amounts. Many businesses I meet with are frantic because they cannot even get a hold of someone at the CRA, let alone understand what went wrong or why they owe this amount. Sometimes they just need to talk to somebody.

There are single mothers and older Canadians who do not have the means to pay what might seem like a small amount compared with these huge amounts I have been speaking about, but these people are trying their best to do the right thing, so they come into our offices. They should not have to do that. It is time for fairness and transparency at the CRA. This is a start, and that is why I support Bill C-230.

The bill would create an accessible, searchable public registry under the Treasury Board. The registry would annually publish a list of all corporate entities that have had debts owed to the government waived, forgiven or written off, if the amount exceeds $1 million. Attached to each case would have to be an explanation, and this is extremely important, as to why the Canada Revenue Agency says it is not worth pursuing millions, possibly billions, in outstanding debt.

We know this reasoning exists internally at the CRA. It may even be understandable, such as in bankruptcy proceedings, but the registry would make it clear and public. I know there has been some discussion about the million-dollar threshold for reporting, and I believe the author of the legislation says he is open to good-faith amendments to this.

We should make it clear that the legislation would apply only to corporate entities and is set with that in mind. It is not the purpose of the legislation to shame an individual Canadian or even a family farm that might be going through a bankruptcy proceeding. The focus of the law would be on giving Canadians more information, especially when they see the government seeking to engage in, for example, corporate welfare. It is too common for Canadians to see press releases and ribbon cuttings for public subsidies and tax dollars being used to try to pick winners in our economy, only for those projects or expansions to fall flat.

We have seen this very recently with the Liberals' approach to the auto sector over the last several years, with shiny deals announced only to be followed up with the downsizing of Canadian workers. Now, if these same companies have their debts written off, there is no way for Canadians to know. The bill would shine a light through this fog.

In the age of deficits, when the Liberals continue to insist that debt is permanent, that the budget will never be balanced and that we will always be spending more than we take in, it is even more critical to ensure that the money Ottawa is owed is collected. When we set taxes and undercollect, the pressure always pushes the government to raise more taxes to fill the gap. It is vital to ensure that the highest taxpayers do not wriggle out of their obligations, because that pressure will ultimately fall on those who can pay less to make up the shortfall.

Proper tax collection is what sets the floor for reducing the tax burden on working Canadians. The record-high amounts that the Liberals have been writing off, with, again, $18 billion written off in just one year, only sets conditions for more tax hikes.

There were many well-deserved tributes to former prime minister Stephen Harper last week. One of his accomplishments that I did not hear enough about was how, by 2015, he had reduced the federal tax burden to its lowest level in over 50 years. Canadians are no longer the beneficiaries of that sound fiscal policy. To ensure we have the transparency in our tax system that helps to set the conditions for lower taxes, I would call on all members of the House to pass Bill C-230.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in good faith and in the spirit of collaboration to get things done, to move Canada forward, and I believe that Bill C-230 can help us do that. Bill C-230 is an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts by establishing a public registry of large debts and obligations that have been waived, written off or forgiven.

At its heart, this bill is about tax fairness, transparency and respect for the small businesses that form the backbone of our economy. Across Canada, small business owners open their doors every morning knowing that success is never guaranteed. They manage payroll, remit taxes and comply with complex regulatory requirements, often at significant risk. They do so because they believe in our country and believe in a system that is fair, predictable and applied equally. Bill C-230 is about reinforcing that core belief for businesses in Canada.

The bill would require the President of the Treasury Board to establish and maintain a public, online, searchable registry to disclose information about large debts or obligations, those valued at $1 million or more, owed to the Crown by corporations, trust companies or partnerships where those debts have been waived, written off or forgiven. The registry would include the name of the entity, the amount forgiven, the period to which it relates and the statutory authority under which the debt arose. This is not an exercise in blame or punishment. It is an exercise in accountability.

When small businesses fall behind on their tax obligations, the consequences are immediate and visible. Payment plans are negotiated, interest accrues, and enforcement measures are well understood. What has been far less visible, however, is when very large corporate debts, sometimes involving millions of dollars, are forgiven by the federal government. Even when such decisions are justified, the lack of transparency creates a perception of unequal treatment. Bill C-230 would address that gap directly.

