Jean-Denis Garon
Mirabel, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“The government is likely going to keep Parliament in session until very late this Friday. That is okay because it is our job to be here. However, this is happening because the government is not communicating with the opposition parties properly.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is one of those rare instances where Quebec will get its share of the cash, and it is a sign of recognition that the federal government is not good at this, not good at building things. The federal government is not on the ground; it is a government that is far removed from immediate matters.”
“Allowing air passenger complaints to be outsourced to private sector companies chosen by the Minister of Transportation , who is himself buddies with the airlines, which may even choose the companies that will handle complaints about them, was not part of the Liberals' platform.”
“At this point, we are taking the minister's word for it that he has reached an agreement with Quebec and that, based on this agreement, Quebec will receive its share of the funds, no strings attached. However, we had no way of knowing this from reading the bill.”
“The bill also states that amounts are to be paid out “at the times and in the manner that the Minister...considers appropriate.” Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have a vague bill, and we are realizing, after months, that the intent is there, that negotiations are happening, but also that our questions were legitimate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge all the brave men and women who are here tonight and who will be staying up late. I was joking around earlier with my colleague and neighbour, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles . All kidding aside, I think that she knows that I really like her.”
The complete record
Every one of 824 lines we hold for Jean-Denis Garon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 17.
“Madam Speaker, just before I got up to speak, I was looking at the website of Environment Canada, a science-based department that we love. The government is cutting positions in that department. According to Environment Canada, the temperature in Ottawa today felt like -18°C. On days like these, it warms our hearts to see you in the chair, Madam Speaker, so thank you very much for being here. We are talking about Bill C‑15 . We are talking about the budget, and we are going to talk about its substance, its content, but we also have to talk about its form. We cannot ignore the fact that the government chose to introduce a 603-page omnibus bill. These big omnibus bills have become grab bags that include much more than what is in a given budget. They were roundly criticized by the Liberals in the Harper era.”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, with whom we work very well on the Standing Committee on Finance. In the budget, the government allocates $11.5 billion to Build Canada Homes. This money will not be subject to parliamentary oversight. We have no idea how the programs will work and, more importantly, we have no guarantees that the money will be allocated fairly among the provinces. I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks about Build Canada Homes. I would like to know whether he thinks that there should be a guaranteed percentage for social, community and communal housing in Quebec, among other things.”
“Madam Speaker, the government is bringing back the clean electricity tax credit in Bill C‑15 , which, in many ways, is a better written bill than some of its predecessors. Officials confirmed to the Standing Committee on Finance that this credit would apply to small modular nuclear reactors that would be specifically used to clean up the oil sands in order to produce more oil. Can my colleague explain what is clean about using nuclear electricity to produce even more of the dirtiest oil in the world?”
“Mr. Speaker, I hold my colleague in high regard. He knows that. However, despite the fact that I like him very much, he is still a colleague who voted in favour of Bill C-5 and concentrated power in the hands of the government. He is still a colleague who—unless he changes his mind, and I invite him to do so—voted in favour of expropriation to further strengthen the government's powers. In this case, it is actually for a branch of government that is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. He is a colleague who decided to make a deal with the government over the infamous red tape reduction act, which allows the government to violate a number of laws within regulatory sandboxes. Again, this could be a good model. There are models outside Canada, but this is not what they look like. We are talking about a 603-page bill here.”
“Mr. Speaker, they want an open banking system. My understanding is that this was done unilaterally and that the amendments we tabled were intended to ensure that Quebec's constitutional prerogatives are respected. A broker selling banking products is not a bank. As proof that we are being constructive, that we have a good attitude and that our language is very positive, albeit flowery, the Liberals were forced to vote in favour of several of our amendments on this issue. Otherwise, Bill C-15 would have landed at the Supreme Court time and time again. There is still a ways to go. When more problems arise, there should be an automatic mechanism in place so that the federal government do not end up at the Supreme Court fighting jurisdictional battles, and that is exactly what we find in the amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is hard not to respond politely to someone who is so pleasant and constructive and who contributes so positively to parliamentary debate. I commend my colleague for her constructive tone. She is being very pleasant today. I want to commend her. This is good. The Prime Minister decided to suck up to the U.S. President. What else can I say? That is what he did. He kowtowed. What—”
“We are proposing constructive changes, and we are reintroducing these amendments because we believe that even people with a negative attitude, as we are currently seeing across the way, can change their minds and start thinking positive.”
