THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 11, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 2:30 p.m. [ET] to examine all of the subject matter of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
Senator Claude Carignan(Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Hello, honourable senators.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. As much as possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
[English]
Thank you all for your cooperation.
I wish to welcome all the senators as well as viewers across the country watching us on sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
My name is Claude Carignan, senator from Quebec and chair of the Senate Committee on National Finance. I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting from my right.
Senator Forest: Hello and welcome. Éric Forest, Gulf senatorial division in Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Hello. Pierre J. Dalphond, De Lorimier senatorial division in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac, De Kennebec senatorial division in Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Good afternoon. Senator Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Loffreda: Good afternoon and welcome to my colleagues. I’m Senator Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Kingston: Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Good afternoon. Senator Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. Today, we will continue our comprehensive study on all the subject matter of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, referred to this committee by the Senate of Canada on May 9, 2024.
We are pleased to welcome the chairs and deputy chairs of some of the nine committees that have been individually authorized to examine the content of certain elements of Bill C-69. Welcome, colleagues.
We welcome today the Honourable Ratna Omidvar, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, the Honourable René Cormier, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, and the Honourable Peter Boehm, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Honourable Tony Dean, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, will also join us, as will the Honourable Denise Batters, deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the Honourable Leo Housakos, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, and the Honourable Brian Francis, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
To make sure we can accommodate everyone and free up those who have to be in the Senate for a speech or chair a committee meeting in progress, we’ll start with introductions, with a maximum of five minutes each. Then, contrary to our usual practice, we’ll start by asking questions of Senator Omidvar, which will free her up to chair the social affairs committee meeting, and so on.
[English]
Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, chair, for accommodating my schedule. The time has not yet come when you and I can be in two places at one time, but maybe it will in our lifetime.
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology was referred 10 divisions of the budget implementation act, or BIA. The subject matter of these divisions was wide-ranging and included the establishment of a national school food program, the federal gig economy workers, the Food and Drugs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology studied these divisions over the course of three meetings. We heard from department officials and a range of external stakeholders. Since time is tight, I will not note their names. They are available in the report. I choose to focus my time on the substance of our conclusions.
In general, committee members agreed that many of the provisions included in the BIA require more scrutiny. It is the committee’s opinion that there was insufficient time available to properly examine these divisions and consult with experts and witnesses.
Members have expressed continued concern — and I would say this has been the concern with many BIAs — that the federal government chooses to include substantive changes to Canadian law in the BIA.
The committee expressed greater concern with the substantive policy measures in the BIA. Some of the divisions referred to the committee, including those amending the Canada Labour Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, did not contain any financial provisions. We are therefore recommending that policy measures that are not directly linked to costed measures in the budget be the subject of stand-alone legislation.
Concerns around the subject matter included in the BIA were particularly highlighted in our report regarding Division 38. This division amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to streamline the in-Canada asylum system process in response to record numbers of asylum seekers.
One stakeholder told the committee that Parliament is being asked to pass a bill without understanding its full impact on refugees and migrants, and that civil society is prevented from meaningful engagement. Our committee therefore recommends that the government consider various approaches to moving forward to this division, including its complete retraction for future study in its own merits. It seems that the House of Commons has similar ideas. Let’s see what the final bill tells us about this particular division.
While some of the other divisions were less problematic, we did have some observations.
Regarding Division 3 and the national school food program, we heard that an additional 400,000 children will have access to school meals. However, the federal government must negotiate with provincial governments first. Therefore, the committee is urging the government to conclude these negotiations expeditiously, taking into account communities with special needs like official language minority communities and underserved populations.
Regarding Division 4, the student loan forgiveness program, the committee heard that many students eligible for loan forgiveness are simply not aware of the program. We are therefore suggesting that the government make substantive efforts to promote awareness.
Regarding the protection of federal gig workers, the committee heard of the impact of misclassifying workers such as truckers as gig workers. Employers may choose this route because they may avoid requirements like offering overtime, vacation pay, sick days and personal leave and, in turn, employees may fail to file their taxes or do so incorrectly. Regardless, we also heard that it is costing Canada and the CRA billions of dollars annually. Although introducing a presumption of employee status is helpful, enforcement will be essential.
Finally, we heard — yet again — about the temporary measure providing additional Employment Insurance, or EI, benefits for a further two years, to 2026. We were surprised to see the word “temporary” again. The policy was first introduced in 2018. At that time, the committee observed that it looked forward to the development of more permanent solutions; instead, we heard, again, about the insecurity these temporary measures cause in the targeted region. We are urging, therefore, the federal government to make these measures permanent as a first step in comprehensive EI reform.
Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Omidvar.
[Translation]
Hon. René Cormier: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages (OLLO), I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for the opportunity to share with you some information about the committee’s fourth report, which addresses the content of Division 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
Division 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 amends section 61 of An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages. This act, which received royal assent on June 20, 2023, will enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. It is not yet in force, as the Governor in Council order has not yet been issued in this regard.
Once it comes into force, section 61 of An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages will enable an employee of a federally regulated private business located in Quebec or in a region with a strong francophone presence to file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages if the business violates language of work rights. However, section 61 makes no provision for extending this right of complaint to “potential” or “former” employees. This is what Division 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 aims to correct, by adding these two specific categories of employees.
This amendment exclusively corrects a technical omission that in no way reflects the express intent of the legislator. In fact, Ms. Sarah Boily, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, appeared before the committee on May 27 and stated, and I quote:
Basically, the act as drafted gives employees, as well as former and potential employees, the right to file a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and to seek a legal remedy if they feel that their rights under the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act were violated.
Those rights are referred to in relation to the coming into force of the regime for federally regulated private businesses in Quebec. Slightly further down, the coming into force provisions for regions with a strong francophone presence … contain an omission. The right is available only to employees. The reference to former and potential employees was omitted in that case. The correction in Bill C-69 ensures that the right is available to all three categories of employees….
Ms. Boily made it clear that there would be a tangible impact if the amendment were not adopted. She continued, and I quote:
If the amendment wasn’t made, it would mean that, after the second anniversary of the regime’s coming into force in Quebec, those rights would no longer be available to those two categories of employees … or to employees of federally regulated private businesses in Quebec. The way the provision is drafted, the right is available for only two years, such that two years later, it would no longer be available in Quebec or in federally regulated private businesses in regions with a strong francophone presence. In practical terms, it would mean that a potential employee could not file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages or seek a legal remedy, and that would be a problem.
At the same committee meeting, the Commissioner of Official Languages also spoke in favour of this amendment. In light of this testimony, the committee did not object to this amendment to Division 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-69. Thank you,
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cormier.
Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Honourable senators, members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, thank you for inviting me to speak to you today about the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade regarding the committee’s study of the subject matter of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
Divisions 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Part 4 — amendments reflecting Canada’s international financial obligations — were referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
These divisions represent minor and overlapping amendments to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act and the Export Development Act.
Since there are many of us at the table and little time, I will not explain each amendment as our report is brief and self-explanatory.
The committee completed its study in one meeting on May 22, during which we received testimony from officials representing Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Finance, FinDev Canada and Export Development Canada, or EDC. We met on June 5 to discuss the draft report and adopted it without objections to any of the proposed amendments nor observations.
Thank you, colleagues. I am happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Hon. Tony Dean: I am reporting on a meeting from May 27, when the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs heard from the following witnesses concerning Division 39 of Part 4 of Bill C-69. We heard from officials from the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA and Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, as well as a number of associations representing refugees and migrants.
Division 39 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to regulate the detention of high-risk individuals for immigration-related reasons by creating immigrant stations in federal correctional facilities.
This detention would be made possible through arrangement between CSC and CBSA, with CBSA detainees being held separately from Correctional Service Canada detainees with exceptions only in emergencies.
High-risk detainees — including those who are deemed to be a high risk to the public, such as sex offenders and those with weapons charges or violent and aggressive behaviour — have previously been held in provincial correctional facilities, but provinces are not prepared to do so beyond this year.
At the end of May, this total population represented 184 people, the majority of whom are awaiting removal from Canada. Of those detainees, 27 are currently in provincial jails. This is the subpopulation that would potentially be housed temporarily in conjoined Corrections and Border Services facilities.
The non-governmental witnesses at our hearing drew attention to a range of concerns relating to compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international law. They questioned the need for the amendments in Division 39 and highlighted the availability of alternatives to detention.
The committee also concluded that Parliament had not had sufficient time to undertake proper study of these amendments, which would make significant changes to Canada’s immigration detention regime. The committee also concluded that the proposed amendments were unrelated to financial management and should not be included in budget implementation legislation. The committee recommended, therefore, that the Government of Canada remove the division from Bill C-69 and consider reintroducing proposed amendments in a separate bill.
Subsequent to this, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance amended this part of the BIA to emphasize that the detention in an immigration station within Correctional Services infrastructure would apply only to the highest-risk detainees deemed to be dangerous to others, and that — in response to concerns about the decision-making structure — the minister would now consider a number of factors before assigning detainees to these immigration stations.
Again, these changes would currently be relevant to only 27 persons, who represent the highest-risk population within this category of immigrant detainees.
This addresses some of the concerns raised in the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs’s deliberations and report, but certainly not all of them. Thank you.
Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before your committee. As Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I will be speaking to the committee’s twenty-third report, which was deposited with the Clerk of the Senate yesterday.
On May 9, 2024, the Senate Legal Committee was authorized to conduct a pre-study on the subject matter of certain elements of Bill C-69, the 2024 budget implementation act. Specifically, the committee was to study Divisions 29, 30, 35, 36, 43 and 44 of Part 4 and Subdivisions b and c of Division 34 of Part 4.
These eight provisions vary in nature, introducing procedural, administrative and also quite substantive amendments, such as adding new offences to the Criminal Code. These amendments include changes to the Judges Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, the Radiocommunication Act, the Federal Courts Act, the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
The committee tabled its report on June 10, 2024, representing its general findings, along with observations regarding certain provisions. In its report, the committee reiterated that there was not enough time to receive evidence and thoroughly analyze the clauses of Bill C-69 assigned to the committee and the impacts of significant amendments contained in this omnibus bill.
This is a continuing concern. It was also raised in the committee’s report on the 2023 budget implementation bill. This concern is particularly important with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code. The committee recommended that these types of measures should be introduced in separate, stand-alone legislation, not budget implementation bills.
My remaining remarks will largely focus on the Criminal Code amendments in Division 35 of the BIA. Division 35 introduces five new criminal offences and other measures related to motor vehicle theft. The committee heard that, in Canada, motor vehicle theft has become a sophisticated criminal activity and is a significant source of funding for organized crime. When appearing before the committee, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General stated that a speedy legislative response to this problem was necessary.
The committee heard that, in Canada, over 105,000 vehicles were stolen in 2022, which is an increase of 21% compared with 2021 and higher relative to the increase in the United States during the same period. Some witnesses testified that organized crime looks for the weakest link, and that Canada’s lighter criminal sentences are that weak link.
Young people, particularly low-income and racialized youth, are being used by organized criminal groups to commit vehicle theft. However, the committee also heard from some witnesses that harsher criminal penalties are ineffective in deterring this crime and that these amendments could target the same young people they are intended to protect. Many senators expressed concern that the young people directed to commit vehicle theft are often the easiest to arrest, the most vulnerable and the most negatively affected by these amendments. These senators were particularly concerned about the potential negative impacts of these amendments on Black, Indigenous or other groups already overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
The committee noted that a multifaceted approach is required to address the problem of motor vehicle theft, including anti-theft technology for new motor vehicles produced in Canada, additional resources for law enforcement and the Canada Border Services Agency to target vehicle theft and enhanced security at ports and other strategic locations.
The committee also heard about the need for tougher bail, stricter sentences and no house arrest for auto theft. These are in addition to the need to address root causes of crime in general, through social services and community supports.
In the context of this pre-study, the committee was unable to consider amendments to Bill C-69, despite hearing from witnesses who raised potential unintended legal consequences of certain provisions and linguistic inconsistencies in the bill.
Finally, the committee observed that certain provisions of Bill C-69 with significant legal ramifications were referred to other Senate committees. These parts of the bill might have benefited from study by our Legal Committee, whose specific mandate is to examine matters related to legal and constitutional issues — for example, Division 28, which deals with questions of the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act and was introduced in response to an October Supreme Court of Canada decision; and Division 33, which amends the Criminal Code to broaden the criminal interest rate offence.
Consistency in how divisions are referred for study might improve efficiency and the ability of a committee to properly analyze these amendments.
I want to thank members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for this opportunity to provide an overview of our report. I will be pleased to take your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
Hon. Leo Housakos: The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has the honour to table before your committee our tenth report. Our committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 27 and 37 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, May 9, 2024, examined the said subject matter and now reports as follows:
Division 27 of Part 4 provides that the subsidiary of VIA Rail Canada Inc. incorporated with the corporate name VIA HFR —VIA TGF Inc. is, as of the date of its incorporation, an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada and may enter into contracts, agreements and other arrangements with His Majesty as though it were not such an agent.