By making large-scale debt forgiveness transparent, it would reassure small businesses that there is no separate, hidden system for the biggest players in the economy. It would send a clear message that extraordinary relief must be accompanied by extraordinary accountability.

Importantly, the bill is carefully designed. It would apply only to large entities and only above a significant monetary threshold. It would not expose personal information, nor would it interfere with legitimate tax administration. The bill would also include targeted, consequential amendments to existing tax and excise statutes to ensure that confidential information may be disclosed solely for the purpose of maintaining the registry. In other words, the disclosure is limited, lawful and purposeful.

For small businesses, fairness is not about preferential treatment. It is about knowing that everyone plays by the same rules. When a local retailer struggles to meet remittance deadlines while reading headlines about massive corporate writeoffs, confidence in the system erodes. When that same small business owner gets a call from a CRA agent because they are short by a couple of hundred dollars on their last submission in their CRA online account, it sticks with them. Transparency would restore a sense of confidence in Canada.

This bill would also strengthen fiscal discipline. Public disclosure encourages careful decision-making, ensures that debt forgiven is properly documented and allows Parliament and Canadians to better understand how public funds are managed. Sunlight, as the saying goes, is the best disinfectant. Bill C-230 would not raise taxes. It would not create new penalties. It would simply affirm a basic principle that small businesses already live by every day: Accountability matters.

By supporting this bill, we stand with the entrepreneurs who keep our communities vibrant, who employ our neighbours and who trust their government will treat them fairly. Bill C-230 tells them that when it comes to tax obligations and debt forgiveness, transparency applies to everyone, especially when the sums involved are large.

For these reasons, I urge all members of this House to consider supporting Bill C-230 to provide a degree of accountability and confidence in our taxation system.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise in support of this very excellent bill, presented by my very excellent colleague from Simcoe North.

The bill is important. It speaks to principles that are fundamental to a just government, to fairness and to transparency. I am sorry to say that these principles have been sorely lacking in the actions of the Liberal government over the last 10 years.

For those just tuning in at home, every year for the last 10 years the Canada Revenue Agency has forgiven or written off more than a billion dollars in taxes or loans owed. In the last fiscal year of 2023‑24, it was $18 billion. As my colleague just mentioned, this is on the order of our entire defence spending, which is about $35 billion a year.

For those watching at home, I am thinking of my friend Dave, who is a plumber, and my friend Ryan, who is a contractor. Yesterday, we had a skating event put on by my office in Kitchener, where I met Dragon, a short-haul truck driver, and Lilly, a grade one schoolteacher. Did they receive any forgiveness on their taxes? Did they receive any writeoffs on their loans to the CRA? The answer is that they did not. The vast majority of these writeoffs went to large corporate fat cats who have big lobbyist budgets and spend a lot of time in the offices of the government across the way.

The CRA is systematically forgiving the taxes that massive corporations owe to the public. The Globe and Mail reported that last year only 11 corporations accounted for nearly a quarter of the writeoffs. This arrangement raises the question: Who is the government working for? Is it working for the people or for its friends on Bay Street?

I can think of two cases in recent memory where the same question arose and where the same principles of transparency and fairness were broken all across the land. One was the COVID pandemic and the mom-and-pop stores. At the beginning of the pandemic, I was teaching medicine at Queen's University in Kingston. There was a hardware store downtown that stood for 70 years. It was run by the Vandervoorts and was called the Vandervoort General Store. Unfortunately, it closed after 70 years of continuously serving the community while Canadian Tire, Home Depot and Walmart all stood open.

Similarly, small-time mom-and-pop gyms were closed down while major branches managed to stay open. How did that happen? Through my work in politics, I have come to know some of these lobbyists. They had gigantic contracts lobbying governments, both federal and provincial, to stay open in a way the Vandervoort hardware store simply could not do.

