Pat Kelly
Calgary Crowfoot, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“They are the same Liberals who spent the last 11 years actively preventing Canada from diversifying its export markets by systematically preventing the construction of the energy infrastructure necessary to export Canadian energy to the world. Canadian oil and gas is by far Canada's most valuable export. It dwarfs everything else.”
“I thought that might mean that a year after he made these claims, there would be some kind of approval on the horizon for a pipeline project. I could easily imagine that.”
“If it had been built, it would be carrying 525,000 barrels a day today to world markets. At today's prices, that would bring about $20 billion per year to the Canadian economy. Would we be in a recession today, if the Canadian economy had another 525,000 barrels a day in exported production?”
“Madam Speaker, the member brings up the Trans Mountain pipeline and, again, Conservatives were not calling upon the government to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and build it themselves.”
“They ran up deficits in the eighties that were so big that by the time the Liberals were defeated in 1984, Canada was literally kiting interest payments by issuing new debt just to cover the interest on the existing debt.”
“She said that, based on the government's stress tests, which, “draws on decades of Canadian economic and fiscal history, including, recessions, financial crises, oil price crashes, and runs thousands of combinations to show the range of possibilities....that the likelihood that the deficit-to-GDP ratio will decline...is less than 1 per ce…”
The complete record
Every one of 352 lines we hold for Pat Kelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Standing Orders and the practices of the House demand that when members have said something that is false or untrue, they be given the opportunity to correct the record. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader accused the Conservatives of filibustering the BIA. This is patently false. All parties agreed to a work plan, including the Liberals—”
“Madam Speaker, yesterday I talked to a mortgage broker in Calgary who said her clients are increasingly worried about their jobs and that layoffs are killing home deals. She said that construction and energy workers are among the most affected. The Prime Minister said that we are going to be an energy superpower and claimed that the Liberals are going to build over half a million homes per year. If that is so, why are energy and construction workers the ones losing their jobs?”
“Madam Speaker, in January the Canadian economy lost 25,000 jobs, while even more unemployed Canadians have given up looking for one. Job loss at a time of food and housing unaffordability is catastrophic. The Prime Minister promised the best economy in the G7, but under his watch, Canadians have the highest food inflation, the most expensive housing, the lowest per-capita GDP growth and $58 billion in capital flight to the United States. When will the government repeal the taxes and regulations that kill jobs and make life more expensive?”
“I will not get to all of them before QP, but I want to talk about voice voting and the standing order change that was made that eliminated voice votes. This came up with the previous speaker. I would like to reverse, permanently, the change that was made wherein now, at the conclusion of debate, the Speaker says, “If any member of a recognized political party would like the motion to carry, carry on division, or request a recorded division, will they stand?” Then the Speaker immediately looks for the government whip, and the government whip then declares how the vote will unfold. When we return after QP, I will get into how it worked before and what we should return to.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate. I am passionate about the Standing Orders. Before I get too deep into it, I am going to say that in Parliament, the Standing Orders are only as good as the chair occupants who preside over them and make rulings on them. Madam Speaker, you were the best of the four occupants in the previous Parliament, so I am glad to have you back in the chair. I am very glad we have three new occupants who are doing a much better job than the previous ones. It is important, because the rulings of the Speaker under the Standing Orders are important. That is the good news: that we have become better in this chamber in terms of how it functions. I am going to propose three changes to the Standing Orders.”
“Madam Speaker, I agree completely with the member about it being important to return to voice voting. The system that was adopted disenfranchises members of Parliament and prevents them from participating in the vote determination process, where they would have their voice heard in a voice vote. However, it was her House leader at the time, Peter Julian, who was instrumental in giving us what we have today. I do want to give the member some time to further make that point that the absence of voice voting, and having the Speaker simply look at the government whip for direction on how a vote will unfold, is unfair to members of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, last night at the finance committee, the member put some very good questions to the finance minister , and his responses were shameful. The minister did not answer, really, any opposition MPs' questions during his entire hour-long appearance. It was a shameful display from a minister unwilling to answer questions and explain his bill to Canadians. I want the member to have a chance again to talk about the commitment the minister made that he would bring stability to the prices of groceries. He said that in 2023. Nothing has happened. He was asked pointed questions about competition, which he failed to answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, 0.0% was Canada's GDP growth number in November. The fourth-quarter growth number is expected to be negative. Following 10 years of near-zero per capita growth, 2025 was another lost year for the Canadian economy. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but he has not repealed any of the government's anti-development laws and taxes. Conservatives have a plan to cut regulations and taxes. We are here to help. Will the Prime Minister adopt our plan?”
“Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent, succinct summary of exactly what has happened in this place over the last 10 years. That is exactly it. The Liberals create a problem, we propose a solution, they turn down our solution, they copy our solution, and then they blame us for it not passing fast enough. That is exactly what is going on in this place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not really have time to go through all of the bill, as it is a pretty big bill, so I am glad the member brought that portion of it to my attention in this debate and is allowing me a moment to comment on it. Yes, we agree and stand with victims. Yes, we know there are many signs, and we never want to see scenarios where someone is murdered and everybody who knows the scenario or the family, whether it is the police or the neighbours, say they saw it coming but that the police lacked the tools to intervene. This is a very serious concern, and it is something that many of our members have talked about and commented on. We are are very concerned about this and are glad this debate is happening on Bill C-16 .”
“Mr. Speaker, it is funny how the member wants me to commit to a series of things that his own House leader has most of the control over, which is when a bill is going to pass in this place. I do not know when the Liberals are going to call the bill. We have already seen what they have done at the justice committee with Bill C-14 , which was expeditiously referred to the committee only to languish there while they played politics with Bill C-9 . The member is determined to blame the opposition for the Liberals' inability to manage the parliamentary calendar.”
“We see this from the Liberals, their trying to imagine a circumstance rather than dealing with the concrete. It goes to an approach, and we do not agree with that approach. That approach is what has gotten us here. I hope Bill C-16 will be examined thoroughly. Probably it will need to be amended, but at the end, we will get to where we need to be and restore the power of Parliament to determine mandatory minimum penalties for serious crime.”
“It has come to my attention that I forgot at the outset to state that I will share my time with the member for Richmond Hill South . I am thankful for the reminder of that, because I am looking forward to his remarks as well. The carve-out in this bill would potentially take the power of the people of Canada who elect their representatives to come to this place and to determine what the penalties should be for heinous, terrible offences, and turn them into mere guidelines. There are these hypotheticals they always come up with. I was here for the debate on Bill C-5 when David Lametti came up with an outrageous, and actually quite arrogant and offensive, scenario that he imagined for why there should not be a mandatory minimum sentence for the dangerous use of a firearm with intent.”
“This bill contains a carve-out that many observers, including prosecutors, suggest would in fact do nothing to protect mandatory minimum penalties, including ones that have been upheld by the Supreme Court for decades and that have been introduced by successive Liberal and Conservative governments exercising their democratic responsibility to determine, as elected officials, what power the state would have to incarcerate somebody for serious crime. The carve-out contained in this bill may well undo mandatory minimum penalties that currently exist and that have been upheld, while failing to reinstate them in many other cases that the public is demanding, so this bill has problems. This bill is not a panacea to deal with this problem. It really is worth reminding Canadians why we are here.”
“The member for Calgary Nose Hill had a bill in the last Parliament to ban artificial deepfakes of intimate images and the circulation thereof, to include that in the Criminal Code and to compel Internet service providers to report incidents of child sex abuse material. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola proposed, through a private member's bill, the automatic first-degree charge for murder of an intimate partner. These are things we have proactively suggested to the government, and we are pleased that it has adopted these measures. We are pleased that the government is at least talking about the bottlenecks in the system and that it is introducing legislation about coercive control and about restoring or preserving mandatory minimum penalties. Is it, though?”
“In that Parliament, the Liberals passed a bill that stripped away mandatory minimum penalties for a host of offences, including serious drug and firearms offences. (1040) That is where we are today. We have a measurable, demonstrative increase in crime after decades of falling incidence of crime. We had for the first time in many decades a rise in crime over a 10-year period, and the response of the government during that time was to make it easier for criminals to get out of jail and harder for judges to send repeat violent offenders into custodial sentences. Here we are today debating Bill C-16 , and it contains measures that Canadians and Conservatives have indeed been demanding for years and that we have asked for through private members' legislation from the Conservative benches.”