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to, among other things, require telecommunications service providers to provide their subscribers with a self-service mechanism that allows them to cancel their contract for telecommunications services or modify their telecommunications service plan and to inform those subscribers before the expiry of their fixed-term contract, as well as in other specified circumstances, of other service plans that those providers offer.
On May 22, 2024 the committee heard officials from Transport Canada. The committee also heard officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) on May 21, 2024 and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) on May 28, 2024.
Transport Canada representatives characterized the proposed High Frequency Rail (HFR) between Toronto and Quebec City as a nation building project. The VIA HRF would be the largest infrastructure project undertaken since the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway. They suggested that the changes proposed in Division 27 of Part 4 are key to providing certainty in the procurement and land acquisition processes for the HFR project.
The committee would have liked more cost-related details about the proposed HFR project, however, Transport Canada officials explained that they need to respect the ongoing competitive request for proposals (RFP) process and not give out numbers that could influence those proposals. Given the ongoing nature of the RFP process, specific details of the HFR route alignment were also unavailable.
To the committee’s disappointment, VIA Rail officials were unable to appear due to a scheduling conflict.
The committee recognizes the importance of the HFR project, but notes that many smaller communities near — but not part of — the HFR corridor, including Cornwall, Ontario, could also use improvements in VIA Rail’s passenger rail services.
ISED officials explained to the committee how the changes proposed in Division 37 of Part 4 would make it easier for consumers to cancel their telecommunications service plans and find a cheaper one.
Officials from the CRTC discussed its ongoing consumer and competition-focused initiatives, while also explaining to the committee that they already have the power to implement the provisions envisioned in this bill, though it does give them additional “policy cover” for that work.
The committee also heard from the consumer groups, OpenMedia and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, at the May 28, 2024 meeting. These groups suggested that while the proposed changes were beneficial to consumers, they would not address the broader challenge of the lack of competition in the Canadian telecommunications sector.
In general, these consumer groups also noted that the pace of the CRTC’s work has slowed down since 2017-2018.
The committee recognizes that the subject matter in Division 27 and Division 37 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 are very complex in nature. Having no clear connection to the government’s budgetary policy, the committee hopes that, in the future, such content would be introduced in separate legislation.
Having heard from witnesses on the subject matter of parts listed above, your committee supports the proposed changes.
Respectfully submitted,
LEO HOUSAKOS
Chair
Hon. Brian Francis: Good afternoon, everyone.
In my capacity as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, I am here to speak briefly on our study and report on Divisions 25 and 26 of Part 4 of Bill C-69.
On May 29, the committee examined Division 25 of Part 4, which proposes to authorize a newly created corporation incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation to issue and administer loan guarantees through an Indigenous loan guarantee program. It also authorizes the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Minister of Finance of amounts that are required in respect of those guarantees.
The committee applauds this program. It aims to solve a problem created by the Indian Act, which restricts First Nations from leveraging their land or other existing assets as collateral. As a result, it is currently extremely difficult for communities to secure financing at competitive rates to become equity partners in revenue-generation projects.
The total amount of the loan guarantees must not exceed $5 billion.
Under this program, eligible Indigenous governments will be able to secure affordable capital to invest in natural resources or energy projects taking place in their territories.
Given that the subsidiary corporation is still under design, the committee stressed that not only must this program be established quickly, but the program and the board of directors, management and administration must be Indigenous-led to reflect the diverse needs of the Indigenous governments it is meant to serve. The committee also observed that Indigenous governments will need to increase their legal, financial and other capacities. As a result, the initial $3.5 million of the $5 billion allocated for this purpose must increase to support them from the start to the end of a project.
On June 4, the committee examined Division 26 of Part 4 of Bill C-69. We observed that ending gender and race-based violence against Indigenous women, girls, two-spirited and gender-diverse people should be a top priority for the Government of Canada. A solution may be found in the establishment of a national Red Dress Alert system to notify the public in case an Indigenous woman, girl or gender-diverse person goes missing.
As an initial step, the committee welcomes the partnership reached between Canada and Manitoba, along with the proposed $1.3 million over three years, starting in 2024-25, to carry out consultations and an evaluation of a pilot project for the establishment of a regional Red Dress Alert system as contained in Division 26 of Part 4 of Bill C-69. However, the committee observed that this work is occurring at an extremely slow pace that does not reflect the urgency of the ongoing national crisis. The committee highlighted the Unama’ki Emergency Alert System in Nova Scotia, which has succeeded by being a First Nations-led initiative that allows for immediate action without bureaucratic delays; it is quick, accessible and easy to implement.
The committee agreed with the Chair of the National Family and Survivors Circle, who stated that systemic change is required to mend broken relationships and a coordinated approach is necessary to establish a national Red Dress Alert system, which must be accompanied by culturally appropriate and trauma-informed wraparound services for everyone, including in remote and isolated communities. This work must involve Indigenous leaders but keep survivors, families and victims at the centre. There must also be more training for law enforcement and education for the broader public.
The committee further observed that there is a dire need for inter-jurisdictional collaboration to put a national alert system in place as soon as possible.
Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Francis. We have a number of committee chairs who have notified us that they need to leave, either to give a speech or to chair a meeting. They are senators Omidvar, Cormier and Housakos.
[English]
As we start the first round, I would suggest asking those three witnesses if you have a question. After that, we will go with Senator Batters, Senator Dean, Senator Boehm and Senator Francis, if you are comfortable with this system.
I could start with Senator Cormier, because that’s an easy one — a technical amendment. It was clear, I think. Does anyone have a question for Senator Cormier? We also have the other witnesses.
[Translation]
Does anyone have any questions for Senator Cormier? Okay. Senator Cormier, you may go.
Senator Cormier: Thank you, colleagues.
The Chair: We’ll do a first round of questions for Senator Omidvar and Senator Housakos.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I have a question for Senator Omidvar. Was there any discussion of the cost of the school food program? We had some discussion at our committee on that issue.
Senator Omidvar: Senator Marshall, we were informed by officials that $1 billion has been allocated over four years. Of course, in a country as big as ours, it’s still not enough, but we were informed that this was the first bucket of money that would be used to negotiate with provinces and provide additional funding to provinces that have signed on. In time, you’re likely going to see another line item before you in a future BIA.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Housakos, about the VIA Rail and the VIA Rail High Frequency Rail — I understand the need for the amendment, but I was surprised that neither VIA Rail nor the subsidiary has its own legislation. Did that come up in discussions?
