Adam Chambers

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. These individuals would like to see more consultation done before aerodromes are allowed to be placed in certain locations. They are calling on the government to change aerodrome regulations so public consultation with these groups would be required in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to rise today to speak to this very sobering issue. I will be splitting my time with the wonderful new member from Long Range Mountains, who is a fantastic member in this place and brings a lot of expertise. I am happy to share my time with her. Also, I want to say hi to Susan, who might be watching at home, who typically watches many of these speeches. I thank and appreciate her for all the support and the friends at Cornerstone. We are talking about a recession. We might be down by 0.1% or up by 0.1%, but the truth is that the economy is not doing very well, regardless of whether the government suggests that we are not in a recession or that, as some people like to say, it is just a technical recession. 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. The Prime Minister has even acknowledged it. I think the Prime Minister was elected in part because of his résumé, but it appears, over a year into his term, that his economic agenda and plan are not working. It is even a bit hard to determine what his economic plan and agenda are. If it is to attack productivity, one cannot connect very many of his economic announcements to actually making the big reforms and changes we need to the economy in this country to get it going. Of course, President Trump's tariffs weigh on our economy, but we saw serious economic trouble before anyone had heard of President Trump. The Bank of Canada has called it a productivity emergency. Senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers declared it “an emergency”, a “time to break the glass”. If it is true that we are in this economic crisis of productivity, the Prime Minister's agenda is not addressing it. He is saying we have moved at speeds faster than ever before, but we have not seen fundamental reforms. There has been no serious competition reform, tax reform or regulatory reform. In fact, when it comes to those three items, we could classify the Prime Minister not as a bold actor but as one who supports the status quo. He is the status quo man. He is not willing to take on the banks, the airlines, the telecoms or the other oligopolies that we need to take on to enhance the productivity of our country. He must move faster. On competition, we should radically attack the profit pools of our financial institutions, in particular the banks, by introducing more competition to deliver lower prices to Canadians. If we want to send a message to the United States, let us do it through CANZUK. If British Airways wants to fly a plane between Toronto and Vancouver or Toronto and Halifax, why do we not let them and invite any airline in the CANZUK countries to do so? On taxes, we should immediately move to reduce capital gains on those businesses and individuals who reinvest in Canada and in Canadian companies. 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. We should be working more closely with indigenous leaders across the country to identify and pre-approve projects, to de-risk them, in order to free up and attract private capital. If the Prime Minister was serious about building a pipeline, he would have already started his consultations with indigenous groups. We risk allowing this valuable time to go by without making the difficult decisions. Instead, we get announcements, speeches and bureaucracies, such as the Major Projects Office, which, by the way, in and of itself is an admission that the regulatory process does not work. We have the build Canada office, and then the sovereign wealth fund, which will be funded, of course, with debt. 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. The Prime Minister's fiscal plan for this country is putting us at serious risk. By doubling the size of the deficits of PM Trudeau, the Prime Minister is threatening the fiscal stability of our country. If we get into economic challenges around the world, we will be less able to deal with them. We are borrowing record amounts of debt this year and in the next two years. This year we will borrow $510 billion in the market, then we have to borrow $594 billion in the market, and in 2027-28, we have to borrow $563 billion. 