“During the summer before last, I spoke to people at the city police chief's office in Calgary and heard about a series of home invasions where police arrested the same person, the leader of a group of people who were breaking into homes at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. When someone breaks into a house at four o'clock in the morning, that is a home invasion. They are expecting the homeowner to be in their bed at that hour. The police figured out who was doing it, they arrested the suspects, and they were released and were able to do the same offence the same week, were rearrested for the same offence, and on it goes. The other concrete step the government took that has had the result of increasing, or failing to address, crime in Canada was Bill C-5 in the 44th Parliament.”
“Police forces across Canada all know who the small number of criminals who commit a disproportionate number of offences are, and they can do nothing about it other than rearrest and rearrest. Officials at the City of Vancouver say there are 40 individuals who are responsible for 6,000 annual police interactions. These are people who are arrested over and over again, literally an average of more than three times a week for this small group of criminals. This is the principle of minimum restraint working itself out in the streets of our cities, and every other city police department has a similar story. I have talked to many police officers in my city who affirm this is the case in our community as well.”
“These are really serious and troubling crimes that Canadians are very concerned about. How did we get here? Well, the government undertook very specific legislative changes that have affected the incidence of crime in our cities and towns and in all places across Canada. In the 42nd Parliament, the Liberals brought in Bill C-75 , which was the catch-and-release bail law change. That is not just a clever political phrase. It is literally what that bill did to our system. The government brought in and legislated the principle of minimum restraint and compelled by law the principle that judges must always apply minimum restraint. Therefore, this plays itself out in our courts, where people are arrested and released and rearrested and released and rearrested and released and so forth.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-16 , and in doing so, we need to first set out some of the context for why we are having this debate, how we got here and where we are right now as a society in Canada. One of the unfortunate outcomes of this past 10 years of Liberal government has been a measurable, significant rise in the incidence of crime in Canada. This is not an opinion. This is measured by Statistics Canada and many other observers. In every category of crime, the rate is up after 10 years of the Liberal government. Some of the crimes for which the rates are up spectacularly, in such a negative way, are violent crime on transit systems in our cities, extortion and violent crime. We have seen an increased incidence in the murder of police officers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the intervention from the member for Winnipeg North requires a little more unpacking. I will put it to the member for Peace River—Westlock that it is in fact the government. The member for Winnipeg North is the parliamentary secretary to the House Leader. The government House leader has tremendous control over the agenda of this place, and the fact that the government cannot get or have not yet had Bill C-14 approved says everything about the priorities of the government, which was more content to have protracted debate around Bill C-9 than to get on with Bill C-14. Would the member for Peace River—Westlock like to further unpack where the responsibility is for the absence of meaningful bail reform to fix the system that the Liberals broke?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will point out that it was not the parliamentary secretary who gave us such an arrogant, flippant answer in the question period from which this debate arose, but I will remind him that he ran in 2015, 10 years ago. He was elected when I was. They ran on a platform then to build infrastructure, unprecedented infrastructure, historic infrastructure. Ten years later, countless deficits later, there are piles of new debt, and they are still talking about building. They were re-elected nearly a year ago with the promise to have a new trade deal in July. It has not happened. They talked about unprecedented speeds of construction, and nothing is being built. It is all empty promises.”
“They do not think it is boring. They are increasingly aware of how unprepared Canada has become for the crisis before us. For 10 years, the government has driven hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country. The Liberals have shut down private investment in new pipeline construction. For 10 years, they have broken all of their promises on the deficit, the debt, spending, infrastructure construction and a host of other things they promised in 2015. I am going to keep demanding accountability from the government. I will not forget that the Prime Minister and the government made a promise that they have not delivered.”
“The Prime Minister was elected to get results for Canadians, and he made many very specific commitments during the election. He did promise a trade deal with the United States by this past July, and he has failed to deliver one. We all know that Donald Trump's attacks on the Canadian economy are unjust and unprovoked, and that his insults and threats to Canadian sovereignty are appalling, but the Prime Minister has made promises to Canadians within this known environment and he has failed to keep those promises. Tonight, the parliamentary secretary has an opportunity to show some compassion for Canadians who have lost their livelihood as a result of tariffs unjustly imposed by Trump. Every day in question period, we hear heartbreaking stories of mill closures. These people care if and when the Prime Minister has spoken to the President.”