Senator Housakos: It did. The officials explained to us that they’re setting up this new Crown corporation in order to avoid any legal challenges in the future. My sense is that it is to protect the entity of VIA Rail. It’s very much aspirational at this point; it didn’t come with a lot of details.
I know the minister and the ministry are serious about getting this done. I also speak as a former member of the board of VIA Rail, who support High Frequency Rail and even high-speed rail in this country. There have been successive discussions about this, but every time we see the cost at the end of the exercise, we go running for the hills.
We also saw, Senator Marshall, that, in this instance, there’s absolutely no cost other than they want to get it done. I would have preferred if they had come forward in this omnibus bill with the process already done, saying, “This is what it will cost. We’ve done our work.” Unfortunately, that wasn’t the exercise.
Senator Marshall: That information was unavailable. Thank you. Those were my two questions.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here. My question is for Senator Omidvar. In your report, you comment on Division 23, concerning EI. As you rightly say, it’s a major problem that’s creating a lot of uncertainty surrounding temporary measures in the affected regions. You state that it would be worthwhile to make these measures permanent, rather than constantly renewing these temporary measures.
Did you question the witnesses about the fact that, for over three years now, we’ve been told that the government is in consultations, that it is getting ready to undertake a major reform of EI and that it has to take this reality into account, yet the government still does nothing but propose another temporary measure? Has your committee questioned the witnesses about that?
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I’m not sure if I remember whether we probed on this point, but we are urging the federal government to make these measures permanent — as opposed to renewing them as a temporary measure — as a first step in a comprehensive reform of the EI program.
The Government of Canada promised in 2015 to undertake this reform, and this reform will be the measure that provides a permanent solution. We did not hear any testimony as to the timelines of the EI reform, et cetera.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: There’s no timetable for a major reform of employment insurance?
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I suppose you should ask the minister that question. In this BIA, there is yet another extension of the temporary measure.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: My question is for our colleague Senator Omidvar. The Quebec government is always uncomfortable when there is talk of conditional programs. Its experience has been that when things aren’t going well, when times get tough, the federal government pulls out. Quebec is ahead of the curve when it comes to dental care, pharmacare or school food programs. Have there been any discussions about that? These are bilateral agreements, province by province, but the government could have taken a different approach or signed per capita agreements with a fixed amount. That way, if there are provinces that are further ahead than others, so much the better.
Were there any discussions about the model chosen by the federal government? It could have chosen a different model. Now it’s going to have to have piecemeal discussions, province by province.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: You’re absolutely right, senator. We heard that it was a piecemeal approach, and therefore this effort by the federal government to introduce a national food program would at least bring a certain standard of availability and access throughout the country, regardless of the school board, municipality or provincial government that is involved.
I believe this program will be beneficial to children going to school. Of course, negotiating with provinces is always a complex matter. Once the agreements have been signed and made available, we will be able to determine the variability of each agreement and whether the federal program actually provides a certain kind of coverage for all children, regardless of where they are located.
Senator Smith: Maybe Senator Omidvar and Senator Housakos could help me with this question. It’s a broad one. Upon reading the reports from each of the committees, I picked up a few central themes. Many of the provisions your committees were tasked with were consequential and should have been tabled as stand-alone legislation. The other issue is the lack of time afforded to the Senate committees to adequately scrutinize the government’s legislative agenda. Could you comment on the problems that I raised and just how concerning they are? That’s question one.
Question two is this: Do my colleagues here have any comments on the current legislative process, specifically related to the government’s use of omnibus bills and things we can do to properly scrutinize them? It’s something we should follow up on, but it would be great to have the group give their input. Perhaps Senator Omidvar and Senator Housakos, and anyone else who wants to chime in, could give us some feedback.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, senator, for that question. We met four times in our consideration of these divisions. Three of these meetings were devoted to hearing from public officials and stakeholders. We did a pretty thorough job — as best we could given the time. Then we had a meeting to discuss our observations.
One recommendation — or “observation,” as we call them here — that has appeared time and time again in the Senate and this committee is not only the issue of timing but the issue of embedding a policy innovation, if I may call them that, without any line item in a budget into a BIA.
Let me give you an example. We studied Division 22, which amends the Canada Labour Code to establish a policy on federal employees’ right to disconnect from work. That should not be in the BIA. The measures regarding removing countries of origin from the list of countries of origin for asylum seekers should be a stand-alone item. I believe the House of Commons is also on the same line. I’m not able to say whether that division will be removed entirely, but that is certainly our recommendation.
We had a division that strengthened the minister’s regulation-making authority under therapeutic products. Again, these don’t belong in a BIA. However, I’ve been around long enough — and you have certainly been around longer than me, Senator Smith — to simply accept this kind of legislation, which is really not in the interests of the country.
Senator Smith: Senator Housakos, could you give us some comments?
Senator Housakos: Senator Smith, we’ve both been here a very long time, and we keep saying “never again” and that we’re going to put an end to this, and here we are again. It’s getting progressively worse every year. One has to scratch their head at how a government, in the ninth year of its term, hasn’t figured out how to progressively and effectively set up a legislative agenda.
The only answer to that, colleagues, is that governments — and it doesn’t matter of what stripe — don’t like legislative review. The truth is that until we start exercising our authority to push back and let government know that we have responsibilities as legislators, they will continue to do this. Omnibus bills are driven by bureaucracy that doesn’t want to be questioned and scrutinized and by politicians who don’t have the time to bother with Parliament.
Specific to this particular review that we did — Division 27, Part 4 and Division 37, Part 4(a) — I speak on behalf of all my colleagues. Both of these required far more scrutiny than the few meetings we gave them. We also understood why VIA Rail couldn’t appear. The week we were dealing with these particular issues, VIA Rail had their annual board meeting. When a Crown corporation has their annual board meeting, they can’t dispense executives to come to Parliament. Of course, we had to stay within the confines of the constraints because we knew we had to report quickly and expeditiously here.
Something like High Frequency Rail, which is a multi-billion-dollar expenditure, is not something that should be flying under the radar, basically talking about the general idea, the general theme, what we generally want to get done — that we can’t really say how much it will cost or what the procurement process will be, but to have faith in us.
And of course, Division 37, Part 4 is the review of the Telecommunications Act. This one was a little less contentious. Most of us on the committee feel it’s a good little step forward. Of course, we can get into a debate here for days and weeks about the fact that Canada has the highest telecommunications, web and cellphone bills in the world. That also requires some parliamentary scrutiny rather than just a peripheral perusing of this type of legislation.
