Adam Chambers
Simcoe North, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents, recreational users, camp owners and indigenous communities surrounding Lake Couchiching who are concerned about an aerodrome being placed on the water, on the lake. It is a very busy lake.”
“We need a tax reform package to lower taxes, business and personal, and significantly reduce complexity. On regulation, we need service standards for permitting. We need to pre-approve projects in areas of the country, which means they can be done faster.”
““This has made it more likely that a new shock or a combination of shocks could cause several vulnerabilities to crystallize at once,” said the senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers.”
“In fact, according to Sean Speer, editor-at-large at The Hub, all of this is a bit of silly semantics: “The real questions are: how much does the economy suck, how long has it sucked, why does it suck, and what are the different ideas to stop it from sucking.” We have a productivity crisis in this country, and everybody knows it.”
“We have the build Canada office, and then the sovereign wealth fund, which will be funded, of course, with debt. (1755) Now I would like to turn, for the reminder of my comments, to a specific risk that I think is growing and that the government should be paying more attention to.”
“We borrow mostly on the short end of the curve, so what happens is that this debt has to be rolled over every two or three years. That is like signing up for only a one- or two-year mortgage on a house. One would have to go to the bank, and guess what happens. Their interest rate gets reset every single time.”
The complete record
Every one of 208 lines we hold for Adam Chambers, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“While the business community grieves a remarkable leader, we cannot help but think of the family that Andrew cared for deeply and treasured enormously. Andrew will be missed, but his legacy will endure.”
“Mr. Speaker, Andrew Moor was a warrior for more competition in the financial services sector and the most respected and passionate advocate for open banking. Under his leadership, Equitable Bank grew from $3 billion in assets to $125 billion. It was deemed Canada's challenger bank. Andrew and EQ Bank challenged more than their competitors. They challenged the system, they challenged bureaucracy and they challenged the rules. His persistence on open banking always focused on benefits to consumers, increasing access, enhanced service and, of course, lower costs. A few months ago, Andrew unexpectedly passed away. It is regrettable that the system here moved too slowly for him to see it to fruition, but the road to open banking has been paved with the stones that Andrew laid.”
“Madam Speaker, I guess we will have to get a ruling on whether we can say a member is intentionally misleading the House, but I cannot believe the government broke its own trade agreement with Ukraine. Do members know what it did? It got rid of the carbon tax. It broke its own agreement. It is unbelievable. I appreciate the member mentioning that we have all of this wonderful gold production in Canada. Is it not shameful that the central bank does not just keep a bit of it?”
“In this global environment, it is absolutely critical that we stand up for Canadian producers, Canadians living here and the health and safety of our country.”
“Madam Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague was also going to ask about the gold standard, but maybe that is for another day. He is correct. About 48 million dollars' worth of U.K. beef comes into Canada, and virtually zero, or a very small amount, leaves Canada and makes it into the U.K. This is solely on the basis of non-tariff barriers related to trade and unscientific questions about the use of hormones and carcass washing in the case of our pork producers. Why would we give a trade ally something by allowing them to join the CPTPP without resolving those issues now in the moment while we have this opportunity, when they are asking for us to do something? We are missing an opportunity to stand up for our cattle and pork producers and the U.K.'s pensioners. We need to stand up for our producers.”
“Madam Speaker, mark the time and the date, because I agree with my hon. colleague in the NDP in his intervention with respect to U.K. pensioners. This is the moment that the current government has let pass to negotiate on behalf of U.K. pensioners. If and when the bill is passed, we will have lost negotiating leverage with the U.K. to support U.K. pensioners living in Canada, and of course I have to mention again our cattle and pork producers, who are being unfairly treated by the U.K.'s unfair trade practices.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for using the opportunity to discuss process in this place, which is very important. There is actually no reason why there seems to be a rush to have the bill come to the table today. The Liberals could have provided the appropriate notice, as my colleague points out. This place and the level of debate would be improved if we had further scrutiny and an appropriate timeline to look at the agreements. It seems to me there is no reason why we would need to rush this. Why not wait the appropriate 21 days? That is a very reasonable question from my colleague. I look forward to working with him as the bill may move through the rest of the process at the trade committee.”
“It is not whether any member of the House individually is trying to advocate, because a lot of people are, but the best people able to negotiate on behalf of U.K. pensioners are the government members, because it is the government that is allowing the U.K. to get something in joining CPTPP, and we have not gotten anything in return for our pensioners.”