“The parliamentary secretary 's insolence in question period is not really the reason I have brought this back for an adjournment debate. I am here tonight because in the last two months, the underlying issues that precipitated the “who cares” response remain unresolved. The Prime Minister's flippant attitude toward journalists and parliamentarians is showing a troubling pattern. Only this past week, the Prime Minister was asked how talks with President Trump were going. He said, “That's the most boring question. Think of a new one.” What an astonishingly arrogant and condescending response to a basic, normal, pertinent question from a journalist. Canadians expect clarity and respect from their Prime Minister and from those who speak for the government in the House of Commons.”
“With his having gone from “elbows up” to “who cares”, having failed to keep his election promise of having a new trade deal with the United States by July, having gone to Washington in October and come back without a trade deal, having seen softwood tariffs triple and having seen thousands of layoffs, I asked the Prime Minister when Canadians might expect a trade deal. My question was a serious question, a relevant question and timely. It might have been a bit aggressive, but the parliamentary secretary 's response that afternoon was simply to insult me and my party. He offered no apology for the Prime Minister 's insensitivity to workers, no excuses for the broken promises on trade deals and no path forward. He just patted himself and his government on the back for their relief efforts.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Prime Minister argued for an aggressive elbows-up approach with the United States. Then in November, in the wake of Donald Trump's crippling tariffs and the ongoing trade war, the Prime Minister was asked during a G20 summit when he had last spoken to the President. His response was to flippantly say, “Who cares?” This was an insensitive remark, particularly to the thousands of Canadians in the auto, forestry, steel and aluminum industries who had lost their jobs since the Prime Minister came to office.”
“Canada's economy is under attack, and Canadians need their government to succeed, but a strong, sovereign, self-reliant and fiscally sustainable Canada cannot be built out of recycled, broken Liberal promises.”
“Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the government campaigned on a promise to “run modest...deficits of less than $10 billion...to fund historic investments in infrastructure” and then let the budget balance itself. For 10 years the Liberals ran increasing deficits, failed to build the infrastructure, ignored their promise and claimed that all that really mattered was declining debt to GDP. In 2024, the then finance minister said that the then $42-billion deficit was a line she would not cross, but then she crossed the line and resigned when the deficit hit $60 billion. Last year the Prime Minister ran as the guy who would finally rein in spending, reduce debt to GDP and build at speeds not seen in decades. Today the deficit is $80 billion, debt to GDP ratio is rising and nothing is being built.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for the Liberal government's 10 years, and it is terrible at managing the legislative agenda. When it comes to committees, I am very disappointed with what I have learned during this debate about the dysfunction at a number of committees, not just at the finance committee. The member is absolutely right; if a government is competent, it should have a legislative plan at each stage and should be able to manage its own agenda. The current government does not.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has happened. The member was there for the filibuster that the parliamentary secretary undertook. The Liberals do not want to study anything else. They were fixated on pre-studying the BIA. Can they go 18 or 20 months without tabling a budget, and then all of a sudden the budget implementation act has to be pre-studied, even when they are still amending it in the House? The same parliamentary secretary was pushing for a pre-study at the finance committee while he is tabling amendments to the bill in the House. The Liberals have not even gotten it straight in the House, so why do we not wait until we get it voted on in the House, and if it is the will of the House to approve the BIA and refer it to the committee, then the committee will study it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 10 years, and I have no idea about that book. I do know a couple of things though. First, if the member had listened to my speech, he would have noted that it is entirely his caucus that is obstructing the work of the finance committee. Second, with respect to the opposition leader , with whom I have the privilege of serving on the finance committee, I noted that there was a strong chair, Wayne Easter, who could cope with strong personalities and could allow for a cohesive work plan with members that included the opposition leader. It is all about the will of the chair.”
“I am sad to report that it is not going all that well at the finance committee, and I put the blame fully with the chair and the parliamentary secretary , neither of whom ever reaches out to members to encourage working together to co-operate and have a work plan.”