“These models do not all give any minister, in any sector, the right to suspend just about anything, giving the executive branch lots of latitude to determine the road map for verifying that process. This is a violation of Parliament's prerogative. There was a compromise. The Liberals struck a deal with the Conservatives. However, as has been said before, this does not protect the environment, first nations or workers. We want to fix that. That part of the bill needs to be thrown out and redone, as we do with anything that deserves to be thrown out. As members can see, we are being constructive. We want to make this budget less toxic.”
“That is the amendment that says that if there is a dispute over jurisdiction and the federal government wants to regulate these brokers, there will be another problem, namely the minister's obligation to meet with their provincial counterparts to ensure the matter does not end up at the Supreme Court and the banking system can truly be open. Well, guess what? The Liberals voted against that. That is what I mean when I say that this is toxic for the provinces. In this case, modernity is not exclusive to the federal government. Brokers do not manufacture financial products and are not federally regulated. Let us talk about the red tape reduction act. Regulatory sandboxes are fine, but there are models of them around the world.”
“It wants to tell institutions that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction what to do. Obviously, it is not just Quebec. Albertans would also be affected. Alberta has ATB Financial, or Alberta Treasury Branches, formerly known as Alberta's Public Bank. However, it is not really a bank, so much so that the federal government went after it, demanding that it change its name. The federal government was trying to regulate a branch of the Alberta government. Some amendments did get adopted, but one has yet to be adopted.”
“He lost out on $1 billion in revenue a year. Meanwhile, the privately owned media sector is in crisis because its content is being stolen by the big platforms, yet the minimum tax on multinationals has been scrapped and they are getting a free pass in Canada as if it were no big deal. There is nothing for our media at a time when the media is in crisis. We want that to be fixed. We want that tax to be reinstated. We want the deficiencies in the open banking system, or consumer-driven banking, to be fixed. In the bill, the government wanted to regulate not only banks, which are federally regulated, but also digital brokers, which are considered retailers and fall under the legislative purview of Quebec and the provinces. This means that the federal government wants to tell Desjardins Group what to do.”
“More importantly, we want to ensure that, if a person's land is expropriated, it cannot be done by email by default. What we are saying is that, if people want to communicate with Alto by email, they should be free to do so, but it must be at their request. It should not be up to Alto to be so magnanimous that it decides to send people registered letters the day their land is being expropriated. To me, that does not seem like too much to ask. We also want the digital services tax to be reinstated. Do my colleagues know what that is? The NDP member was very diplomatic. The elimination of the digital services tax was just a way of sucking up to Donald Trump. The Prime Minister woke up one morning and decided to kowtow to the President in the hope that this would serve him well, but in the end, it did not.”
“The Liberals withdrew their own amendment and, in the end, they said that, if there was a fire, tornado or flood, the poor souls could not rebuild and would have to declare bankruptcy. That is the Liberals' approach to equality before the law. We wanted to fix that. The amendment that we are tabling today gives the Conservatives and the Liberals one last chance to show a little compassion, respect and concern for equality among citizens. We also wanted to give people back the 30-day period for appealing to a hearing officer. Alto is lying to people. Alto says that it is not true that people will no longer have 30 days to appeal the decision to a hearing officer if their land is expropriated. However, if there is no hearing officer anymore, then what is the point of the 30-day period? We want to give people back those rights.”
“He lost all his cattle and his entire livelihood to the fire. It is a tragedy that everyone in Mirabel knows about. He could no longer make a living. Under the current bill, if the high-speed train crosses the end of his property, even if it is nowhere near the cattle shed, he would not have the right to rebuild it. The people in my riding will understand what that means. People living in agricultural areas will understand the seriousness of what the government is doing. That is why we wanted to fix that. (1640) What did the government tell us? It said that it was going to compromise and allow people to rebuild in the event of a natural disaster, but even that was too much.”
