Debates of May 7th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about how committed the government is to reconciliation while Amnesty International is being quoted as saying, “when it relates to Indigenous rights...we are stepping back”.

The member talks about how great the Liberals are at consulting. Bill C-5, which was passed in record time, violates the constitutionally enshrined rights of indigenous people, yet for Bill S-2, which will take out discrimination against indigenous women and first nation women in Canadian law, their excuse is that they need to consult more, in spite of the fact that this has been going on for years.

I wonder if my hon. colleague can be a bit more truthful about their record. Certainly, researchers and legal experts are noticing their failures.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think I am always truthful.

I can tell the member that, any time I have had any form of discussion or been part of a discussion with the Prime Minister about anything dealing with economic development, he is one of the individuals who constantly raises the issue of indigenous peoples' concerns and making sure that we advance the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, members can imagine waking up one morning in beautiful British Columbia. The sun is out. The birds are chirping. We can see the mountains, the forest and, if we are lucky, maybe even the ocean from our home. Life on the surface is actually pretty good, but that scenic reality masks a much deeper and darker anxiety. The title to that home, that deed that was signed however long ago, may no longer mean what we thought it meant. The financial investment that we built our entire life around, our home that we spent our entire life savings toward, may no longer belong to us, at least not in the same way we thought it did.

I wish I could say this was just some sort of reoccurring bad dream for many B.C. homeowners. However, the truth is that this uncertainty is already their reality today. This past August, the B.C. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that has since reverberated across the province and, in time, will undoubtedly reverberate across the entire country. The ruling recognizes aboriginal title over 800 acres of riverfront property in Richmond, B.C., including over the personal homes of individual citizens, declaring fee simple title invalid and ruling aboriginal title as prior and senior title to the land.

What does all this mean? No one really knows, which is a big part of the problem. However, the ruling, which is now known as the Cowichan decision, has shaken B.C. politics to its core. Because around 95% of B.C. was settled without formal treaties, the consequences of this decision are not limited to 800 acres in Richmond, but potentially impact nearly the entire province itself. While the decision is, of course, being appealed, and while the result of that appeal remains unclear, the consequences of the ruling are already being felt today. Homeowners are now being taxed on property the legal status of which is uncertain. Some are having difficulty selling their home, while businesses and industry groups have pulled billions of dollars of investment out of British Columbia as one of the key guardrails of the rule of law begins to break down.

When a citizen pays their taxes, follows the law, maintains their property and still cannot be certain that they own their own home, something has gone profoundly wrong. Private property rights are not a luxury, not an appendage to our system of government, not some kind of optional add-on to our society, to our democracy. They are quite literally the foundation on which western civilization, capitalism and our economy are built. They form the basis for our savings, our security, our independence and our autonomy as a human being. Without them, we own nothing. We are a slave to our government or whatever other powers there may be. To have them infringed upon so suddenly, so brazenly, so harshly without compensation flies in the face of everything that it means to be Canadian.

It also wakes up a very important fact, which is that Canada is one of the few democracies in the world today without property rights enshrined in our Constitution. That was left out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 by our old prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and decades later, we are now living with the consequences.

As a member of Parliament for a riding in British Columbia that itself comprises entire communities with homeowners facing similar legal uncertainty, it is my duty to speak out for my constituents and articulate my position and my views on this issue.

For me, the defence of private property is and always will be a red line. It is not and should never be up for negotiation. It is in every way a fundamental human right, and we must never submit to trade it away to simply appease or placate the latest ideological fad or in the name of political convenience. Every citizen must know that their government will do whatever it takes to ensure that Canadians can trust that what they own is truly theirs without exception. Unfortunately, that is the exact opposite of what the Liberal government in Ottawa and the NDP government in B.C. have actually done.

First, in 2018, the Liberal government instructed its lawyers, Crown counsel, to abandon their own citizens, ordering them to discard the long-held legal argument that the granting of fee simple private property took precedence over or extinguished any aboriginal title claim. That directive remains Liberal party policy to this day.

Second, after the bombshell Cowichan ruling, the Liberals should have immediately halted any further agreements or treaty negotiations with first nations unless explicit protections for private property were included. Instead, again, they did the exact opposite, pushing ahead with the controversial Musqueam agreement, which essentially recognized aboriginal title over much of metro Vancouver and nearly one million Canadian homes with zero explicit protections for private property.

It should be noted that a member of Parliament from within the Liberal caucus called for, in his words, the return of unceded land. Then the Liberals went ahead and negotiated three new, unprecedented quasi treaties, otherwise referred to as living agreements, all of which involved huge transfers of land, money and resources to individual first nations, again with no explicit protections for private property included.

