Public Accounts

The committee studied Bill C-230, which would create a public online database listing large debts of corporations, trusts and partnerships that have been written off, remitted, waived or forgiven by the Crown. Appearing were John Daley from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Lauchlin MacEachern from the Department of Finance, and Charly Norris, Jennifer Boudens and Isabelle Brault from the Canada Revenue Agency.

John Daley explained the four main debt deletion mechanisms under the Financial Administration Act—writeoff, remission, forgiveness and waiver—and noted that the public accounts already report these at an aggregate level. He said that if Bill C-230 passes, the government would need to determine how to collect and present case-by-case data, and that no cost analysis has been done for creating such a system.

Lauchlin MacEachern stated he could speak only to the bill's consequential amendments regarding the sharing of tax information, and he declined to offer personal opinions on transparency.

Charly Norris said the CRA cannot disclose the single largest writeoff amount because doing so could identify the taxpayer under section 241 of the Income Tax Act. He described the collection process, noting that writeoffs are an administrative measure taken after all avenues to recover the debt are exhausted, and that accounts over $1 million require multiple layers of approval.

Jennifer Boudens provided data on CRA tax debt writeoffs: an average of about 215 accounts per year over $1 million, over 1,400 accounts over $250,000, and about 37 accounts over $5 million. She said writeoffs as a percentage of revenue have remained stable at 0.63% to 0.79% over the past decade, and that the administrative effort required would vary with the threshold set in the bill.

Isabelle Brault said the CRA is not authorized to provide legal opinions on the bill or on the adequacy of existing legislation. She noted that tax debt confidentiality is a deliberate choice by Parliament, and that creating a registry would be complex because amounts and rationales can change over time as cases progress through appeals and court.

Several members questioned whether the bill would require a royal recommendation due to potential costs, and researchers noted that additional resources might be needed but that existing government infrastructure could limit the increase. The sponsor, Adam Chambers, argued that the bill could include the reason for debt deletion to distinguish between writeoffs, waivers and forgiveness.

The committee then debated a Bloc Québécois motion calling for a public and independent inquiry into IT contract cost overruns, including Phoenix, ArriveCAN and Benefits Delivery Modernization. Kristina Tesser Derksen moved an amendment to remove the words "a public and" and "overruns" and to add examination of the costs of maintaining legacy systems. Sébastien Lemire and Gérard Deltell opposed the amendment, arguing it would weaken transparency and that the original motion's focus on cost overruns was essential. Ron McKinnon supported the amendment, saying it adds context without reducing scope. The debate was ongoing at the close of the meeting.