“The Conservatives abstained from voting on this amendment and allowed the Liberals to create two classes of citizens, particularly in my riding, in Mirabel. My constituents went through expropriations once before. Abstaining is not an option when it comes to equality before the law. Abstaining is not an option. This time, we want members to vote in the House. We also wanted people who receive an expropriation notice to be allowed to rebuild a cattle shed, a barn or other agricultural facilities following a disaster. Here is what the current bill would do. If the path of the high-speed train crosses so much as a corner of a person's farm and their cattle shed burns down, they are not allowed to rebuild it. My friend Éric Couvrette is tuning in today. The summer before last, Éric's cattle shed burned down to the ground.”
“It cannot use existing rights-of-way in many cases, it does not curve and it hardly stops anywhere, yet the government says that the same remedy is being applied. People are being stripped of their right to challenge expropriations before a hearing officer. Hearings are an alternative mechanism that help avoid mass challenges before the Federal Court. This means we could end up with 1,000 kilometres' worth of property owners going to the Federal Court, at a time when the government is struggling to appoint judges. What were our amendments? They sought to allow people who receive an expropriation notice to request a hearing before a hearing officer within 30 days, as is the law for all Canadians.”
“It will be allowed to violate the rights of people whose property will be expropriated for the rail project, including rights that all other Canadians continue to have. This will create second-class citizens along the rail corridor. The government says the same thing was done in Quebec for the Réseau express métropolitain, or REM. However, Quebec's REM network is only a few dozen kilometres long. Its tracks curve, it can use existing rights-of-way, it does not go by as many homes and it has stops everywhere and creates benefits along almost every kilometre of track. However, the federal government is taking that remedy and applying it to the wrong problem. It is applying it to a network that is completely different. This network is 1,000 kilometres long.”
“The last chance that we get, the final opportunity, is now, the report stage. The report sets out the amendments, but we can still change them. What happened at the committee meeting that took place on Monday under a closure motion is inexplicable. Some parts of the bill should have been changed by consensus. Lessons were offered and explanations were given, but no one was willing to listen. I will give the example of the high-speed rail network act. The part of the budget containing the high-speed rail network act gives powers to an operator that is basically doing the government's dirty work, but without being subject to scrutiny by the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The operator is being given excessive expropriation powers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who are here today. Today, we are debating Bill C-15 , the budget implementation bill, which we are now considering at report stage. Believe it or not, some people are tuning in at home. I know a few of them. These people need to understand what the report stage is. The 603-page budget contains a great many things that will be toxic for Quebec, toxic for some of our industries, toxic for co-operatives like Desjardins, and toxic for farmers. When a budget is this toxic, amendments are put forward at committee. The committee met on Monday. Sometimes, people think that the work is over after the committee stage, but the reality is that we still get one last chance to make this inadequate budget a little less bad or a little better.”
“moved: Motions Nos. 44 to 47 Motion No. 44 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 191. Motion No. 45 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 192. Motion No. 46 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 193. Motion No. 47 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 194.”
“I think it is worth pointing out all this heritage that can help to enrich us all. I repeat that the Bloc Québécois is pleased to support this bill.”
“It is a matter of accepting that we share common ground, that we share a lot of things and that it is a give and take. As a host society, we want to take in what those who arrive here have to offer us. It is through this type of sharing back and forth that we find common ground, that our identity slowly evolves and that we are able to talk to each other and debate ideas. Often, these conversations are not easy, but they are civilized, open and intelligent. In some cultures, debate is a national sport, just as it is in kitchens across Quebec on New Year's Day. I can bear witness to that. For all of these reasons, I think it is a great idea to recognize the contributions of all these people, which we know date back over more than a century. In our history, all of these people have contributed to our society and continue to do so.”