When the Liberals and the NDP are pressed on their contradicting claims that they too support the private property rights of Canadians and will defend them at all costs, their rhetorical defence is that they claim they are appealing the Cowichan decision and hope that they will win.

Hope is not a strategy and prayers are not a plan. The uncertainty created by their actions is already having real-world effects today. The Liberal government must act to restore certainty to homeowners now. It must act to restore confidence to businesses and industry and reverse the billions of dollars in investment that is fleeing British Columbia. Just as importantly, the government must act to prevent the further fraying of the social fabric between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians that its policies have caused.

Before writing this speech, I actually looked up a dictionary definition of “reconciliation”, and it is the act of causing two people or two groups of people to become friendly again after a falling out, an argument or a disagreement. In other words, it is about bridging divides and moving forward together. This is precisely the opposite of what the Liberal Party and the NDP have managed to accomplish over the last 10 years. It is exactly the opposite, as they are driving a wedge between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, playing identity politics and prioritizing virtue signalling and rhetoric over tangible, real-world results. I see that, instead of creating a framework that would bring Canadians together as one, they created an agenda that has driven them further apart. It is breeding resentment and frustration between communities instead of bridging divides and moving together as one country, Canada.

The vision behind our nation, from the very beginning, has always been one of working together toward a common goal and of achieving together what we could not accomplish on our own. We need to once again harness that vision to bring back and realize that mythology of Canada. That includes, as an essential component, the mutually beneficial partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, from the fur trade to the War of 1812, but for that partnership to truly flourish, private property rights must remain sacrosanct.

There must be no equivocation on the part of the government. It must never allow fee simple title and the rights of private property owners to be abridged or up for debate. In each new agreement with first nations, these rights must be enshrined. In each and every court defence, the case to defend these rights must be made, and if absolutely necessary, if the courts continue to interpret legislation or the Constitution in ways that undermine Canada's sovereignty, our economic viability or the rights of individual citizens, then whatever changes that are needed in that legislation, or even the Constitution, however difficult, must be done.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about that statement, but I am wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement does not reference private property because it does not deal with private property. Agreements do not reference everything they do not deal with. We only talk about things that the agreement is about. I am just wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member across the way. It does not mention private property, and that is the problem. There are no explicit protections for private property in the agreement and we are currently in a legal scenario. We are in legal limbo as we await the appeal process of the Cowichan decision.

As we said, as the Conservative Party, we have demanded that every new agreement, every new treaty with first nations, must have explicit protections for private property. It is a fundamental human right. That is what we are going to continue to push for on this side of the aisle.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

As I listened to him, I wondered what he was actually proposing. What we are seeing here is the Conservative Party attacking guideline number 14, arguing that limitation defences were not argued. We see that it is possible for the attorney general to raise limitation arguments under common law simply by obtaining authorization from the assistant deputy attorney general.

Now, my colleague has been talking a lot about the possibility of strengthening property rights and giving them constitutional status. I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Is he proposing today that we reopen the Constitution so that property rights can be enshrined into it?

I would like him to clarify that.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing to do is to remove these legal guidelines that have restricted our Crown counsel from defending private property rights with all of the tools in their tool kit.

There should be no further agreements or treaties made with first nations without explicit protections for private property embedded within.

As far as what comes beyond that, my position, which I believe is also the position of my colleagues, is that when it comes to defending private property, we do whatever it takes.

Obviously, we are going to support the appeal of the Cowichan decision through the courts, but there is no step along this way, along this path, where we are going to allow the private property rights, the fundamental human rights of our fellow Canadians, to be abridged and to be up for debate.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all throughout today's debate, Liberals continue to say that it is Conservatives who are being divisive and creating misinformation, among even worse items.

Now, the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, wrote in a letter from the city to all the landowners who were affected that the “City of Richmond was the only party at trial arguing that the Crown grants of fee simple necessarily extinguished Aboriginal title. The federal and provincial Crowns were each labouring under litigation directives that constrained their ability to argue extinguishment”.

Does the member believe that the mayor of Richmond, Malcolm Brodie, is offering misinformation and being divisive, or is he simply calling out both the federal and provincial governments for their failures to make arguments to protect B.C.'s private property owners' rights?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Richmond is simply stating the facts as they are. The federal government and the provincial government in B.C. failed to make legal arguments to defend private property. That is a fact.

However, what may be even more inexcusable is that after that court decision was made, they continued to go out and sign agreements, whether they were treaties in British Columbia or the Musqueam agreement, that did not explicitly protect private property in this new era of legal uncertainty that we now find ourselves in.