“Madam Speaker, I might be younger, but I was not born yesterday. If Canada had not sold its gold, we would have $125 billion U.S. of extra money in the government coffers. I appreciate that the member might question that strategy, but it is entirely reasonable to ask why we have been selling gold, why we do not hold any gold and why central banks are borrowing it. With respect to the member's fundamental question, I firmly and fully accept that members of the House have advocated for U.K. pensioners, and I appreciate the member's advocacy on their behalf. However, this is a question about what the government has delivered for U.K. pensioners. This is a question about the government's being in negotiations with the U.K. and not bringing this up to the degree necessary to get it resolved. That is the issue.”
“That has to be a fundamental question that the government should answer, especially when we have glaring groups not just of people generally but of producers and industry that have concerns with the United Kingdom and how it does its trade practices, and that, in the case of the U.K. pensioners, are just asking to be treated fairly. In summary, Canada's Conservatives support free trade. Of course we do, but we support fair trade and negotiating wins for Canadians at every single opportunity. This looks like a missed opportunity for Canadians by the government.”
“Why are we agreeing to something without getting anything in return? I come back to reciprocity. We need to get the United Kingdom back to the negotiating table on a bilateral agreement. I worry that the government thinks its job is done now because the U.K. is going to join CPTPP, but the trade irritants still exist. The government has not indicated that there is a path to even talking about them, let alone resolving them. There are no negotiations currently happening bilaterally with the U.K. While I appreciate the government's trying to advance Canada's interests around the world, we have to ask ourselves what we are getting when we give things up to other countries.”
“I invite members of all parties, including the government, to go speak to them, to look them in the eye and say that we just negotiated a big trade, an agreement, with the U.K.: the CPTPP. Look them in the eye and say that we gave the U.K. something. What are the pensioners going to say back? Maybe they would ask, “What about us? Did the government get anything for us?” Members should go to the cattle producers and say that there is good news: We are going to expand the markets. The cattle producers will say that they still cannot get into the U.K., that the agreement does not help them. They will ask what they got for it. These are completely reasonable questions that the government needs to answer, questions that reasonable Canadians would have and that reasonable producers in cattle and pork and other agricultural products would have.”
“is still unfairly punishing our cattle producers, our pork producers and U.K. pensioners. We would think that the Prime Minister , who is very close personal friends with Prime Minister Starmer, would have been able to deliver some pretty big wins for Canadian industry and even for the U.K. pensioners living in Canada. One would have thought that maybe the Prime Minister would have asked Prime Minister Starmer to do him a solid, asking whether he could give him something for allowing the U.K. to join the agreement. It is not clear whether there were even any negotiations about this. The government has not even disclosed whether it is on the radar. It has been brought up in the House multiple times. Next week, the U.K. pensioners are going to be in Ottawa.”
“As I have mentioned, of course, Canada's Conservatives support free trade, but we support fair trade. We support getting good deals for Canadians. In this case, we have given something and gotten nothing in return. One might be asking why we are even debating the bill today. Is it because the government has not made a deal with our largest trading partner, the United States? Is it because the government would enjoy not talking about the failure to get a deal with our largest trading partner and closest ally? It has had multiple years to sit on this piece of legislation to consider moving it forward. Why are we moving it now? What did we get? What is coming next? We are left with all these questions, and we are left wondering what Canada, Canadians and our producers receive in exchange for allowing the U.K. into the deal while the U.K.”
“What is going to happen to our industries over the next decade while we wait? How much is it going to cost the Canadian taxpayer? How much is it going to cost the auto workers and their families in Ontario, or the farmers out west, or the people who work in the lumber mills, the paper mills and elsewhere in that sector? What are we telling them? We need to act now, but the government does not really act with any sense of urgency. If we just look at GDP per capita, on that basis Canada is poorer today than we were in 2019. The government does not seem to care about that, but everyone else recognizes that GDP per capita is a measure of living standards. We are going in the wrong direction. (1045) It is nice that we are here debating free trade.”
“They are not even talking anymore. The Prime Minister has also said we might be close on a deal on aluminum and steel. Well, that is nice. What about autos? What about lumber? What about the folks in the canola sector who are kind of caught between Canada and the U.S.? It does not appear that the government is moving with a sense of urgency. I appreciate the intervention of my colleague just prior; the Prime Minister has said a very similar thing, which is that the government's goal is to increase Canada-U.S. exports by 50% over a decade. Well, golly gee, is that really the moon shot we think it is? What are we supposed to do for the next 10 years? How are we going to survive as a country if we have to wait 10 years before we can diversify 50%, increase our trade by non-U.S. exports by 50%?”