Senator Ross: Senator Omidvar, can you give me a sense of what you think the Finance Committee should do or what action we should take based on your report?
Senator Omidvar: It’s important to underline the common messages you may have heard from all the committee chairs around timing and inclusion of policy measures with no budget line item attached to them embedded in the BIA. Those are important top-level recommendations to make.
It was extremely hard for our committee to do the work in such a short time, but I don’t want to be overly negative, chair. I also want to tell you about divisions that were wholeheartedly welcomed by our committee. The one that I particularly align myself with is automatic registration for the Registered Education Savings Plan in Canada, which will enable all children to benefit from the investments of the government. This is one of those measures that is rightfully in a BIA. In a way, it will lift young people out of poverty.
There are some good measures. I want to state that, chair. There are a number of others. We particularly liked the expansion of eligibility for student loan forgiveness for those in certain care occupations, like early childhood educators, dentists and dental hygienists. All of this is good. However, when the government then tends to embellish with many other measures that are rightfully legislative matters, which should stand on their own feet and be studied separately in legislation, it casts a negative view on a BIA — when in fact there are many good things in this BIA, senator.
Senator Ross: Thank you. I ask the same question to Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: In our case, the committee supports both of these initiatives. They’re good initiatives. What the committee has undertaken to do in the future is follow these a bit more carefully and closely, do a bit of a follow-up in a few months to see where they are with the HFR process, bring in officials from Transport Canada and do some of these spot checks, which is difficult because we always get caught up in various things.
With respect to your committee, this is such a big task. I wouldn’t know where you could begin to be diligent on something like this.
Senator Moncion: Senator Omidvar, this program in schools — I guess we can call it “the breakfast program” or “the food program” — looks very much like the daycare program put in place by the government through a BIA a few years ago. The agreements they’re putting together with provinces are similar in nature to what was done for daycare. Did your committee discuss that at all?
Senator Omidvar: There was some reference to the process that unfolded for Bill C-35 — I believe that’s the number of the bill — and there may be an expectation on the part of our committee that legislation will be tabled after the negotiations are completed and we get a full package. However, we did not really have time to go deep into that matter.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: Senator Omidvar, in your report, the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee recommended that Part 4, Division 38 be removed from the bill. The Finance Committee of the House of Commons has removed it. I understand that your committee are happy that they were listened to.
Senator Omidvar: Of course we are happy. I’m not sure they were listening to us, Senator Dalphond. They were likely doing their own due diligence and hearing from a variety of stakeholders, including the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, who painted for us in great detail a picture of the impact of an amendment that sounds benign — about speeding up the process. However, it’s not possible in the refugee system to be both fast and fair. That’s the contradiction at the heart of this amendment.
I’m glad that someone listened.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our colleagues for being here.
My first question is for Senator Housakos. I want to thank you and your committee for the work you did on Divisions 27 and 37 of Part 4 of the BIA. My question is on the Telecommunications Act and Division 37, which will:
. . . require telecommunications service providers to provide their subscribers with a self-service mechanism that allows them to cancel their contract for telecommunications services or modify their telecommunications service plan and to inform those subscribers before the expiry of their fixed-term contract, as well as in other specified circumstances, of other service plans that those providers offer. . . .
From a customer’s perspective, this is a great measure. I noted that your committee supports the proposed changes.
Could you expand on your committee’s observation related to the position of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, that it already has the power to implement the provisions envisioned in Bill C-69? Your report refers to giving the CRTC additional policy cover for its ongoing work related to “. . . consumer and competition-focused initiatives . . .” Could you elaborate on what that reference means?
I also read in your report that your committee heard from consumer groups, like OpenMedia and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, at the May 28, 2024, meeting. These groups suggested that while the proposed changes were beneficial to consumers, they would not address the broader challenge of the lack of competition in the Canadian telecommunications sector. In general, these groups also noted that the pace of the CRTC’s work has slowed down since 2017-18. I want to understand that a bit better.
Senator Housakos: Essentially, a number of our colleagues highlighted that the CRTC already had the power to put into place regulation of this nature, without this change in law, and asked why they hadn’t done it. A lot of the witnesses who came before us said that this is a good step forward but doesn’t go far enough, as there’s still a lack of competition in the marketplace and a lack of service in rural parts of Canada, which — for a variety of reasons — are not getting the same type of service as urban and suburban centres.
We pressed the CRTC on why, since they have the authority, they haven’t done it. We also asked if we could trust them to ensure the regulations adapt in order to meet the objective of this legislation.
I want to be careful here. Typical of the CRTC, they were very noncommittal. They talked about what a wonderful job they were doing. When they were pressed on why we needed the legislation if they’re doing such a wonderful job and actually achieving this and have the power to achieve it, their response to us was — and that’s why we reported — that this provides them policy cover. For those of us who have been in government and Parliament long enough, we know that policy cover protects their ass. That’s what it means, essentially — excuse my language — and that’s essentially what this legislation does.
We did press the CRTC. All our colleagues felt a lot of frustration with the CRTC. Mid-range officials came before our committee to address this. Collectively, we pressed them hard — as we always do — on the CRTC’s lack of results when it comes to creating more competition and entrants in terms of the cellphone and connectivity business in this country. We are currently discussing among ourselves what our next steps will be as a committee to hold the CRTC to account on some of these issues.
But consumers thought this was a good first step. We pressed the CRTC as much as we could, and they’ve been overloaded with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. To answer your question, part of the reason why the CRTC is overloaded is that every piece of legislation that deals with the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act has been tossed to them.
Senator Loffreda: I want to thank you for the work you’ve done. If I try to list the divisions you’ve worked on, I think I’ll be over time before I finish.
I had a question on Division 38, but it’s a little lengthy.
Regarding the fact that it’s an omnibus bill — and we hear it all the time — don’t you feel there’s an urgency to some of the matters and it’s maybe justifiable to include them in the BIA? Certain bills have always been included in the BIA because of the urgency of certain matters. Could you quickly comment on that?
Senator Omidvar: Yes and no. There are certain matters that are urgent and therefore should fit themselves more easily into the BIA — in particular Division 38, which would radically change the processes available to asylum seekers by doing away with the countries of origin regime and expediting the process. That’s what the government was responding to — the lengthy delays in the process. However, introducing these amendments would have also introduced a significant degree of injustice and unfairness.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you both for all your work.
Senator Kingston: Senator Housakos, I would like to go back to the telecommunications service plan. In your report, you said that:
In general, these consumer groups also noted that the pace of the CRTC’s work has slowed down since 2017-2018.