“I might not have had to go to night school to finish my high school math. They also offer Arabic classes. We speak French in Quebec. Our fellow Quebeckers from the Maghreb region are also members of La Francophonie, but that does not mean that they should forget where they come from or their culture. I know that these people care deeply about family. I know they often call home. They call their home countries often. It is also important to them to speak more than one language, to speak two, three or four languages and to carry on this legacy. I believe they are doing so. I think that, in many ways, we should be inspired by immigrants who come here and who can have conversations in multiple languages. I think that is a great thing. I keep coming back to the issue of interculturalism and living together as a community.”
“Obviously, he was a great astronomer who worked on Ptolemy's writings, but he also invented the word “algebra”. I am an economist. I studied economic theory, and one day, I realized that the word “algebra” comes from the word al-jabr . All this is to say that different cultures are all around us in our daily lives, and we do not even always realize it. The same is true in our communities. I am an economist, and I was drawn to the mathematical aspect, but the same goes for architects. This influence goes far beyond individuals. The Lower Laurentians cultural centre teaches math to young children. I find that extraordinary. I wish I had gone to math classes on Saturdays and Sundays when I was a little boy. I may have been forced to take them, but I think I would have been thankful for that later on in life.”
“An example of this is the Arabic numerals that we use on a daily basis, which are actually of Indian origin, having first been used in Indian payroll calculations—I hear some disagreement—before making their way into science thanks to Arab mathematicians, one of the most important of whom was al‑Khwarizmi. I had actually read about him in a wonderful novel, The Parrot's Theorem , which is a fictional exploration of the history of mathematics. We can see just how much this civilization has contributed to the world of science. (1730) When members hear his name, al-Khwarizmi, it will be obvious where the word “algorithm” comes from. It is a word we use every day these days, and it comes from the Latinized version of his name. Today, it has become so much a part of our common scientific culture that we do not even realize it anymore.”
“This community centre is amazing. It offers activities like weekend Quran classes, which I attended. People can think what they will about secularism and its role—though I think it is a debate that needs to happen in Quebec, not in Ottawa—but for many people, including Christians, Muslims and members of other religions, faith is important, and they view it as an integral part of their culture. What I also found extraordinary were the math lessons, because we know that, in the Arab world, there is great respect for science and scientific culture. There is much we could learn from this. They also have an absolutely incredible scientific history.”
“I remember the day when Hicham El Gournadi, the then chair of the board of directors who later became a friend, came to meet me at my office. He told me that it was not easy to get charitable status. We sat down and started helping each other. Over the course of our meetings, we got to know each other, and eventually I started visiting the centre, spending time there and meeting with the community. I would like to point out that the Centre communautaire des Basses‑Laurentides is a pillar of our community. In Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac, these people volunteer for organizations and keep the community alive. They are not all of Arab origin, but because it is a Muslim community centre, they are well represented there. This is another example of interculturalism, of blending communities in a way that enriches our society.”
“When we talk about heritage, it is about a lot more than simply where people come from. We are talking about a Arabic-speaking civilization that originated on the Arabian peninsula but that extends into the Middle East and even into places where Persian is spoken. I believe we need to acknowledge the importance of that civilization and learn from it, and I say that very sincerely. I think we need to celebrate this success. One of the most rewarding experiences I have had as a member of Parliament has been meeting people in my riding who belong to that culture. I see the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is here. She is involved in this too. I am talking about the Centre communautaire des Basses‑Laurentides in Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac, a community centre that serves the entire Lower Laurentians region.”
“It is always important to remind everyone of that. Obviously, we recognize the outstanding contributions that Quebeckers of Arab origin have made to Quebec society. When we talk about Canadians and Quebeckers of Arab origin, it is important to clarify what we are talking about, because this is literally an entire civilization. Quebec has very close ties with the Maghreb, particularly with Tunisia, Algeria, where my wife is from, and Morocco, where my colleague from Bourassa is from. He, too, appears to be on the edge of his seat. I did not know he was so emotional. We have really important cultural ties. We speak with people of North African origin every day in our ridings. They are part of our communities. They are part of us. They contribute to our culinary art, architecture, literature, science and engineering.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill S-227 , an act respecting Arab heritage month. I know there is suspense in the air again, and I know you are on the edge of your seat, because I can see you. I do not want you to fall, Madam Speaker. I want to tell you right away that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. I see my friend from Bourassa reacting. First of all, this should not come as a surprise, because this bill is a repeat of Bill C‑232 from the previous Parliament. That bill passed many stages, was worked on in committee and was supported by the Bloc Québécois. It really reiterated our support for recognizing the cultural heritage of Quebeckers of Arab origin. As members know, Quebec's integration model is different. Our model is interculturalism.”