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. When 40% of the government's debt is purchased by non-bank financial actors, which are hedge funds and financial speculators, we are at serious risk if those hedge funds and purchasers cannot continue to purchase. In the face of all of this, the Prime Minister's fiscal plan is to borrow more money, record amounts of money. If there is an economic event, a sovereign debt crisis or a war, something that happens totally outside of Canada, our debt service costs are going to explode. They are already going to be $80 billion in just a few years, and that is $80 billion that could not go to more productive uses. That $80 billion is a projection based on interest rates staying the same or going down. What if interest rates go up? The Prime Minister, who is a two-time central banker and chair of the Financial Stability Board, should know better than to increase the size of deficits and debt in this country and put us further at risk, and I am not the only one who thinks so. The Bank of Canada is warning that we will have potential problems. It is saying that higher stock market valuations, higher corporate debt and higher amounts of money borrowed by hedge funds to buy sovereign debt are vulnerabilities. “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. The Bank of Canada is warning the government that there could be economic instability, and we have a risk of who funds our government in purchasing our debt. That will put our AAA credit rating at risk. We can kiss the fiscal anchor goodbye. In fact, already the Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that the government has a less than 1% chance of even keeping that anchor. The Prime Minister's decisions are completely imprudent when it comes to fiscal responsibility, and it will result, and may result, in more pain later. Now, one of these events might not happen, but no one predicted the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008, or very few people did. However, it might happen, and with the fact that it might happen, and that the risks are growing, this Prime Minister's decision to increase the size of the debt and the deficits can be called nothing short of reckless, because it will imperil the government's ability to pay for social programs. The bankers and the bondholders get paid first, and our social programs will come second. As I said, one would think that the Prime Minister would be more attuned to some of these global risks and would be taking a much more fiscally responsible path with the government's spending. As I might not get a chance to welcome everyone to Midland this weekend, it is Ontario’s Best Butter Tart Festival. Please come. I am super happy to plug that big event in my riding this weekend. I am also more than happy to answer any questions from any member in the House about my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, that was a wonderful question from a great colleague and contributor in this chamber. This is a movie we have seen before. The government was slow and late to acknowledge that inflation was a problem. It is slow and late to the party on the economic decline and stagnation of this country. Why? It is because if the Liberals acknowledge there is a problem, because they have been in power for 11 years, well, gosh, maybe they could have done something about it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. My friend in the Bloc has great taste in colours of ties and colours of suits, today for sure. The member raises an important distinction. There is something called a K-shaped recovery in the economy. That is, those who have assets and wealth are actually doing quite well, like those who are invested in Brookfield, and those who do not have assets and wealth are struggling. They struggle with higher costs and higher food prices and fuel prices. This is really what is happening in the economy. There are those who are doing well and those who are not doing so well. It just so happens that everyone who seems to be doing well knows the Prime Minister very well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her excellent question and for pointing out that the economy is not uniform across the country. The government applauds job numbers that we saw on Friday, and by the way, those monthly numbers happen to get revised quite substantially. Unemployment is different across the entire country. Those jobs that we see added are not necessarily going to those 80,000 people who lost jobs in the previous number of months. This is a challenge. We are trying to show the government that there is economic pain in different parts of this country, and the government ought to start paying attention.

Mr. Speaker, the minister wants us to believe that Beijing is just another benign trading partner, but Beijing's actions have been hostile to Canadian interests even more than Washington's. It supports the theft of Canadian IP, it has jailed the two Michaels, it interferes in our elections, it operates illegal police stations on Canadian soil and it has held our farmers hostage. Canadians have a right to know that our sovereignty has not been compromised and our citizens will be protected. If the government has nothing to hide, why will it not release the secret documents and arrangements it has made with Beijing?