“Why are our cattle and pork producers still left out in the cold? Why do U.K. pensioners still have their pensions unfairly lowered by the government's inaction on negotiating anything? Can the government even point to any wins it has achieved on any negotiating front, period, other than signing an agreement? If we look at the Canada-U.S. discussion, we see that Canada has made a litany of concessions, although the minister of Canada-U.S. relations says he would not call them concessions. Actually, I have never heard anyone describe them as anything other than concessions. We gave in on DST. We withdrew complaints about softwood lumber. We have made significant other concessions to the U.S. in exchange for waiting for an answer, for basically zero agreement, not really even a path to agreement apparently.”
“While other countries around the world have been piling up their gold reserves, Canada has been selling them all. The U.S., China, Poland and Turkey have reserves, and the list goes on and on, but Canada has made the choice to sell its gold reserves, thanks to the Prime Minister . In the Prime Minister 's defence, he is not the only central bank governor who has sold Canada‘s gold; that has been going on for many years, but he continued it. It is funny that he sold it to the country of which he then went on to become the central bank governor. I guess he was okay to keep it when he was the central bank governor in the U.K; it did not sell its gold reserves. If we think about the entire agreement, it might seem benign on its face, but we are left with some questions. What did Canada get?”
“Canada believes in free trade and we are a free-trading nation, but we should also believe in fair trade and reciprocity. Out of curiosity, I looked at the top 10 Canadian exports to the U.K. I will give members a hint for what the first one is. Madam Speaker, sometimes you like to wear it, and you look good in it. Gold is the number one export to the U.K., which leads me to another question: Where is all the gold in Canada? Where are the reserves? Canada has no more gold reserves at the Bank of Canada. Guess who sold some of those reserves. The Prime Minister did when he was the central bank governor. He sold them to the U.K., which is interesting. (1040) Out of the top 52 countries in the world that have gold reserves, guess where Canada ranks. It is not even on the list, because we have zero reserves.”
“What has the government achieved by allowing the U.K. to join the CPTPP? What did we get for it? These are questions that the public, the cattle and pork producers and the opposition want to know the answers to. In a negotiation, we give something to get something. These are questions that U.K. pensioners deserve to know the answers to. This is a country with which we have a wonderful, shared history. Why is it that a U.K. pensioner living in Canada is treated differently from one living in the United States? It does not seem fair and I do not think anyone would think it is fair on its face. If we break it down, we have a request from an ally to allow them to join a very large trade agreement. On its face, that seems completely reasonable.”
“I am sure they have no problem consuming our wonderful steaks in Alberta, Canada, but they want to work to keep that product out of the U.K. and off its shelves. This is a government that is unwilling to do the hard work. The Liberals walked away from the bilateral trade negotiations, probably because they believed the U.K. was going to join the CPTPP anyway. They thought, “Why bother with the bilateral trade agreement?” We had a trade continuity agreement. They let that expire, by the way, to the detriment of many businesses, including small, artisan cheese shops, for example. Many have struggled significantly and some have unfortunately closed, including one in Simcoe North. It was a wonderful operation, but because of the government's lack of ability to negotiate with the U.K., it had to close.”
“Why would we allow this moment to pass without negotiating a resolution to these problems, or at least demonstrating that the government is aware of these issues and has a path to resolve them? The Liberals have been absolutely silent on resolving these problems. It is reasonable to assume that they have not even attempted to resolve them because they do not talk about them or acknowledge that they exist. The Liberals barely want to recognize that these issues exist because it would be an admission that they have had multiple years to fix them and have not been able to deliver. These unfair trade practices, especially with respect to cattle and pork producers, are not rooted in science. I bet the first thing a U.K. citizen or diplomat does when they visit the wonderful Calgary Stampede is visit a steak house.”
“In fact, in response to many questions to the former minister of foreign affairs and the Minister of International Trade , the answer has been that it is not a priority at this time. Have fun trying to tell that to the U.K. pensioners who believe that, as a matter of fairness, they deserve a cost of living increase, and they would be correct. (1035) It is difficult to take that same position with our cattle and pork producers. They have worked very hard to expand their markets in the world, only to be met with unfair trade practices and non-tariff barriers to trade from the U.K. specifically, which prevent our producers' products from reaching U.K. shelves. At the same time, U.K. products are free to come into Canada.”