“I wonder what my colleague thinks about commissioners being appointed by the Governor in Council, which basically means by the Prime Minister . Does my colleague not think that, if the bill is passed, we should perhaps try out a new method and have an appointment process that directly involves Parliament?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for sharing her perspective with us, although it is not one that I share. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑10 . We think it is a good idea to have a commissioner. However, if the bill is passed and a commissioner is appointed, I am concerned about the appointment process. Earlier, I gave the example of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is also appointed for seven years, who is independent of Parliament, and whose appointment—which is supposed to be a consensus decision—is becoming politicized. We know that the Minister of Finance has done everything possible to undermine his credibility and that the Liberals may be in the process of choosing the new Parliamentary Budget Officer without consulting the other parties.”
“Would it not ultimately be an accountability tool that would allow us parliamentarians, as well as first nations themselves, to keep an eye on the government?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right when he says that the government often fails first nations. I represent the Mohawk community of Kanesatake in the House. I know that there have been problems with water pollution caused by criminal groups, among others. I have been hounding the government about this for years, but I cannot even get a call back. The government has shown real indifference to this issue. My colleague thinks that the government lacks leadership when it comes to treaty implementation. Still, does he not think that having a commissioner who could serve as a sort of liaison with first nations communities would be a better way to keep a closer eye on the government, particularly a government that does so little?”
“It replaced the PBO temporarily and is looking for a new one, without any consent from the other parties. It is politicizing the role of an independent officer, and the appointment process for this commissioner seems remarkably similar to the process for appointing the PBO. How can the minister assure us that the government will not politicize the appointment of commissioners like it is trying to do right now with the PBO?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the minister, who I am sure will be pleased to know that I grew up in her riding. I would like to know how the government will ensure that the role of commissioner is not politicized. I will give the example of another independent officer of Parliament, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is appointed for seven years through a process similar to the one in Bill C-10 . When the Minister of Finance and National Revenue became unhappy with the PBO's findings, he started undermining the PBO's credibility in the media and in committee saying that his was just one of many opinions. That is not to mention what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue went so far as to do. We know that, after seven years, the government did not replace the PBO by consulting with the other parties.”
“I do not understand how the government is failing to show leadership by having a commissioner with a clearly defined role and mandate. I would like someone to explain that to me.”
“Madam Speaker, let us suppose that what my colleague is saying is true, that the government lacks leadership, that it has not implemented or signed enough treaties and that it has not made enough progress. That may be true. That said, I am having a hard time following the logic of the member's argument because the government is saying that it wants to have oversight. It wants to have a commissioner with clear standards. It wants to implement the United Nations declaration, to have road maps and to improve relationships. How is it a bad thing to have a commissioner who will accomplish those tasks? Incidentally, it is somewhat distasteful to compare a commissioner to ArriveCan. That is going a bit far. I get the impression that all passing the bill will do is ensure constant government oversight.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague says that, ultimately, a commissioner would just table reports that nobody reads. What about the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, among others? Can my colleague tell us which other commissioners who report directly to Parliament are useless and why their work is useless?”
“Madam Speaker, in the spirit of reconciliation, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C‑77 in the last Parliament and we will support Bill C‑10 as well. From what I understand, my colleague is telling us that having more transparency in the implementation of treaties would create more awful bureaucracy. A few days ago, we voted on Bill C‑228 , introduced by the Bloc Québécois, which called for free trade agreements to be debated in Parliament. That bill would not have created any new bureaucracy at all. The Conservatives always like to say that they do not mind working long days in Parliament. When it was time to vote on Bill C‑228, which did not create any new bureaucracy, my colleague voted against it. When it comes down to it, is it possible the Conservatives just have a bit of an issue with transparency?”
“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. (1120) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”