moved that Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to rise in this chamber again to speak on a very important issue to Canadians. Before I start, I want to pay tribute to a local individual, Mr. Dan Newman, who recently passed away. He was a two-time elected member of the provincial parliament and cabinet minister in the Ontario legislature from 1995 and re-elected in 1999. Dan was a dear friend of mine, a dear friend to many in the community, a quick wit and a wonderful individual. I would like to give his family my sincere condolences on behalf of all those in Simcoe North. I am sure they miss him deeply after his very unexpected passing. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, given that you seem to be in a giving mood tonight, I also wish my brother and my good friend Stephen Graham happy belated birthday, to give them a tribute in this speech. Just crossing the desk, I want to make sure the House is fully aware that the Prime Minister was in New York today, and he said that a strong Canada would “help make America great again”. I did not have it on my bingo card that the Prime Minister would be embracing MAGA principles, but I seem to always be amazed by the opportunism of the Prime Minister. Getting back to the issue at hand, it is an important bill that we are debating here tonight. I would like to start by thanking the House again for its co-operation on another bill, which I think is adjacent to this one, Bill C-230, which we passed here unanimously just a few weeks ago. This bill, Bill S-217, is basically identical to the bill by Senator Percy Downe that passed in the Senate three times. Senator Downe stands as an example to all parliamentarians that, with persistence and good-natured collaboration and engagement, good ideas have a real chance of becoming law in this country. Senator Downe has been talking about the issues of tax evasion and the efficacy of the CRA in carrying out its primary objective of collecting the tax monies that are owed to the federal government. He has been highlighting these issues for many years and raising concerns about the actions of the CRA in pursuing individuals who participate in overseas tax evasion, which is evading taxes paid in Canada by using overseas tax havens. Members will recall the Panama papers, a very well-publicized, international exposé by journalists, who later had their lives threatened and in fact had violence perpetrated against them. The Panama papers identified a number of Canadians who had assets hidden away in overseas tax havens. To date, there have been no Canadians convicted of overseas tax evasion from the Panama papers. This is one of the reasons for which Senator Downe has brought forward this legislation. The legislation, in my mind, does a few key things. Number one, it would require greater transparency at the CRA to publish the list of individuals who are convicted of tax evasion. Number two, which is also a serious issue that we have dealt with many times in this chamber and in the government as a whole, is the ability of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to receive relevant data and information from the Canada Revenue Agency. This bill would require the Canada Revenue Agency to produce data and information and make that available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, so the Parliamentary Budget Officer could complete independent analysis on the tax gap. “What is the tax gap?” one might ask. The tax gap is an assessment of what the CRA believes it is owed on an annual basis by taxpayers, corporations and individuals, versus what it is actually able to receive: that is, what taxes are assessed and what taxes are collected. The Parliamentary Budget Officer should be doing an independent analysis of this tax gap. The bill would also require the CRA to produce its own estimation of the tax gap so that it can be viewed by parliamentarians. This is consistent with best practices in other jurisdictions around the world. These are the three main points of the bill. I have to commend Senator Downe for a number of things, such as his leadership in making sure that these issues are not forgotten from Parliament to Parliament. Senator Downe has passed this bill three times in its basic exact form over previous Parliaments. This is the third time the bill is coming to this chamber. I am on the record suggesting that the current majority status of this Parliament is a disadvantage to Canadians because that was not the result of the last election at the ballot box. However, if there is a silver lining to the majority status of this Parliament, and the fact that we may be here for a little while longer, it is that it will give the House the opportunity to properly consider, review and potentially amend this bill and to make it law, because it has been sent here three times and the House has been unable to make it law. We owe Senator Downe this effort because of his persistence and leadership on this issue. He has convinced his colleagues in the Senate three times that the bill ought to become law. I think all members in this chamber should be willing to work together to examine this bill at committee. I was very proud to put my name on the bill in this chamber for a number of reasons, but also because Senator Downe has worked very closely with me on some of my private member's bills, one on money laundering in the last Parliament and, yet again, in this Parliament with Bill C-230, which, as I mentioned, passed here unanimously a couple of weeks ago and which is complementary to this bill in so many ways. I would like to just talk a little about the bill in the words of Senator Downe. When taxpayers cheat, the rest of Canadians make up the shortfall. Taxes rise to cover the balance. The government is forced to take on more debt. Debt service