“One might ask what is so wrong with that. What is wrong is there is inequity and unfairness, because had that same retiree chosen to retire in a different country, like the United States, they would have gotten a cost of living increase on their pension. Why has the government not made it a priority to solve this on behalf of this very large group of individuals, just as a matter of fairness? We are told that the Prime Minister is a master negotiator and has worldly relationships and a global network, which he was going to bring to bear to solve Canada's problems, yet we stand here today and the government has nothing to show for agreeing to allow the U.K. to join the CPTPP. It could have solved the pensioner issue had it asked. It is unclear whether it has even brought this up with the U.K.”
“to join the CPTPP, is what Canada has received in exchange for allowing this to occur. Our pork and cattle producers have had incredible difficulty accessing the U.K.'s market, while at the same time, beef exports from the U.K. into Canada have doubled in just one year. They were at about $48 million in 2024. We have now allowed the U.K. to join the CPTPP, while leaving these non-tariff barrier disputes, or trade irritants, with the U.K. to persist. Why would the government allow this moment to pass without negotiating a win for Canadians? Does this sound familiar? I was very pleased to see my hon. colleague from the NDP raise the U.K. pensioner issue. There are well over 100,000 U.K. citizens living in Canada, or maybe even as high as 140,000, who do not have a cost of living increase on their U.K. pension.”
“It is a higher cost of living, higher crime, inflation, a carbon tax and making life more unaffordable for Canadians. That is the legacy of the last 10 years. It is nice to be here to talk about adding the U.K. to the CPTPP. Before I get into my remarks, I would like to recognize some wonderful local individuals: Luke, Roy, who I sometimes call “the Emperor”, Reg and Kevin, who are great musical talents, and Mark and Kyle. Kyle is starting a new business, and I wish him the greatest of luck as he starts his new venture. Trade is about reciprocity, and that means getting something in exchange for giving something. The fundamental question we should be asking the government, after it has had multiple years to consider whether it would agree to allowing the U.K.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. Before I get into my speech, I have to chuckle a bit about the last intervention by the member for Winnipeg North . At every opportunity, whenever there is anything negative to be said about the legacy of the last 10 years, the Liberal government says that was an old government and this is a new government. However, whenever there is something it wants to take credit for, its members are quite happy to remind us that it is the Liberals who have been in power for the last 10 years. They cannot have it both ways. They have to either accept the legacy or run away from it, and the member needs to decide which one he is going to do. Canadians know exactly what the legacy is of the last 10 years.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague some questions. I have had the chance to meet and work with him on the trade committee. He has wonderful insights, but I think he is missing a key component. Canada has agreed to allow the U.K. to join the CPTPP, but what did Canada get for allowing the U.K. to join? There are outstanding trade disputes with the U.K., especially with respect to our pork and cattle farmers, that are still unresolved. Nevertheless, Canada has now allowed the U.K. to join the CPTPP while still leaving these issues outstanding for our cattle and pork producers. I wonder if the member could just give the House an example or point to one thing that Canada received from the U.K. in exchange for allowing the U.K. to join the CPTPP.”
“Mr. Speaker, never before in history has there been an example of increasing taxes on businesses resulting in lower prices to consumers. I do not think we are going to get to a full discussion of that issue here today, but I welcome follow-up discussions with the member at a future date.”
“Mr. Speaker, the risks he raises are important. The reason we had quantitative easing in the first place is that no one else who was willing to purchase our debt. That might happen again. With 40% of those who purchased our debt being hedge funds or financial speculators, if they are unable to purchase our debt, who is going to? We will see rates increase or we will see the Bank of Canada forced to purchase Canadian government debt, which, of course, is quantitative easing. Maybe we will see both. That money supply, M2, will increase, and that is, in effect, money printing.”
“Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we want to make sure that a government spends its money properly so that it has money to spend on health care and social services for those who need them the most, including seniors, young people and those with families. We have to be judiciously focused on every single line item so that the government has the money to spend on vulnerable people and those in low-income situations, especially seniors. I would add to my colleague's point that for those who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement, the amount is not high enough.”
“Mr. Speaker, I had the wonderful opportunity to work for finance minister Jim Flaherty, who said what everybody knew at the time: Quantitative easing is inflationary and harmful to the overall economy. The central bank never did quantitative easing until COVID. It is doing quantitative tightening now. The government's fiscal policies are putting the bank in a very difficult position whereby it may have to restart quantitative easing again, and we have seen the results of that all across the world.”
