Mario Beaulieu

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. The first thing that a budget bill should address are the concerns of Canadians, which centre on the cost of living, economic growth, job creation, housing and the sound management of public finances. If we look more closely at Bill C‑31, however, we see something else. We see a government proposing to transfer more decision-making powers in a number of areas to its ministers and to the government apparatus. These include powers for the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, powers for the Minister of Transport, additional powers for defence procurement and even new federal powers over mining rights in the north. My concern is not only about increased powers. I am also concerned about who will oversee their use, ensure accountability and protect Canadians when bad decisions are made. At the end of the day, this is about taxpayers’ money, rights and trust in their institutions. Today, I want to focus on an especially troubling example of this trend. I am talking about clause 51 of Bill C-31, which gives the Canada Revenue Agency new powers to file income tax returns on behalf of certain Canadians without obtaining their express consent. During clause-by-clause consideration at the Standing Committee on Finance, I presented an amendment to protect taxpayers from any errors in the tax returns filed by the CRA. I will read my amendment, as proposed: That Bill C‑31, in clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 19 on page 66 with the following: (b) for greater certainty, the individual is not responsible for any erroneous statement or omission in the return filed by the Minister. This was a very simple amendment. It sought to establish a fundamental principle. When the government files an income tax return on behalf of a citizen, that citizen should not be held responsible for any erroneous statements or omissions in the return, since they did not file themselves or expressly approve it. To understand why that amendment was necessary, we need to look at what is currently provided for in clause 51. The government wants to allow the Canada Revenue Agency to automatically prepare income tax returns for certain low-income individuals so that they can access the benefits that they are entitled to. I want to be clear that we all support Canadians being able to receive the benefits they are eligible for. However, the problem is how the government intends to proceed. Under the proposed mechanism, a taxpayer would receive a notice from the CRA and have 90 days to verify the information, report any corrections, or opt out of having a return prepared on their behalf. If they do not respond in time, the CRA would be able to file their return on their behalf without their explicit consent. What is even more concerning is that under this bill, taxpayers may be held responsible for any errors or omissions that they failed to report. In other words, the government prepares the return, but taxpayers may be held responsible for inaccurate information that they never personally approved. That is precisely what my amendment sought to prevent. Let us take a very concrete example. A senior receives a notice from the CRA and does not necessarily understand all the tax implications of the notice. Maybe the senior believes that it is just an administrative notice and does not realize that they have to look over the information that the government already has. Another example involves a low-income individual who moves frequently, is going through a rough time or does not yet have reliable Internet access. These people could miss the notice, not understand the steps that need to be taken, or simply not know that some information is incomplete. After 90 days, the agency would be able to file the person’s return. If an error or omission is not corrected, that person could then have to face the resulting tax consequences. Holding an individual responsible for errors contained in a return they did not file and never expressly approved is unacceptable. Since when does failure to respond to a letter from the government constitute informed consent? Why should the government be able to transfer responsibility for the information it used to prepare a declaration to citizens? Our amendment aimed simply to protect Canadians from that risk. However, when we presented it in committee, the Liberal members voted against it. They rejected a provision that would have made it clear that taxpayers are not responsible for errors or omissions in the returns filed for them by the minister. What makes this decision even more concerning is that we are not the only ones who have raised these concerns. Canada’s taxpayers’ ombudsperson, François Boileau, has himself expressed significant reservations about this mechanism. In his brief to the Standing Committee on Finance, he recommended against adopting the provisions on the proposed deemed filing approach. Indeed, there are risks of error, confusion, and interruption of benefits. The ombudsperson emphasized, in particular, that a system in which taxpayers review and confirm the information before filing their returns would offer better protections. He also proposed additional safeguards should the government decide, despite everything, to move forward. We are talking here about the taxpayers’ ombudsperson. His role is precisely to defend citizens’ rights in their dealings with the Canada Revenue Agency. When someone tasked with overseeing the fairness of tax services warns us of the risks posed by a new mechanism, we have a duty to listen to him. There are other issues that also deserve our attention. The government is presenting this measure as one way to facilitate access to the benefit, but the ombudsperson has also pointed out that the anticipated delays could lead to interruptions in payments. Let us think about that. The government is proposing a system that is supposed to help people with low incomes access their benefits, but which could, in certain circumstances, delay the payment of those benefits. We therefore need to ask ourselves whether the government has really designed the most effective and secure system for Canadians. A much more reasonable approach does exist. The CRA can prepare the information in advance. It can simplify the forms. It can contact eligible taxpayers. It can help them get the benefits they are entitled to. Before a tax return is filed on their behalf, they should receive a clear confirmation. We certainly support helping Canadians, but we do not support making decisions on their behalf and shifting the risks onto them. I would now like to draw the attention of the House to a second problem that we tried to fix in committee. Clause 51 also provides that the Minister of National Revenue may, at his or her discretion, designate any other conditions for determining which taxpayers the CRA may file a tax return for. In other words, Parliament is being asked to give the minister the power to add eligibility requirements without these being clearly and precisely defined in the act. While the bill was being studied, I asked government officials to provide concrete examples of what those additional conditions might be. I was met with radio silence. They were unable to offer a clear definition. They were unable to provide a single example. Nevertheless, we are being asked to allow for any other conditions. I still have a lot to say about Bill C‑31, but so far, the Liberal government has shown no willingness to listen, pass amendments or consider the ombudsperson’s proposals.”