payments increase, and the debt gets paid forward to the next generation. Enforcing compliance with Canada's tax laws and collecting monies owed to government is a core mandate of the CRA, but how well is the CRA fulfilling its responsibilities? Consider overseas tax evasion. Story after story follows the same pattern. A news story will break, and the CRA appears with its regular talking points: They are working hard to catch overseas tax evaders; they take it seriously; they have identified monies that are owed to the government; the work is ongoing to collect those monies. However, the results are ultimately disappointing. I mentioned previously the 2016 Panama papers, the disclosures of overseas tax evasion. Other countries with citizens involved in this scandal have collected billions of dollars in taxes owed. A recent article by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the journalists who broke the story, lists Australia as having recovered $44 million; Germany, $87 million; and Spain, $175 million. Iceland, a country of just 340,000, recovered $25 million. Canada, however, after 10 years, has not announced the recovery of a nickel. Approximately 900 Canadians were identified as having accounts linked to the Panama papers. Not one person has been charged, much less convicted of this tax evasion, a stark contrast to what has happened in other countries. The fairness for all Canadian taxpayers act, introduced by Senator Downe, would require the government, as I mentioned before, to disclose these convictions of tax evasion, to publish the estimates for the tax gap and then to make sure that the Parliamentary Budget Officer can complete independent analysis of the tax gap for the benefit of all members in the House. Canada lags behind other countries that measure their tax gap and provide the public with more transparency and more information. The bill would certainly help legislators in this place and in the Senate make better laws to ensure that the CRA has the tools to carry out its core mandate effectively. I have to mention that, while Canadians may be frustrated with the Canada Revenue Agency's performance over the last number of years, there are a number of fantastic people who work there and work very hard. I believe that they deserve a level of sympathy, because the government has been asking the CRA to do more and more activities that are outside of its core mandate. The government has asked the CRA to administer new benefit programs. It has asked the CRA to introduce and administer new tax reporting structures that are incredibly complicated. In one case, the CRA was to implement bare trust reporting rules that everyone knew were complicated. People spent hundreds of millions of dollars in total in complying with this new reporting requirement, only to have the government, a political actor, reverse the decision about submitting this paperwork at the last second, on the day the paperwork was due. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers incurred, in some cases, multiple-thousand-dollar tax bills to send information to the CRA, only to have the CRA say that it was too complicated and that it did not need that information right now. These are the operational decisions that the government has unfairly placed on the CRA, in my opinion. I believe that there are wonderful agents at the CRA who work hard and try to collect the money owing to government, but I believe, and I concur with my friend in the Senate, that Canadians deserve greater transparency on those who are convicted of tax evasion. I think we should make sure that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has access to the information it needs to conduct independent analysis of the tax gap. I would be remiss if I did not mention that, following my speech, I will be joined by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, who is a wonderful mentor of mine and a person from whom I have learned a great deal in this place about how he carries himself, how to collaborate and how to make sure that one is standing up for their constituents and their principles with vigour, as well as with integrity. I look forward very much to his speech and thank him for his support on this bill and on my bill, Bill C-230, which, as I mentioned, I was pleased to see make it through this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Winnipeg North quite rightly points out a potential concern with privacy. I would say two things. The first is that I think any data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer could be appropriately anonymized such that it would be impossible to identify any taxpayer, whether that is a corporate or individual taxpayer. We should judiciously protect the privacy rights of Canadians. However, with respect to the information that would be required to be publicly disclosed by the government, it would be about individuals who have been convicted of tax evasion in Canada. Those individuals, if they have been convicted, have been convicted in a court of law and do not deserve any privacy rights, in my opinion.

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. I am certainly pleased to hear that the Bloc is open to supporting the bill's being studied at committee. He put his finger on an interesting point with respect to companies that are avoiding taxes. I think that is partially what the bill is trying to get at, with respect to measuring the tax gap. That is to say, what does the government believe is owed to the government, i.e., what does the CRA believe is owed versus what they are able to collect? I do think that is a portion of tax avoidance. In my view, we could study this a bit more at committee, but I think that is one of the things this bill is trying to get at, with respect to companies that avoid paying the taxes they owe.