You did say that a lot has been lobbed to them, but that’s still kind of a long time. If you have any more comments, I’d appreciate them.
Senator Housakos: We don’t know why it goes back as far as 2017-18. In the last couple of years, the intense demands from Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 has ramped up their work to the point where they’ve postponed Bill C-11 hearings. We couldn’t put our finger on why they were delayed going back to 2017, but it has been a recurring theme. Even in the past, when we have dealt with legislation or stakeholders, there were constant complaints that they are slow and arduous in their response time and it’s difficult for medium- and small-sized entities in Canada to be heard effectively by them.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
I also have a question for Senator Omidvar. I’m wondering about the enforcement part you speak of. It’s the last sentence about how “. . . witnesses emphasized that enforcement will be essential to ensure compliance.” Could talk more about that? Because you have the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, potentially losing billions of dollars — which is a lot — that employers are evading providing. There seem to be issues for both the people working and the people employing them. Could you comment further on that, please?
Senator Omidvar: Yes. The bill or the amendment puts in a clause about presumption of employee status. In other words, the employer or employee would have to demonstrate that they are contract and/or gig workers — however you define that.
However, to determine and ensure that they are classified as workers, you need investigation and compliance. That was and is missing from the amendment. The point has been made, we hope, that the government, alongside this presumption of employee status, should also create a measure or capacity to help the CRA enforce it.
Also, public awareness must be provided. We talked a fair bit about public awareness. Some employees may not know that they are, in fact, employees and therefore forego significant benefits, such as vacation and sick pay. Some employers may not know that individuals are actually not contract workers, as per the law, but employees.
There must be education, awareness and compliance. Only then will this amendment meet its objective of ensuring that workers are treated fairly under the law.
Senator Kingston: Thank you, senator.
Senator MacAdam: My question is on student loan forgiveness. Your committee heard that previous student loan forgiveness programs faced low levels of awareness among those in eligible professions. Who presented this information to the committee with regard to the low level of awareness? I was surprised to hear that.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. We heard from Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, officials on this matter.
Senator MacAdam: Was there any discussion on potential ways to increase awareness?
Senator Omidvar: Yes. There were a number of questions from committee members to ESDC. If you have a benefit but no one knows about it, what good is that benefit? Again, there is education, public relations, community engagement and possibly also engagement of professional associations that these workers will eventually be allied with.
Senator MacAdam: I was surprised about that. We heard in committee that there were reports of a positive impact from this.
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Senator MacAdam: Interesting.
Senator Omidvar: There are reports of positive impacts, but one of our committee members in the health care sector pointed out that many individuals do not even know that they are eligible for loan forgiveness.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any questions for Senator Housakos? Senator Housakos, Senator Omidvar, you may leave, if you like. Thank you to the other chairs for their patience. We will now begin the second round of questions.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Senator Boehm, there was an issue in your report that referred to regional and multilateral development banks. What would those be? Can you give me an example?
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Senator Marshall.
First, it is great to be back at this committee. I miss it a bit.
Did you ask what regional development banks are?
Senator Marshall: Yes. Give me examples.
Senator Boehm: Examples include the Asian Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank, the African Development Bank Group and the Inter-American Development Bank. They all fall under the World Bank Group rubric.
Senator Marshall: I understand the comment now.
We don’t have anyone here from the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, but I have a question for Senator Batters on the report from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The third paragraph on page 3 of your report starts with, “The committee also invites the government to clearly indicate what consultations have been conducted . . .”
Then it continues, “. . . in compliance with Parliament’s expectation of consultation with Indigenous Peoples . . .”
Can you explain that for me? I found that a little confusing.
Senator Batters: Perhaps Senator Pate might remember a little bit, as she is an active member of the Legal Committee, but my recollection is that was something that came up more in discussion about drafting the report and as more of an overall observation. It was not so much something that came up in testimony on our parts.
Senator Marshall: Is it not specific to one division of Part 4? Was it sort of an umbrella comment?
Senator Batters: That is my recollection, and Senator Pate is nodding.
Senator Marshall: Those are my questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My question is for Senator Batters, about Division 35. The committee rightly notes that several senators are concerned by the fact that the young people who are often asked to steal vehicles are probably the most socially fragile and vulnerable. They would therefore be the most likely to be arrested and the hardest hit by these changes.
I think this is a very relevant observation. Your committee didn’t intend to make any specific comment on it?
[English]
Senator Batters: We did make specific comments on it. Actually, there is a part in the report about that very part of it. There are a few paragraphs, I believe.
Senator Forest: Where?
Senator Batters: It is in Division 35 of Part 4, I believe.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: It’s clearly stated in your report.
[English]
Senator Forest: Sorry. Is it clear in your report?
Senator Batters: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: However, in the report summary, there are no such observations following this finding?
[English]
Senator Batters: Sorry, the translation came out as, “There are no observations concerning that.”
I believe we committed a couple of important and lengthy paragraphs to speaking about that in that section. Also, there is a reference in the controlled drugs and substances part as well.
However, as we said throughout this report — and, frankly, almost everyone who provided testimony here today talked about some of these provisions — it is very unfortunate that they are in a budget implementation act because there is not the necessary time to study it in greater depth. There is also no ability to provide amendments, even if they are necessary.
I will point out that there is a specific part that was raised in our report where a witness drew to our attention that the language differs in the English and French versions of the part dealing with having a youth involved in auto theft.
Senator Forest: Yes.
Senator Batters: The English version uses the phrase “involved,” and they said the French version does not have the same meaning. The French version uses “amené.” You will certainly know the difference between the two very well.
That is one of the reasons why it is necessary to have a stand-alone piece of legislation where we can look at these matters with more depth and also potentially amend those that need it, as this appeared to.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: My question is for Senator Boehm. It’s a somewhat technical question about the Canada Account, which is used for operations that exceed EDC’s financial capacity or risk management. I remember in 2008, when I was here in Ottawa at the Department of Finance, it was also being used then.
I’m trying to understand why the government is lowering the total liabilities and obligations from $115 billion to $100 billion. Why not maintain the same amount? There may be another crisis. How was this amount of $100 billion determined? Why not $75 billion?
[English]
Senator Boehm: Thank you, senator. That was one of the very interesting discussions in what was, frankly, a fairly boring meeting of the committee. Why was the EDC amount adjusted downward? The simple answer is that it was raised to include Canada Emergency Business Account, or CEBA, payments during the pandemic — so support for businesses. That was no longer required because that was drawn down.
In addition, the full amount was never really used. They have never gone beyond about $80 billion in the Canada Account for EDC. It made sense to lower this amount. When everything else was going up, this was lowered. That is the simple answer to your question.