“She even called it a “bromance”. I think it is reasonable to point that out. (1150) We are here today to stop the unnecessary inflationary deficits. That is what Conservatives are here to do.”
“People there were telling me they spend about one-third of their equivalent rent payments just to ensure they have commercial insurance for their enterprise. This is unsustainable. These economic policies and outcomes are a direct result of the government's lack of focus on the economy, believing it can solve every problem by spending more money. The Prime Minister just went down to the Oval Office. I would be embarrassed if I was a Liberal MP sitting here today. The Prime Minister campaigned and said that Conservatives would kneel before the altar of Mr. Trump, but what did he do? Here are a couple of headlines. “It’s humiliating to kowtow to Trump. But what choice does Carney have?” That is in the Globe and Mail. Althia Raj writes, in the Toronto Star, that the Prime Minister and Donald Trump “put on a show of affection”.”
“It is not what I would have expected from a well-regarded, well-renowned Prime Minister who has all of these accolades and says he knows better than everyone else. He did not run on spending double what Mr. Trudeau spent in terms of deficits. Other Liberal policies are leading to inflation everywhere. It is not just food. Let us think about insurance costs. Because the government has made this country uninvestable, reinsurers have left it. That means there is less competition in insurance, which is why rates for commercial and auto insurance are going through the roof. This is in addition to the fact that the government does not seem to care, or has only recently seemed to care, about stolen cars. I was at my favourite watering hole last night, called Stolen Goods. What a wonderful place.”
“Inflation goes up and a massive gap is created between those who hold assets and those who do not. For all of the government's focus on low-income individuals, its absolute blindness to and not recognizing the negative effects of inflation on low-income and vulnerable Canadians is deplorable. The government has overseen an increase of wealth and income disparity in this country over the last 10 years. Over the previous Harper administration, it went down. Wealth and income disparity did not go up under the previous Conservative government. They have gone up under the Liberal government in the last 10 years, because its policies and inflationary deficits have made those who hold assets richer and those who do not poorer. That is what happens. This is simple economics.”
“It means that 40% of the debt issued by the government is purchased by financial speculators, who do not hold the debt for very long. They buy it and sell it immediately in the repo market. What is going to happen to our interest rates if something outside of Canada, such as a sovereign debt issue, a crisis somewhere else or global economic uncertainty, causes these hedge funds and financial speculators to not have liquidity or not be able sell the debt they purchase? Who is going to buy the debt then? Yields will increase, interest on the debt will increase and social services will have to be cut. Of course, we could get back to the central Bank of Canada purchasing the debt of this nation and monetizing the debt, which is, in effect, printing money. What happens when we print money?”
“The IMF, which members of the government love to tout as a wonderful multilateral institution, has already acknowledged that for every single penny that is spent on interest on the debt, a corresponding amount is cut from social services. (1145) That is why we care about spending. The individuals in this chamber and the individuals outside who were warning that the government was spending too much a few short years ago were laughed out of the room because our debt-to-GDP ratio was falling or we were not spending that much on interest on the debt. Now look at where we are, and this is before we are even in a recession. In May, the Bank of Canada warned that 40% of the government's debt issuance is purchased by hedge funds. Why should we care about that?”
“In real dollar value, $80 billion a year will be paid in interest on the debt in just a few short year. Why is that the case? It is because the government took on too much debt in the first place. It is not just that. It is that when the government took on the debt, it did so absolutely negligently, borrowing in all short-term debt. We had countries during COVID, like Austria, issue 100-year bonds. The average term to maturity in Mexico is 18 years. In Canada, the average term to maturity is six. Heck, even the provincial government in Ontario is 12 years. What the government has done to the management of this nation's finances is nothing short of embarrassing. We will be doubling the amount the government spends on interest on the debt in a decade. That means less money for social services.”
“In 2015, before the government took over 10 years ago, the federal government spent about $300 billion on its expenditures. That number today is expected to be $530 billion for the fiscal year that just ended. That is a substantial increase in spending, yet the Liberals are still so far away from balancing the budget. We are not even in a recession. What is going to happen to the federal fiscal finances if, heaven forbid, a recession takes place? The Parliamentary Budget Officer has warned that government finances are “unsustainable”. For example, in 2015, the federal government spent 7.5¢ out of every expense dollar to pay interest on the debt. Today, that number is over 10¢, and it is expected to go to 14¢ out of every dollar in just a few years.”