Another major example is the SNC-Lavalin scandal. If I were to bribe the dictator of Libya and provide strippers to his sons, I think I would go to jail. However, if I were the proprietors of SNC-Lavalin, I would have the former prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, in the Attorney General's office, violating the principle of prosecutorial independence, which by the way is the same principle the President of the United States broke, resulting in his first impeachment. SNC-Lavalin was able to get its lobbyists, who had the ear of the prime minister, to get sweetheart deals for forgiveness, similar to what the CRA is dishing out to massive corporations, while mom and pop get nothing. However, I do not have any interest in bribing the dictator of Libya anytime soon.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that got a laugh.

What the bill would do is restore some of the fairness and some of the transparency. If it passes, which I dearly hope it will, and the CRA forgives more than a million dollars in loans or taxes, it would at least have to say who it gave it to and why. I think the vast majority of Canadians would never see a million dollars, let alone have a tax bill of over a million dollars. It is very simple. It does not say that it cannot continue to exercise this forgiveness; rather, it says that the public is owed a debt, that the government, in its boundless wisdom, has decided to write off that debt, and that we need to know whose it was and why. At the very least, it would give us the opportunity to look at the lobbying registry to see how much that corporation paid to lobby the Liberal government and to ask if those two numbers were related.

For those watching at home, I have to say I was so struck, shortly after my election, the first time I opened my parliamentary email. There were literally hundreds of invitations to meet with lobbyists, and there were hundreds of invitations to attend receptions in downtown Ottawa. I instructed my staff, if the meeting did not say Kitchener South—Hespeler somewhere in it, if it was not from a constituent of mine, I did not want to take it.

Let me say that from what I have observed during my time here, many of those meetings and receptions are attended by the members opposite. It is my view that these corporations do not spend all that money on lobbying for no reason. They know how to get a return on investment, and I think they are getting that return on investment, as evidenced by the $18 billion that the government forgave large corporations in the last fiscal year.

We want transparency. We want the registry. We want to start asking these questions. It was, by the way, my understanding that the common practice, for years and years, was that parliamentarians could at least ask Order Paper questions and put to the government, “Who did you forgive and why?” However, just in recent years, the CRA has stopped providing that basic transparency. We used to have it by convention, and somehow it has gone away over the last 10 years. Now we need to actually write it into the law that this transparency must exist henceforth. I think it is a shame. I wish that we could use the honour system and could continue with our tradition of open government. It is particularly a shame, given that 10 years ago Justin Trudeau came to power promising to have the most transparent government in Canadian history. In this and so many other ways, we have been betrayed.

That is about as much as I have to say about it. I know that the members opposite like to say that they are in a new government and are doing new things. This would be a tremendous opportunity for them to turn away from the legacy of the Trudeau government and the legacy of restricting transparency and begin to restore that transparency, even in this small way. Again, this is not going to send anyone to jail. This is not going to stop the practice of gigantic writeoffs for corporate fat cats with a stable of lobbyists, but it is at least going to give the public the answers they deserve.

I urge everyone in the House to vote for this bill. For the members opposite, when they vote for this bill, I urge them to consider apologizing for their actions during COVID and apologizing for their actions during the SNC-Lavalin scandal. I hope that Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott will be invited back to their caucus soon.

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

The hon. member for Simcoe North now has his right of reply.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, but it is also a pleasure to rise on Bill C-230, a private member's bill I drafted. I want to thank all of my colleagues, obviously the ones from my own party who spoke in favour of this bill today but also colleagues in other parties who have expressed a willingness to see this bill sent to committee, which I hope we will be able to do at the end of my remarks this morning.

I would also like to thank the legislative drafters, a small team that does great work, Marie-Claude Hébert and Marie Danik, who helped draft this legislation. We should recognize all of the work they do to support private members' business. Unlike government ministers who have legions and a number of resources at their disposal, this group in the House of Commons supports us very well, and we are very well served by their expertise.