Mr. Speaker, my wonderful friend asked his question in English, although he does speak French. I just heard him in this chamber speaking French. He tried it out quite well. Maybe he was auditioning. I think he is right about two things: We need more transparency, and we need more accountability. If parliamentarians and the broader Canadian public have this information, we can help the CRA refocus its efforts on its core mandate, which is to collect the money that is owed and go after tax evaders. If we are lagging behind other countries in finding, prosecuting and convicting tax evaders, ensuring that we have transparency about that process will help us deliver better laws and maybe better tools to the CRA so that it can carry out its core mandate.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently recalled MPs from a trip, a delegation, to Taiwan. He has been sitting on, for over a year, an updated and finalized trade co-operation framework arrangement with Taiwan. It is just awaiting his signature. Also, Taiwan has been patiently waiting for additional flights to operate to Canada, only to see the government recently fast-track and announce new flights with China. What does it say to our democratic allies around the world when the Liberal government stonewalls Taiwan in favour of getting closer to an autocratic Beijing?

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to be here tonight with all of my friends from all sides of the House. It is an important day for taxpayers. It is an important day when one is a member of Parliament and has the honour and the opportunity to bring forward legislation that makes amendments to the statutes of Canada. It is a lottery system. I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to be chosen early in that lottery. I wanted to pick an idea that I believed would have widespread support in the chamber. I would like to thank all of my colleagues from all sides of the House in getting the bill to this stage, which included sending the bill to committee, a lengthy committee study, some thoughtful amendments from all parties at the committee table and bringing it back to the House. It is my hope and sincere pleasure to see this bill carry forward here this evening. I want to thank individual members, and I will return to this later. To put aside the partisan politics, we tangle in the chamber from time to time on some very controversial issues but, with respect to greater transparency for taxpayers, this is an issue that I think we will see unites all members of the chamber, no matter their political affiliation. Bill C-230 would create a registry for the government to disclose every time it writes off a large debt. For corporations, not individual taxpayers, that have their debts waived, those amounts and the identities of those corporations would be published in a corporate registry. That would enhance the level of transparency that taxpayers receive from our tax-collecting authorities. This bill is here before our chamber because we noticed in the public accounts large amounts, year after year, being written off. Members of Parliament from multiple parties, including the government side, probed the government for additional information. We were met with not great answers, a lack of transparency, and a suggestion that we, as parliamentarians, could not receive this information because of the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act. Given the opportunity, in drawing that high lottery number to bring forward a private member's bill, I thought that we should change the law, change the privacy provisions in the Income Tax Act and require the government to disclose this information. After all, I think it is a matter of public interest when large debts that are owed by corporations are written off by the government. In fact, just a few years ago, 10 corporations had a total of $1.1 billion written off. A lot of people work hard every day. They pay their taxes honestly. They fret about filing their taxes on time and they worry that they might have made a mistake. They do so honestly and in good faith, because they know that paying taxes helps pay for this wonderful, beautiful country that we have and all the social services that we all enjoy. They are frustrated because they learn that, while they are working hard to pay their taxes, the government is unable to collect millions and indeed billions of dollars each year that corporations owe the government. That is the real basis for this idea that has come to the floor of the House and was proposed as a private member's bill. I would say that I learned my lesson in the last Parliament. I believed that I had a wonderful idea to increase the penalties for money-laundering offences, but I did not have as much time to work with all members of the chamber to make sure that it was in a position to receive broad-based support and pass. This time, I wanted to do my homework. I consulted with my own team, my own colleagues, who encouraged me to continue. I consulted with members from other parties who thought it was a good idea, and so here we are. I appreciate the opportunity to address this very important issue. I appreciate the opportunity my colleagues have given me to recommend this bill that made it to committee and, as I said, had some thoughtful amendments along the way. There was an amendment at committee about the threshold. The committee recommended increasing the threshold from $1 million to $2 million. While I do not believe we are at an ideal state, I think that in this environment, we can hold out for the perfect and get nothing, or we can make some compromises so that we can all have some level of say and influence over a bill and actually make progress on behalf of taxpayers. I am happy with where we landed, although I would have preferred to keep a lower threshold. In