Senator Gignac: Rather than just leave the number there, they felt the necessity to redo the number.
Senator Boehm: To redo it and lower it, yes. It depends on the amount of support the EDC is providing Canadian businesses, and during the pandemic it was for business out and business in as well; they are now making an adjustment.
But even with all the support that was given over the past few years, they never went much beyond $80 billion. So setting it at about $100 billion seemed to make sense.
[Translation]
The Chair: That may affect the rating agencies.
[English]
Senator Smith: I have a question for Senator Batters — and Senators Boehm, Dean and Francis, if they would like to pitch in. Senator Batters, your committee has once again highlighted that putting Criminal Code amendments in the BIA is inappropriate and requires more in-depth study. I asked the Minister of Finance last week about the question I asked her last year with Bill C-47 — this year, it is with Bill C-69 — about the inclusion of non-financial items in the BIA. Her response was simply that proposals in the BIA were included in the government budget document.
Our committee has been charged with trying to put something together that would — I am not saying, “Send a message to government.” I’m not sure if it is a realistic expectation, but how do we manœuvre or position ourselves to draw to the attention of the government specific issues that need to be put into separate bills? It is going to come down to how you do it. Is it realistic to try to accomplish it? Do you accept that all governments do this? How can this be handled moving forward — or is it a question that we are never going to be able to answer?
Senator Batters: We can answer it. It should be a message that is sent to government. As you have heard today, almost all of us who gave presentations mentioned those two elements that you spoke of in the first round of questions, the parts being not properly included in a budget implementation act because they are not really related to financial matters. Also, there is not enough time to study them and they should be stand-alone bills.
I gave Senator Forest an example of something that should be amended because it is an incorrect way to refer to something in the English and French versions, but we are not in a position to do that.
Our committee brought that up to reiterate — and let’s remember that a few years ago, we had a budget implementation act where the part sent to the Legal Committee dealt with deferred prosecution agreements, which later became a very significant element of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
This government should stop doing this. It is not a proper way to do a budget implementation bill, to have these major Criminal Code changes where we cannot study them.
Another part that went to Engergy Committee — though I referred to it in my report as something that should have been studied, at least in part, at the Legal Committee — was the former Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act. To my recollection, no ministers testified about it at the Energy Committee. That was a major constitutional rewrite as a result of a Supreme Court of Canada decision.
Your committee could send a strong message by saying that many of the chairs and deputy chairs who testified at this committee indicated the same things about these two very important elements, and that you recognize that this should not continue to happen, especially with respect to those matters.
Obviously, if something is related to a budget, that is fair game. But to have these very complex things, like a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision on constitutionality, go to Energy Committee with not one minister testifying is not appropriate.
Senator Boehm: In my case, all of these divisions fit very nicely into the BIA. They make sense. That is where they should be.
If I can put on a previous hat that I wore, I think over time — and especially with minority governments — there has been a tendency to put more into the BIA, not just from this government but previous governments as well.
It is because focal length for policy planning is much shorter than it would normally be in a majority situation. That said, there is more and more coming into a BIA that should be stand-alone legislation.
Senator Dean: First, I would echo Senator Boehm’s comment that this has a long arc. It is growing, though it was not a construction of this particular government.
This is something that happens at the provincial level as well. It is not uncommon. There are reasons for that. However, the only way to deal with it is to push back and send strong messages. I’m observing that we are increasingly doing that at all of our committees.
Senator Pate: Senator Francis, I hope you can elaborate on the statement in the committee’s report that “. . . socio-economic marginalization contribute to gender and race-based violence against Indigenous women and girls. . . .” and how redressing this socio-economic marginalization, including through ensuring financial stability, could help to achieve the government’s stated priorities of ending violence against Indigenous women and girls.
Senator Francis: We all know the rate of violence against our Indigenous women and girls is at a crisis stage. It is important going forward, and it should have been done before, that options are Indigenous-led and not government-led.
Immediacy is key to any of the work that we are doing going forward with Indigenous people. Many times, items are very slow to move forward. It is people’s lives at the other end of it. Engaging Indigenous people at the forefront, not only from the leadership level but the community level, is critical.
Senator Pate: Was there any discussion about the fact that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls made a recommendation for a guaranteed livable income as one of the ways to help stabilize socio-economic conditions for them?
Senator Francis: To be honest, I do not recall that, but I can look again at the transcripts and see. It is not coming to me now whether that was mentioned.
Senator Pate: Thank you. Was there any indication about whether some of these issues from the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry were going to be prioritized in upcoming budgets?
Senator Francis: From government officials?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Senator Francis: Well, the Red Dress Alert is one.
Senator Pate: Other than that?
Senator Francis: Other than that, I would have to look at the transcript. I cannot remember.
Senator Pate: Thank you. Senator Batters, do you recall whether government witnesses at the Legal Committee meeting provided any indication as to how they had considered the risk in terms of the potential concerns about the inadequacy of the disability benefit and the potential onslaught of legal claims because of that inadequacy?
Senator Batters: I’m sorry. I don’t recall. I would have to look at that.
Of course, it was a large group of government officials on those parts, and then, because of lack of time — that is an important change that was made — we were only able to have one additional panel where I believe one of the witnesses was dealing with that issue.
It was a large number of government officials on many different parts, not just that one.
Senator Pate: Thank you. The government also issued a Charter Statement that contained paragraphs analyzing the criminal law provisions but did not consider the impact on Black and Indigenous peoples via section 15 of the Charter.
Do you recall any additional evidence regarding the concerns about this being raised at Legal Committee — in particular, concerns in terms of the sentencing measures you’ve mentioned, and how they could have potential disproportionate impact, especially on young, Black and Indigenous people?
Senator Batters: I do not remember evidence about that. It was a matter of discussion. Our committee members were also discussing how government needs to have a robust GBA Plus document that can also address those important matters.
I recall you, Senator Pate, drawing to our attention that parts of the GBA Plus document did not address certain parts of this bill that was referred to our committee. It is important to ensure those types of issues are strongly considered by government when they are bringing those kinds of measures.
Senator Pate: Thank you. This question is for Senator Dean: Regarding the discussion on migrant detention in federal prisons, could you please comment on the gap, again in the Charter assessment, on this provision in light of the fact that non-governmental witnesses drew attention to a range of concerns related to compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international law?
Senator Dean: Would you like me to expand on that?
Senator Pate: Yes, please.
Senator Dean: I am not a lawyer. I am certainly not an immigration lawyer.