“We had a decade of very poor economic performance, $100 billion of deficits before we hit COVID and multiple hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits during COVID. We had multiple commentators, including the Bank of Canada and well-known economists, telling the government that its spending was contributing to inflation. The Bank of Canada went so far as to ask why we care about inflation so much. It is because it hurts low-income and vulnerable Canadians the most. That is why we should care about inflation. Do we know who benefits from inflation? The government and people who own assets benefit from inflation. Government revenues have never been higher. They exploded during the inflationary environment, and the government could not help but spend all of that money and more.”
“Kirk Ruston, Infinity Golf Lab and all of the people at the hangar make sure that I know what is going on in town and what real people think. Serge Moreau and Frank St. Amant were my sign chairs. Frank is the president of the compound. I just want to thank them. Because of them, I am happy to be here today speaking on behalf of the wonderful constituents of Simcoe North. I would also like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the wonderful hon. member for Regina—Wascana , who sits beside me. This is an important time for the country. We know there are a number of threats economically. It is not an easy task to deal with them, but we have seen this movie before. The former prime minister, Trudeau, said that he would spend just a bit of extra money and have small deficits to get big economic gains. What did we have?”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but weigh in on the most recent intervention. I have heard many great things about the hon. member who just spoke, but surely he would know what happens to the money supply when the Bank of Canada purchases the debt that the government issues. While there is no money printer printing physical bills, the money supply increases substantially, which is, in effect, like printing money. It is a pleasure to stand before members here today. It is my first time making an intervention of this nature in the chamber since the election, so I would like to take a moment to thank some of the wonderful people who helped send me here from the beautiful town of Penetanguishene. Paul Lefaive went to the Penetanguishene Curling Club and signed up members for my nomination papers.”
“These parents are asking the government to raise the minimum age for social media and to secure privacy rights for youth under 18 so that social media companies cannot use any data collected from children under the age of 18.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today, along with my colleague in the Liberal Party, to present a petition representing the voices of many parents across the country who are concerned about social media use and smart phone use by children, especially those much younger than 18 years old. These parents have recognized that smart phones have become a direct gateway to harmful content for children. They are addictive. Algorithm-driven social media platforms are designed solely to increase engagement and push some harmful content at children. Parents face significant challenges in controlling their children's own use of smart phones and their activities online.”
“Mr. Speaker, he said a “disciplined budget”. The deficit has doubled. Almost 100,000 Canadians are now out of work. The government still does not have a deal with the Americans. Auto plants are being mothballed, manufacturing is slowing, $54 billion in investments have left this country and tariffs are higher today than when the Prime Minister took office. When will he deliver on his promise to secure a deal with the Americans?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised he would negotiate a grand security and economic deal with the Americans, and then went on to make concession after concession, with little to show for it. He cancelled the DST. He cancelled reciprocal tariffs. He withdrew complaints on softwood lumber. Now, he is gushing over the President of the U.S., calling him a “transformative” leader once again. What does Canada have to show for it? When will the Prime Minister keep his promise to Canadians and secure a deal with the Americans?”
“Reasonable people are frustrated to know that they comply with the rules, but then in some back room under the cloak of secrecy, the government secretly writes off large debts that corporations owe it. If passed, this bill would require the government to publicly disclose all amounts over $1 million that are written off to corporate taxpayers. After all, this is not the government's money, it is the taxpayers' money, and we are here to protect it. I appeal to all of my hon. colleagues to support this common-sense bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C-230. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (debt forgiveness registry) . He said: Mr. Speaker, in 2023-24, the government wrote off record amounts owed to it by corporations. In fact, the top 100 corporations had amounts written off totalling $1.8 billion. That is an average of $18 million per corporation write-off. The CRA has decided to give even less information about these write-offs today than it used to, but Conservatives are here to change this. We are here to stand up for the average taxpayer, who works hard and files their taxes on time.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government's plan is to pile on debt, but to obscure that picture with accounting changes. Now the Parliamentary Budget Officer is warning against making these changes, saying that, if the government obscures its own books, it will, in the PBO's words, “bet your boots...paying more for debt”. Will the finance minister agree that doubling the size of the deficit not only puts Canada's credit rating at risk but also exposes taxpayers and households to higher borrowing costs and higher interest rates?”