To follow up on some of the comments, it is important that taxpayers know how their money is being used. When the government, through CRA, goes after or contacts regular Canadians to pay monies they owe the government and starts charging interest on the first day they miss a payment or the first day they are late for very nominal sums, sometimes as low as $100 or even less, it is offensive to every sensible person to know that behind the cloak of secrecy, officials within CRA or the government, in general, are waiving millions and millions, tens of millions and, in some cases, hundreds of millions in debts owed to the government. This happens with a stroke of the pen behind closed doors. This is the kind of transparency that we need.

Unfortunately, we are going backward. My colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler just mentioned how Prime Minister Trudeau ran on having a very open government, and now the government is deleting its emails and messages after 30 days. That is quite a reversal.

I do not want to get too far ahead of myself and off topic because I understand we have support to see this bill sent to committee. I will have more to say on this if it is successful and comes back to the House, but I would mention that I am open to reasonable amendments. I will make myself available to the minister and his office, who I have been appreciative of so far in terms of getting information and having comprehensive and fruitful discussions. That is how this chamber is supposed to work. We are supposed to collaborate.

This is a great bill and a great idea. We will improve transparency on behalf of all taxpayers.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I request that the motion be carried on division, Madam Speaker.

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

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Sitting Suspended

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

We will suspend for two and a half minutes.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:57 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 28, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in consideration of Bill C-10, legislation that would create a new officer of Parliament to oversee how the federal government implements modern treaties.

At its core, I think it is important to note that this bill proposes yet another office and another bureaucracy to monitor the very departments that already struggle to live up to the agreements Canada has signed with indigenous nations. While the intention, I think, is to strengthen accountability, the question before us is whether Bill C-10 would actually deliver on that accountability, or if it would simply create the appearance of doing so.

Because modern treaties govern things such as land ownership, natural resources, financial compensation and more, these are things that we are now talking about more than ever as we see whether the Liberal government is truly going to approve the building of a pipeline to the Pacific, open new mines, get LNG resources to international markets and build the Canada strong that we have heard so much about.

I want to be absolutely clear from the outset that Conservatives recognize the real and long-standing frustration amongst indigenous treaty partners. We support those treaty rights, reconciliation, self-government and, of course, self-determination. We understand why many indigenous governments want stronger mechanisms to hold Ottawa to its word. That is very clear from all of the advocacy that we have heard and the strength of the advocacy from those nations.

What Bill C-10 would do, as it is drafted, would be to replace responsibility with what I think is more paperwork, which would not do what the bill says it is supposed to do. It tries to solve a performance problem by expanding bureaucracy that has already failed. Its latest iteration is a knee-jerk instinct measure, and it would measure its success by the number of reports published, instead of what I think is lacking in this place so often, which is the quality of the results delivered.

Let us go back for a moment to explain where modern treaties came from and what they were meant to fix. They emerged because historic treaties, however imperfectly honoured, did not resolve the indigenous title in large parts of this country. That legal gap remained until the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 decision that forced Ottawa to abandon denial and engage in nation-to-nation negotiation. From that decision came the first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975, and 26 similar agreements since. These treaties define land ownership, resource rights, compensation and self-government. They are continually protected and legally binding.

For years, there has been one message from indigenous governments, and it has been a consistent message, that Canada signs agreements but too often fails to implement them, which is, frankly, not a surprise to anyone who has been around for any of these conversations here in the House or over the last number of decades in this country. The Senate recommended, in 2008, that Ottawa create an oversight body to ensure that treaties are actually carried out. Treaty partners have repeated that call many, many times since.

If we rewind to the years when Conservatives were in government, we proved that modern treaties could be signed and implemented when Ottawa stayed focused on outcomes, not simply on bureaucracy and paperwork. Between 2006 and 2015, five modern treaties of self-government agreements were concluded that advanced real economic and governance authority for indigenous communities.

Since then, under the Liberal government, the landscape looks very different. There have been countless new offices, frameworks, strategies and action plans, yet not one modern treaty has been finalized, which brings us to this conversation and why we are having it. The paper has piled very high in Ottawa and places close to Ottawa, while progress on the ground has stalled. If members have heard any of my colleagues speak about this, both in this debate and to wider issues generally, they would have heard that there is a whole bunch of rhetoric, but there are not many outcomes to match the words spoken.