“Pre-studying legislation is not normally how it is done. There is a motion before the House to refer that bill to the finance committee upon its adoption in the House, and that is the correct order in which to do things. If the Liberals had a particular reason, or if there were a negotiation they wanted to have over this, I am sure we could have it; that is what a subcommittee is for. The chair has cancelled meetings twice in the last couple of weeks and has scheduled only one hour instead of two when witnesses were not available. The second hour could have been devoted to a subcommittee where the issues could be worked out so the committee could function together more properly. The purpose of the debate and the report before the House is to examine the efficacy of the finance committee.”
“What we have had on the finance committee is a complete lack of co-operation, and not for lack of willingness. I do not know how many times I have said on the record at the committee, and urged the chair , to hold a steering committee meeting where her vice-chairs can come, present their agendas, talk about the motions they have put on notice and, with the cameras off, discuss the potential business of the committee ahead and plan a schedule and a work plan. This is how committees that are strong, functional and do good work together can, through the process of collegial disagreement, forge better policy and outcomes and produce better reports and legislation for Canadians, but it is not happening at finance committee. There has been of late a fixation from the Liberals who have proposed motions to pre-study the budget implementation act.”
“Toward the end of that meeting, there was kind of a blow up with the parliamentary secretary and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It was quite something; it was not a credit to him, I can assure members of that. Then, on November 19, with witnesses present, toward the end of the meeting but with time on the clock, the Bloc vice-chair, that being the only time that he would have had the floor, introduced a routine motion that we could have dispensed with very quickly, or we could even have moved to adjourn debate on it and returned to our witnesses, but no: Liberals, the parliamentary secretary in fact, filibustered the meeting until, I think, 8:30 in the evening, before then agreeing to adopt the motion. The dysfunction for no purpose, apparent strategy or goal is just bizarre. I do not understand it.”
“Did any member of the finance committee approach other parties and ask to perhaps sit down informally to discuss what our priorities are and see if we could negotiate resolution to the different motions? This is how adults solve problems, but it has not happened on that committee. I do not blame the three new MPs on the committee; they all seem to be reasonable people, but I do have to ask why the chair and the parliamentary secretary come into every meeting unable to work with members of other parties. We did get through that. On October 29 we had a meeting with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The committee chair completely inconsistently enforced the rule of relevance, enforcing it on one side but not the other.”
“Again, governing party members spent 110 minutes filibustering their own bill, Bill C-4 . On the one hand, the member for Winnipeg North came into the chamber and, in debate, asked why we could not advance this bill. We cannot advance it because his own members would not let it advance at committee. I had to be the voice of reason at that meeting. We withdrew some proposed amendments of our own, but they were not the source of the logjam. We had not even come to those yet. (1735) We eventually talked the Liberals into allowing the other amendments that other parties had proposed to come to a vote, which they did, and we managed to get through Bill C-4 and report it back to the House. It was no thanks to any of the Liberals.”
“Were they waiting for their whip's office or the PMO to give them word about how to vote on these amendments? Did they not do their homework? Did they not have a pre-committee meeting? Did they not take this meeting seriously and were just blathering to prevent business from occurring? I did not know, and I never will. However, I do know that meeting was also gavelled out while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was literally in the middle of asking an official a question. It was the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen. We had officials present who were doing their jobs, answering questions of members of committee, and the chair gavelled the meeting out while her own parliamentary secretary was asking a question. We returned the following Monday.”
“At the finance committee, on October 22, when the governing party members were filibustering their own bill, obstructing Bill C-4 , a bill that Conservatives and other members of the House did support and voted for in the House and referred to committee for study, we spent that entire meeting debating a single NDP amendment that had been brought forward, with the Liberal members, in particular the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance , asking repeated vexatious questions of the officials present in order to prolong the meeting and prevent it getting to a vote. It was not clear to us why at the time. Had they just not read the amendments and they were just treading water? Were they waiting for their higher-ups to tell them what to do?”
“The chair of the finance committee is not the only committee Liberal chair, governing party caucus chair, who gavels out meetings when the going gets tough for their side or if they just feel like stopping a meeting. I bring to the House's attention that the rules of committee are not being followed.”