fact, some members on the committee wanted the threshold to be as low as $100,000. We have landed on an opportunity to start this registry in a way that would give taxpayers more transparency about how their money is being collected and used. I would like to commend the work of Senator Percy Downe in the Senate. He not only has been encouraging me along the way but also has his own bill that would also increase transparency requirements at the CRA. It has passed three times from the Senate and will come to this chamber later next month before we break for the summer. This issue and these two bills go hand in hand. This chamber will have time to opine on Senator Downe's bill at a later date. I think it is important to consider the process. I mentioned we saw the public accounts. We saw amounts going up. We asked for more information. We then submitted an Order Paper question. That question was not answered in the House and it was not answered at committee, but a friend in the other place, Senator Wells, was kind enough to submit a similar question, a more detailed question. From those answers was the genesis and the basis on which we designed this bill, because it outlined the number of corporations and the amounts that had been written off. That is the way the process worked in order to get this bill. It was hard research, asking questions, collaboration and really an opportunity for us to use all of the tools in this chamber in order to find out more information and then propose a law to fix it for the benefit of taxpayers and indeed the country. It is my great honour that I am standing here tonight with this opportunity to propose a change to the statutes of this country. When elected, as I mentioned before, many people could be here for years, indeed decades, and not have the opportunity because it is a lottery system. I took that opportunity very seriously. I wanted to put something forward I thought would have widespread support from all members in this chamber. I cannot help but recognize that in the new environment we are in, with respect to the government now controlling a majority of the seats in this chamber, I have still felt good co-operation and collaboration from members of the government, including the parliamentary secretary and the House leadership team, in order to advance what I believe is a good piece of legislation that would make a positive contribution to public policy in this country. I believe it is time that taxpayers have more transparency. We need to hold not just the government accountable, which I find to be an important part of my role here as an opposition member, but also the agencies that the government entrusts to carry out fundamental activities. The Canada Revenue Agency's primary objective is to enforce the Income Tax Act and collect the monies owing to government. This bill would bring a level of transparency and accountability to those activities at the Canada Revenue Agency so that all members of Parliament from all parties, and indeed all Canadians, would have a greater line of sight and transparency into the activities of the Canada Revenue Agency. We have to acknowledge that the agents and the employees of the Canada Revenue Agency, by and large, work very hard day in and day out to complete their duties. I will say, at the same time, that I think they have been unfairly burdened with additional activities and requests from the government that have asked them to do things that are far outside their core mandate. The bill would also help refocus resources at the Canada Revenue Agency so it can get back to fulfilling the objectives of its core mandate. It would be inappropriate for me at this time to not recognize some individuals who helped me along the way. I have to pay special tribute to our legislative drafters, who fielded many late-night questions and phone calls outside business hours because they were helping me get the bill into good shape before it had to be tabled in September: Marie-Claude Hébert and Marie Danik. They did fantastic work. I do not think people understand that while many government ministers and departments have armies of lawyers at their service, members of Parliament also have wonderful resources that are able to support us in our role. Those resources are quite small in number, but they pack a mighty punch and have been very busy supplying members of the chamber with great ideas and legislative work on private members' bills that members introduce on a daily basis. That is done by a very capable and thoughtful team in the House of Commons. The member for Calgary Midnapore has been fantastic to work with as our shadow critic. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk has been our shadow critic for CRA. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, who originally turned me on to this idea a few years ago, deserves a great round of applause because he has been an advocate for greater transparency at the CRA. I mentioned the parliamentary secretary earlier. Although we have tangled many times on the finance committee, and I was actually moved off that committee, maybe because of those tangles, we did find a way to work well together. I joke, but we do end up working on things in collaboration that we think will enhance this country and do great things for taxpayers. The Minister of Finance, for whom I also have many criticisms, was very gracious to set me up with his staff to work on the bill. We did receive some amendments, as I said, and I worked with them. I also very much appreciated Sean-Matthew O'Neill for his help during this process. Another individual I would like to thank is Jay Gamma, from Edmonton, who has been on this idea as well. He has been talking about it for a couple of years. I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the late Jim Flaherty, who was a close mentor of mine. I am