That is not fair to homeowners in B.C. That is not fair to private businesses. We need to get a government that is actually putting the private property rights of Canadians first.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about a very important issue that is impacting all British Columbians and has implications for all Canadians: property rights.

In the 2021 census, two-thirds, about 66.8%, of British Columbian households owned their own home, and it was about the same throughout the country. One-third were renters, and a good many of those renters wanted to eventually own. It has become increasingly difficult during the past decade under the Liberals due to the cost of housing, rising inflation and less and less disposable income to pay for things like groceries, gas and taxes, let alone a down payment on a home.

People work hard to pay down their mortgages. It can take decades. I remember one worker I spoke to not that long ago telling me that he was working seven days a week, and very long days, just to keep a roof over his family's head and to keep their home. “It is nothing fancy”, he told me. He said that he could not give his body a break.

I think of myself when I was a new teacher buying a condo, working long hours, extra hours, for money to go towards the mortgage. I think of seniors who have spent a lifetime paying down their mortgage and want to use their house as a nest egg to provide financial resources and security for their retirement and pass it on to their children and grandchildren. I do not like saying this, but this is being undermined today.

In British Columbia, we sometimes have small earthquakes, we have not had a large for probably over 100 years, but I have felt them. There are tremors, foreshocks and aftershocks. The foreshocks around the world sometimes indicate that a big one is coming and should not be ignored. However, with private property rights, there are some shocks happening. The Liberals can just ignore them and say that nothing is happening. “It is the same old, same old” is what we hear from them, but there is something dangerous looming, and it is already here.

Private property rights are often considered one of the foundational elements of a free and stable economy. It is important, because it impacts people's economic freedom, their personal security and investment. For generations, Canadians have understood a basic principle: If they lawfully purchase a home, if they hold title to their property, if they invest their life savings into a piece of land, and not just their life savings, but their sweat and work, then the law protects that ownership. It is certainly not a privilege. It is one of the cornerstones of democratic society. It is what allows families to build a future. It allows farmers to invest in their land. It allows businesses to create jobs and communities to grow.

Where there is uncertainty in property rights, confidence erodes, investment dries up, families hesitate and communities stagnate. This is a big concern.

I had a booth at a home show over the past weekend for several days and talked to hundreds of people. The topic of property rights came up over and over again, unsolicited. It is not just what the Liberals call “fearmongering”. It is what people are feeling in the community. It is not some bad dream they are having. It is reality. There are things happening, and the Liberals have been asleep at the switch, which is an old expression. The Liberals are more than asleep. Their incompetence is a key reason that we find ourselves in the mess we are in.

Last August, the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision of the B.C. Supreme Court threatened the private property rights of landowners in British Columbia and potentially in other provinces. In one act, the judge deemed the aboriginal title had prior and senior rights over fee simple home ownership, like over 800 acres in Richmond worth a billion dollars. It is setting a precedent that other judgments can be made on. That is the concern. That is a big concern. It sets a precedent that can expand. It is already serious enough. This ruling has shaken the foundations of British Columbia's economy and sparked fear among landowners province-wide.

As Conservatives, we are bringing this up. We are hearing what communities, like Richmond, and the owners are saying. I have met with farmers who have spent generations on their land, clearing, working and spending money. This is all being threatened and the Liberals pooh-pooh us. They say we are just barking up a tree. We are not barking up a tree. This is serious and they need to take it seriously. They cannot just say it is in the court's hands, that we need to forget about it and just go back to sleep. We are not going to. We are going to fight for this. We are going to fight for landowners. We are going to fight for homeowners. We are going to fight for our communities. We are going to try to wake up the Liberals because they have gotten us into this situation.

British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law, but because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case, the judge did not protect private property. The government will say it is there and it is fighting for it, but it did not actually intervene. It said it would appeal on the very last day. The government said it had better do that as it might not be very good for it electorally. That is what it is thinking of. It is all electoral; it is all speech.

Under the Prime Minister's leadership, the federal government continues to maintain the same legal directive adopted in 2019: litigation guideline 14. That directive led Ottawa to abandon the argument in defence of fee simple title in British Columbia, including in the Cowichan case. It is still on the government's website today, unless it was taken out this morning, to not encourage the government lawyers to stand up for fee simple property.

The Liberals say we are fearmongering. That is not true. They are trying to minimize a very serious situation that British Columbians find themselves in. They say we are being racist. It is not true. Conservatives believe in reconciliation with indigenous people. It is essential. It is a moral obligation, a constitutional responsibility and an opportunity to build a stronger Canada founded on mutual respect and shared prosperity. Reconciliation cannot succeed if it is built on ambiguity, secrecy and legal confusion.

