Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to speak to this bill introduced by my colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We work very well together. I was there when the Minister of Industry appeared before the committee. My colleague pressed her on the issue and had a rather intense exchange with her regarding the Stellantis case. I imagine that had an impact on my colleague's determination to see this bill through the legislative process.
I also read an article from October 22, 2018. It is not exactly recent, but it does show that the practices this bill aims to eliminate have been happening for a long time. The Radio-Canada article is about the Liberal government writing off a more than $2-billion loan it had granted to Chrysler. Actually, it was published by CBC News. The subheadings in the article are “Similarly opaque” and “In the dark”. These are the subheadings found in the article. That says it all. The article revealed that a $2.6-billion loan that had been granted to Chrysler in 2009 during the economic crisis had quite simply been quietly written off. To find this out, someone had to dig deep, had to search, had to consult one of the volumes of the 2018 Public Accounts of Canada to learn about it. The government certainly cannot claim to have been exceptionally transparent.
Let me say straightaway that we will be voting in favour of Bill C‑230 at third reading.
The bill aims to increase transparency surrounding debts owed to the Government of Canada by creating a public registry in the form of an online, searchable database of debts of $2 million or more that were forgiven or written off in whole or in part. The Government of Canada has an unfortunate tendency to be opaque when it comes to waiving debts, as we saw in the Chrysler case. The bill was amended in committee to clarify a number of things. For example, the minimum amount required for inclusion in the registry was raised. Other types of write-offs or benefits were also added, such as remissions and waivers. The bill was improved in committee. Although it was perfectly acceptable to begin with, it is even better now.
Additional amendments would force the government to create the registry within 18 months of royal assent and to exclude certain information for reasons related to the protection of personal, confidential or sensitive information. The President of Treasury Board will be required to provide reasons if information is excluded.
To summarize, the bill “amends the Financial Administration Act to require that the President of the Treasury Board establish and maintain a public registry of large debts and obligations owed by certain entities to His Majesty, as well as claims by His Majesty against such entities, that have been [written off or] forgiven”. It also makes “consequential amendments to other Acts”.
I will summarize the bill. It adds a section to the Financial Administration Act stating that the President of the Treasury Board must establish an online, searchable database containing information about a corporation, trust company or partnership once certain criteria are met. First, the value of the debt or obligation must be $2 million or more, as in the Chrysler case. Second, the debt, obligation or claim must be owing, meaning that an act of Parliament requires the state to demand repayment when the debt comes due. Third, the debt, obligation or claim must have been totally or partially written off, forgiven, remitted or waived.
A write-off, like the one granted to Chrysler in 2018, means that the government believes it will not be able to recover its money and therefore decides to remove the debt from its books, for example in the event of bankruptcy. A partial write-off would mean that the government agrees to write off part of the amount but still demands repayment of the difference. For example, if a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, the government may estimate that it can recover only a fraction of the debt. Forgiveness means that the government formally forgives a debt and legally releases the debtor, for example when the person who owes the money proves that the government made a mistake. This is perfectly normal.
The bill is good because it is fairly specific in this respect. For example, it states that the registry must include certain information, such as the name, as well as any business name, of the corporation, trust company or partnership. A numbered company must be included using its identifiable name, not just its actual number on the registry. The registry must also include the following: the amount that was remitted, forgiven, written off or waived; the period to which the amount relates; the legislation under which the debt, obligation or claim arose; and any other information that the President of the Treasury Board considers appropriate. The registry must be established within 18 months after the bill comes into force. The remainder of the bill makes consequential amendments to other acts. All of that is very sensible.
We know that the government already has all of the data required by the bill available in house. Some of that data is published in the public accounts, where we can find out the total amount of debt written off by department and the number of ministerial approvals, meaning the number of times the minister approved the write-off or forgiveness of a debt, obligation or claim, and the legislation under which the debt, obligation or claim arose. Other than that, there are no details that will enable us to identify the company or the amount lost. That is a lack of transparency.
For example, in the Public Accounts of Canada 2025, volume III, section 2, we can see which department approved the write-off or forgiveness of debts, obligations or claims. We see the total amounts. For 2024-25, for example, we know that the government gave up more than $7 billion, including $5.3 billion in write-offs and $1.2 billion in debt forgiveness. However, we know virtually nothing about the rest. That is a problem.
We also know, for example, that under the Old Age Security Act, the government wrote off more than $166 million in 2024-25. That is quite a lot of money, when we think about it. It is staggering that the public does not have access to this information, that they cannot find out any details about what happened, why it happened, which company was involved and under which law. We are talking about several billion dollars last year.
The upcoming bill is going to provide access to this information. Because of that, parliamentarians and journalists will be able to do a better job. The general public will be able to learn more. Experts will also have access to more information that they can use to understand the behaviour of certain companies and study solvency and other matters. This is a good thing, especially since Bill C‑230 is not going to create a mountain of work for public servants or cost a fortune to implement, considering that the government has already compiled all the information internally. The bill would simply make it all public. That is about it, just that.
In conclusion, I repeat that we enthusiastically support this bill and we will support it at third reading.