“This committee formed and began in the spring. It had a chair who has demonstrated a disregard for the rules of committee, does not follow the practice and procedure according to our green book that spells out proper practice and procedure and, on June 16, gavelled out a meeting without the consent of members. I brought to her attention that this is not permitted. I should point out that I am sharing my time with the member from Edmonton West . At committee, we repeatedly pointed out the rules of committee from the green book, page 1099, which states, “The committee Chair cannot adjourn the meeting without the consent of a majority of the members”. This is a rule of committee that I have found in the debate today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join this debate. This is an opportunity for parliamentarians to hear about some of the dysfunction that exists at committees, which is at the hands, largely, of the chairs and probably, in some cases, the parliamentary secretaries that carry the government's water on committee. It is due to the chairs' inability to manage their committees. I am going to talk about the finance committee. We have heard a lot from members opposite who claim Conservatives are filibustering at committees to obstruct bills. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: It's true. Pat Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North . Maybe he does not know that it is his own caucus colleagues who have filibustered Bill C-4 at the finance committee, but I will get to that. I want to take this in order.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the member for moving this motion. If he had not done so, we would not have had this opportunity to debate the deplorable conduct of the Liberals in committee. In his first intervention here, it was as though the member for Winnipeg North was unaware that his own colleagues are filibustering their own bills at committee. At the finance committee, not once, but twice, in two different meetings, Liberal members filibustered the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-4 . Could the member talk about the Liberal filibusters at committee?”
“There are some really serious problems at this agency, and this bill is just one small piece, which I support vigorously to try to improve the CRA.”
“It is actually very unfortunate that we are having to resort to legislation for something that the CRA really ought to be doing on its own and consciously chose to stop, or even that it is reducing the amount of information it gives to Canadians. I know in Private Members' Business we cannot debate back and forth, but earlier tonight we heard praise for the CRA and the wonderful work it does. No doubt there are thousands of good, solid and hard-working people at the CRA, but we have an army in this country of 59,000 tax collectors, and they are writing off these enormous amounts. They fail to collect from offshore filers and give special breaks to offshore filers. They do not answer the phone, and they do not give correct information when they do get to the phone.”
“This bill is a great step forward in clarifying and giving legal direction to ensure the publication of this important information. However, I would like to stress that this is a pretty small step in the problem of ever-increasing writeoffs. Why is the agency failing to collect taxes? What is going on that is triggering these writeoffs? If we knew who it was, we would be able to identify maybe whether it was a matter of bankruptcy, and we would be able to know whether there was maybe public money that is tied up as well, or whether there were subsidies paid to the business. We would have a better idea of the whole overall problem if we had that information. It is part of a pattern of ever-decreasing transparency from the government. This is a trend that is getting worse.”
“If I recall correctly, we did get the dollar figures for the larger writeoffs that had occurred. It actually generated some speculation in the media about who these corporate entities might have been, but they were not named. At least we had an idea of the scale of the large writeoffs that had occurred at the Canada Revenue Agency. In subsequent years, though, the CRA has taken an even less transparent approach to these questions and outright refused to answer them, citing privacy. We are not talking about individuals; we are talking about corporate filings. The CRA is citing privacy, meaning that the concern is that it would be possible to guess the identity of these corporate filers having their taxes written off.”
“Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to speak to this bill. I feel quite strongly about the issues within it. This came to my attention a few years ago as a problem when, in an Order Paper question, which, unlike a question during question period, is something the government is required to answer. The government is not allowed to just tap dance around and refuse to answer an Order Paper question. To refuse would actually be a contempt of Parliament, so Order Paper questions are a good way to try to force real answers from the government. In response to a question about the nature of tax losses, writeoffs by the CRA from large corporate filers that have had their tax obligations to the Crown, to the people of Canada, written off, the information we received back was very minimal.”
“Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that this bill is coming to the floor of the House of Commons, and I thank the member for Simcoe North for bringing it forward. He talked a bit in his speech about the urgent need for this bill because this addresses a problem that is getting worse. As recently as 2020, the CRA would at least, in an Order Paper question, give the dollar figure for the top writeoffs. Now it will not even do that, citing that it would allow people to guess or speculate which corporate entity, not individuals, may have had this large writeoff, when it is almost certainly a public company. Does the member think that a public company that has its taxes written off by the government is entitled to its privacy and that this is not in the public interest?”