What does this all mean? What is going on here for private property owners? What does it mean for municipalities? What does it mean for future land claims and development projects? British Columbia has been an important engine in Confederation and in the economy, but it is not the same. We are struggling here economically and developmentally. When business owners are afraid of expanding, that has an impact on jobs. The lack of jobs impacts taxes and revenues, which impacts health care and everything else.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that, yes, I also speak to many residents who are concerned and have questions, but the important thing is to talk with residents and to explain the issue and not to stoke fear and confusion.

In December 2025, the New Brunswick Court issued a decision on aboriginal title that ruled differently. Therefore, we have two court cases and two different decisions. We have appealed the Cowichan decision because there is a need for further clarity.

I have not met a Conservative yet who has read the Musqueam agreement. Section 5.1 of the Musqueam agreement specifically states that it is not a land claims agreement. Can the member opposite please explain? If this is not explicit enough, what would it take?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are ignoring what is happening. Do they think that the business owners and the homeowners are just making things up, saying that they cannot renew their mortgages or that business owners cannot get loans? That is in the law. It is happening. It is the uncertainty. It is what is not in the treaties and the agreements, so it is causing problems. It is causing problems within the Lower Mainland and it is causing problems in other first nations. It is a mess and they can put that on the Liberals.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 5:25 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispense of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, we would like a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (debt forgiveness registry), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Financial Administration Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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]

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

(Motion agreed to)

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to be here tonight with all of my friends from all sides of the House. It is an important day for taxpayers. It is an important day when one is a member of Parliament and has the honour and the opportunity to bring forward legislation that makes amendments to the statutes of Canada.

It is a lottery system. I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to be chosen early in that lottery. I wanted to pick an idea that I believed would have widespread support in the chamber. I would like to thank all of my colleagues from all sides of the House in getting the bill to this stage, which included sending the bill to committee, a lengthy committee study, some thoughtful amendments from all parties at the committee table and bringing it back to the House. It is my hope and sincere pleasure to see this bill carry forward here this evening.

I want to thank individual members, and I will return to this later. To put aside the partisan politics, we tangle in the chamber from time to time on some very controversial issues but, with respect to greater transparency for taxpayers, this is an issue that I think we will see unites all members of the chamber, no matter their political affiliation.

Bill C-230 would create a registry for the government to disclose every time it writes off a large debt. For corporations, not individual taxpayers, that have their debts waived, those amounts and the identities of those corporations would be published in a corporate registry. That would enhance the level of transparency that taxpayers receive from our tax-collecting authorities.

This bill is here before our chamber because we noticed in the public accounts large amounts, year after year, being written off. Members of Parliament from multiple parties, including the government side, probed the government for additional information. We were met with not great answers, a lack of transparency, and a suggestion that we, as parliamentarians, could not receive this information because of the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Given the opportunity, in drawing that high lottery number to bring forward a private member's bill, I thought that we should change the law, change the privacy provisions in the Income Tax Act and require the government to disclose this information. After all, I think it is a matter of public interest when large debts that are owed by corporations are written off by the government. In fact, just a few years ago, 10 corporations had a total of $1.1 billion written off.

A lot of people work hard every day. They pay their taxes honestly. They fret about filing their taxes on time and they worry that they might have made a mistake. They do so honestly and in good faith, because they know that paying taxes helps pay for this wonderful, beautiful country that we have and all the social services that we all enjoy.

They are frustrated because they learn that, while they are working hard to pay their taxes, the government is unable to collect millions and indeed billions of dollars each year that corporations owe the government. That is the real basis for this idea that has come to the floor of the House and was proposed as a private member's bill.

I would say that I learned my lesson in the last Parliament. I believed that I had a wonderful idea to increase the penalties for money-laundering offences, but I did not have as much time to work with all members of the chamber to make sure that it was in a position to receive broad-based support and pass.

This time, I wanted to do my homework. I consulted with my own team, my own colleagues, who encouraged me to continue. I consulted with members from other parties who thought it was a good idea, and so here we are. I appreciate the opportunity to address this very important issue. I appreciate the opportunity my colleagues have given me to recommend this bill that made it to committee and, as I said, had some thoughtful amendments along the way.