wearing green today in his honour. If it were not for him, I would not be standing in this place. I appreciate the opportunity to have the bill voted on. We will see where it goes tonight. I want to thank everyone in the chamber for their support and collaboration in doing something good, which I believe is in the public interest and in the best interests of the citizens of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comment from my hon. colleague, who is no stranger to standing up and speaking in the House. I appreciate that he took the time not just to meet with me about my bill but also to discuss an opportunity where we could maybe have it proceed. This is an example for all of us, that when we have an idea that is good for the country and has widespread support, we could toss aside some of the partisanship from time to time and work in the best interests of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the wonderful member for Calgary Crowfoot did identify that. At one point, the Canada Revenue Agency used to disclose what the single largest writeoff was in a particular fiscal year. That practice, all of a sudden, changed. However, from my understanding, the Income Tax Act privacy rules did not change and the Privacy Act rules did not change, so it did not make much sense that the government and the Canada Revenue Agency would provide less information to the public and to this chamber than they did previously. That really was a significant driving factor in why this bill is here before the House tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member, as a first-term MP, is doing a wonderful job in his role and in bringing his expertise here. Yes, if there are large writeoffs in the future that exceed the threshold, that information will become public, which then means parliamentarians and the public get more information about how their tax dollars are being used or not collected. It means we can then refocus the resources at the agency to ensure that we recover the money from corporations that is owed, or pass laws to make it more difficult for corporations to skip out on their tax bill. I would also like to mention at this time that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue was a wonderful addition to our work on committee and helped this bill get here.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair tonight, and I want to thank you for your hard work as well and your counsel along the way on this bill. It is my pleasure to have listened to some very thoughtful speeches from my colleagues in this place, including my friend from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, who shares a committee spot with me on the international trade committee. I certainly appreciate his advice and counsel on that committee. He himself has a private member's bill he has introduced with respect to forced labour, which we are looking forward to supporting so it can get through the chamber and come to a vote. With respect to the overall objectives of the bill, I would just mention that bringing integrity back to the system so Canadians have trust in it is important. As mentioned by my hon. colleague from Calgary Midnapore, there have been many journalists who have also helped keep this issue front and centre, including Mr. Bill Curry from The Globe and Mail, who has had a specific focus on this issue. There are a number of great members on the public accounts committee. I am not able to mention whether they are here tonight, but I was very thankful that they brought their thoughtful questions to committee to help the bill get here. In fact, this was the first bill that went to the public accounts committee in almost 25 years, as I am told by the researchers at the Library of Parliament. We were not quite sure what we were doing there, but we were guided very well by the analysts, the clerk and the great chair, the hon. member for Saint John—St. Croix, who did a great job and even had an amendment of his own that helped get this bill over the line. I would be remiss not to mention my staff: Roman Chelyuk and Kyla Canzanese, who is no longer in my office and now works at the mother ship in the whip's office, controlling all of the things we do in this place. I want to thank them for their wise counsel along the way. As mentioned by the member for Calgary Midnapore, yes, the deficits are large, but we are here to help. I am here to help. This bill is here to help. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to bring it forward here this evening. Of course, one can never forget to thank the most important people in our lives, our families. I want to thank my wife and children, Davie and Cooper, who are probably not watching this at home, but I will share the clip with them later. I appreciate the opportunity, again, to stand here. It is an honour to have a chance to propose changing the statutes of this country. I certainly appreciate this and take this issue with great respect, and I hope we have moved the ball forward in progressing on this very important issue on behalf of taxpayers. It is, indeed, a matter of the public interest. With that, I was always told to quit while I am ahead and take the win when I can have it. At this point, I believe I will ask that the House adopt this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of many Canadians who are expressing concern about a proposed over-the-horizon radar field that is set to be put in Clearview Township, which is very close to Simcoe North. The petitioners ask the government to stop building the over-the-horizon radar site on the already purchased property; prevent future acquisition of prime farmland and the building of any other over-the-horizon radar sites on this prime farmland in Clearview Township; and finally, register the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status.