I ask why this matters. This is the backdrop for Bill C-10, the piece of legislation we are discussing today. We are being told that the solution to Canada's poor implementation record is a new commissioner's office, but the oversight mechanisms already exist. The Auditor General has repeatedly examined treaty implementation. Those reports identified concrete failures, named specific departments and recommended very clear actions going forward, yet many of the same issues remain today.

People watching this would ask why that is. It is because nothing happens when a department fails to implement a treaty obligation. No one is held accountable. No one loses their job. No one stands in the House to explain why the commitment was ignored. Meanwhile, the government has built an entire ecosystem of internal bodies: the modern treaty implementation office, the deputy ministers' oversight committee, the modern treaty management environment and so on. Despite all of these federal initiatives, treaty partners still spend their time chasing the most basic compliance from Ottawa. If those structures have not fixed the problem, why should anybody in this place believe that a brand new structure, a brand new office, a brand new title or a brand new bureaucracy would suddenly succeed?

Many indigenous partners originally asked that a treaty commissioner be housed under the Auditor General, an institution that is already built for this kind of work, has already opined on this kind of work and has already given recommendations on the shortcomings of this work. Instead, the Liberals chose the most expensive option, a separate agent of Parliament with its own bureaucracy and its own budget. The real test now is not how many offices exist in Ottawa, but whether the federal government keeps its promises at all.

A commissioner cannot build housing, negotiate a treaty or force a department to meet deadlines it has already blown. Only ministerial responsibility can do that. We have said this time and time again, but only clear performance measures co-developed by treaty partners can do that. It is a real consequence and a failure to suggest that anything else would work.

If a treaty obligation is missed, the responsible minister should stand in this chamber and answer for it. We have not seen that. Senior officials who ignore commitments should not be promoted. Departments that fail to act repeatedly should face consequences from the House. That is what accountability looks like. That is what we want to see. Conservatives believe in a strong, durable, honourable relationship with indigenous nations, and we believe that modern treaties must be more than signed documents.

Here is where we differ and here is what we want, and I will just list them quickly. We want to require departments to act on Auditor General recommendations. We want to mandate public, measurable implementation plans for each treaty. We want to empower indigenous governments as equal partners and not as observers of Ottawa's bureaucracy, and we want to ensure that ministers face consequences. That is the only real way to solve this.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was doing a bit of research as my hon. colleague was speaking, and I note that the bill was co-developed with modern treaty partners. I am wondering if there is any evidence to suggest that the modern treaty partners who were involved in the development of this legislation have the same concerns that she raised in her speech.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, it was eight years ago that many of the nations asked that this be housed under the Auditor General. The reason for that is that the Auditor General has the capacity within the office to make recommendations, to find where departments have been coming up short and to provide an avenue to fix that. Just because it has not been done, it does not mean that we should give the job to another officer of Parliament, which would be created here in order to not do that job.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, our deputy leader outlined quite well our concerns with this piece of legislation. She hit on the key point that we agree with the diagnosis that Ottawa, the government itself, has not been living up to its word in treaties, whether modern or otherwise, for decades. I think we all agree on that. We do understand the frustration that the co-drafters of this legislation have with the government's living up to its word, so we agree on that.

My friend from Thornhill highlighted where this legislation needs to have some change, which is the accountability part. There are department and auditor general reports that have all outlined the issues with the government not living up to its treaties, but the one part the legislation does not have is the accountability piece. Where is the accountability? That is where our issue stands.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for all the work he has done on this file and so many others.

I have to agree with him. Reconciliation in this country cannot be achieved by expanding Ottawa's footprint and Ottawa's bureaucracy. That is an important point that resonates right across the country because the government has failed so miserably.

Reconciliation is achieved when commitments are honoured and outcomes are delivered. In order for those outcomes to be delivered, there has to be some accountability when they are not delivered. Somebody's head needs to roll, and I say that as politely as possible, but there have to be consequences for when things are not honoured and people do not do their jobs.