There was an amendment at committee about the threshold. The committee recommended increasing the threshold from $1 million to $2 million. While I do not believe we are at an ideal state, I think that in this environment, we can hold out for the perfect and get nothing, or we can make some compromises so that we can all have some level of say and influence over a bill and actually make progress on behalf of taxpayers. I am happy with where we landed, although I would have preferred to keep a lower threshold. In fact, some members on the committee wanted the threshold to be as low as $100,000. We have landed on an opportunity to start this registry in a way that would give taxpayers more transparency about how their money is being collected and used.

I would like to commend the work of Senator Percy Downe in the Senate. He not only has been encouraging me along the way but also has his own bill that would also increase transparency requirements at the CRA. It has passed three times from the Senate and will come to this chamber later next month before we break for the summer. This issue and these two bills go hand in hand. This chamber will have time to opine on Senator Downe's bill at a later date.

I think it is important to consider the process. I mentioned we saw the public accounts. We saw amounts going up. We asked for more information. We then submitted an Order Paper question. That question was not answered in the House and it was not answered at committee, but a friend in the other place, Senator Wells, was kind enough to submit a similar question, a more detailed question. From those answers was the genesis and the basis on which we designed this bill, because it outlined the number of corporations and the amounts that had been written off.

That is the way the process worked in order to get this bill. It was hard research, asking questions, collaboration and really an opportunity for us to use all of the tools in this chamber in order to find out more information and then propose a law to fix it for the benefit of taxpayers and indeed the country.

It is my great honour that I am standing here tonight with this opportunity to propose a change to the statutes of this country. When elected, as I mentioned before, many people could be here for years, indeed decades, and not have the opportunity because it is a lottery system. I took that opportunity very seriously. I wanted to put something forward I thought would have widespread support from all members in this chamber.

I cannot help but recognize that in the new environment we are in, with respect to the government now controlling a majority of the seats in this chamber, I have still felt good co-operation and collaboration from members of the government, including the parliamentary secretary and the House leadership team, in order to advance what I believe is a good piece of legislation that would make a positive contribution to public policy in this country.

I believe it is time that taxpayers have more transparency. We need to hold not just the government accountable, which I find to be an important part of my role here as an opposition member, but also the agencies that the government entrusts to carry out fundamental activities.

The Canada Revenue Agency's primary objective is to enforce the Income Tax Act and collect the monies owing to government. This bill would bring a level of transparency and accountability to those activities at the Canada Revenue Agency so that all members of Parliament from all parties, and indeed all Canadians, would have a greater line of sight and transparency into the activities of the Canada Revenue Agency.

We have to acknowledge that the agents and the employees of the Canada Revenue Agency, by and large, work very hard day in and day out to complete their duties. I will say, at the same time, that I think they have been unfairly burdened with additional activities and requests from the government that have asked them to do things that are far outside their core mandate. The bill would also help refocus resources at the Canada Revenue Agency so it can get back to fulfilling the objectives of its core mandate.

It would be inappropriate for me at this time to not recognize some individuals who helped me along the way.

I have to pay special tribute to our legislative drafters, who fielded many late-night questions and phone calls outside business hours because they were helping me get the bill into good shape before it had to be tabled in September: Marie-Claude Hébert and Marie Danik. They did fantastic work.

I do not think people understand that while many government ministers and departments have armies of lawyers at their service, members of Parliament also have wonderful resources that are able to support us in our role. Those resources are quite small in number, but they pack a mighty punch and have been very busy supplying members of the chamber with great ideas and legislative work on private members' bills that members introduce on a daily basis. That is done by a very capable and thoughtful team in the House of Commons.

The member for Calgary Midnapore has been fantastic to work with as our shadow critic. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk has been our shadow critic for CRA. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, who originally turned me on to this idea a few years ago, deserves a great round of applause because he has been an advocate for greater transparency at the CRA.

I mentioned the parliamentary secretary earlier. Although we have tangled many times on the finance committee, and I was actually moved off that committee, maybe because of those tangles, we did find a way to work well together. I joke, but we do end up working on things in collaboration that we think will enhance this country and do great things for taxpayers.

The Minister of Finance, for whom I also have many criticisms, was very gracious to set me up with his staff to work on the bill. We did receive some amendments, as I said, and I worked with them. I also very much appreciated Sean-Matthew O'Neill for his help during this process.

Another individual I would like to thank is Jay Gamma, from Edmonton, who has been on this idea as well. He has been talking about it for a couple of years.

I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the late Jim Flaherty, who was a close mentor of mine. I am wearing green today in his honour. If it were not for him, I would not be standing in this place.

I appreciate the opportunity to have the bill voted on. We will see where it goes tonight. I want to thank everyone in the chamber for their support and collaboration in doing something good, which I believe is in the public interest and in the best interests of the citizens of this country.