The committee, though, took it on face value that these were substantial concerns and acted on that accordingly. Their views on that were not contradicted by anybody in the room. The concerns were considered valid.
I will add, however, that this is a tough area of public policy, as you know. The problem presented was that there were a population of high-risk detainees already in correctional facilities who were being ousted from those facilities by three provincial governments in particular. Some of these detainees were — the claim was made — very dangerous offenders who needed to be housed safely somewhere and kept away from the larger general population of detainees. I did hear CBSA officials say it was their intention to build purpose-built facilities in the CBSA world for that.
Having worked in the world of public policy, there are some situations in which there are not always bright lines. The CBSA is confronted with the challenge of ensuring the safety of its population and clients.
That is where the constitutional issues bump up against human behaviour and safety issues. Those cannot be discounted. We would say that, in part, the minister’s response to the concerns that were raised partially addressed some of the issues, particularly in how determinations are made about who goes where.
So, no, there is absolutely no doubt these were considered to be fundamental rights issues.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: My first question is for Senator Boehm, and it is about Division 8 of Part 4, which deals with international financial assistance. It states that exchange losses related to any transaction under a program covered by sections 3 to 5 are charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Have you talked to officials about the amounts involved, and more specifically about what those amounts might total?
[English]
Senator Boehm: I’m not sure I understood your question.
Do you want to know about the people who are impacted?
Senator Moncion: No, the amounts that are involved. Did you speak about that when you were asking questions of the officials?
Senator Boehm: We did. In the case of the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, there was a quota amount, which was established at the end of last year. Canada has to up its amount. That was a decision taken by the IMF. It is part of our agreements.
On the other part — I think this is what you were getting at, Senator Moncion — is with respect to raising the amounts we could give to a particular country. Here, it was evident that, since 2022, we’ve given $8 billion through the IMF facility to Ukraine to help with Ukraine’s social safety net and its balance of payments issues.
The request was for a greater amount — country unspecified — and that there would be a higher ceiling to allow for these payments. The questions our colleagues had for the witnesses were very much related to that.
This also reflects a broader, multilateral agreement taken by the G7 countries in terms of the support they are offering Ukraine. It is fairly proportionate in terms of economy size.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Dean, in your report there is a withdrawal. If I am correct, you mention that section 39 should be withdrawn. Can you explain why it should be withdrawn from the BIA?
Senator Dean: It is on two grounds: First, there was no direct line to funding in the BIA. Second, as I have mentioned, this is a difficult area of public policy. It isn’t a decision that should be rushed. There are also exigent circumstances given decisions of the provinces. There is a constellation of issues where this did not feel or seem right for fellow committee members.
At the same time, subsequent information provided by the minister added some fabric to it which I thought was important. I do not know how my colleagues feel. I am speaking alone on this. It gave me a better understanding and the committee’s concerns were partially addressed.
That does not excuse the fact that this was, I am going to use the term “buried,” in a budget bill. That is a concern.
Senator Moncion: Always.
Senator Dean: It wasn’t elevated to the level of public discussion in the way that significant policy changes normally are and should be.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Senator Dean, thank you for being here today and for your committee’s work on Division 39, Part 4, which deals with the immigration stations.
While Senator Moncion asked the question about expanding further on why you feel it should be removed, but how satisfied are you with Minister LeBlanc’s letter to your committee? Can you expand further on the question? Do you think your committee would welcome the two amendments that were adopted in the other place to clarify the definition of “high-risk detainees,” and the removal of the ability to extend the immigration holding centres’ provision via an order-in-council?
Senator Dean: The committee would be partially but maybe not wholly satisfied.
I think there are three things. First, suspending the decision and waiting for an order-in-council is a good thing, obviously. I say this personally with regard to quantum: It wasn’t fully clear to me following the briefing by officials how the numbers worked. We heard that the subpopulation we’re talking about is 27 people who are considered a risk and a danger to others, which is why they were in provincial facilities in the first place and required a level of security for the safety of others in that population that was not available in CBSA holding facilities.
We now know that a pause has been put on this. We know that it’s a relatively small number of people, and I now understand much better — as I mentioned — the fabric of the whole situation. There is a richer story than we sometimes hear in the time available.
Fundamental concerns were raised. Some of them have been addressed. I cannot say that my committee member colleagues would be fully satisfied with the outcome. Some of the concerns raised were tangibly recognized and actions are being taken to address them, but there would not be 100% comfort.
Senator Loffreda: Is it a step in the right direction?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Senator Loffreda: Senator Batters, thank you for being here and for your committee work. My question is on Division 35, Part 4, which deals with motor vehicle theft. As you know, I am the sponsor of the bill. I appreciate your committee’s work on this division and welcome your observations.
I had a few questions. First, was your committee satisfied with the government’s justification for introducing these new changes to the Criminal Code? I know you can’t speak on behalf of all the senators on the committee, but do you feel these changes — considering the urgency of the situation — are necessary at this time? I don’t think we have time to get into whether it targets the most vulnerable, if you received testimony by government officials to that effect or what evidence you have against the benefits of harsher penalties, but maybe you can answer my first question or address testimony you have heard.
Senator Batters: Right. First of all, yes, we specifically noted in our report that those amendments dealing with motor vehicle theft, as well as the part dealing with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, had no clear connection to government budgetary policy and that we hoped that this type of content would be introduced in separate legislation in the future. Then we specifically talked about the need for stand-alone legislation because — as I mentioned earlier in a few points — there is a potential need for an amendment because of the linguistic discrepancy in the legislation. Of course, this is an important issue that needs to be taken seriously, and that’s what the minister said — that it needs to be dealt with quickly.
However, I noticed that when we had the bail reform act, for example, that was a matter that went through the House of Commons and Senate quite quickly. In fact, I believe we didn’t deal with it at a specific Legal Committee meeting because of that, which is not generally good practice. When matters dictate that we handle them quickly, we can. Certainly, government bills always take priority at the Senate Legal Committee. Even though there’s a long lineup of bills waiting to be studied there, when the government deems a bill is urgent, they can proceed with it quickly in the House of Commons.
It would have support to deal with those kinds of matters, and quite quickly, in the Senate. We saw that with the bail reform bill, which took a small step that was needed at the time. We would have liked to have seen something further. But on this, there was significant concern about having such a major Criminal Code amendment dealt with in a budget implementation act.
Senator MacAdam: Your committee report is the lengthiest of all the committee reports we received. Excluding issues of omnibus legislation and lack of time to address the legislative provisions, what do you consider most concerning in your committee report?
Senator Batters: That’s a good question. It’s tough to limit it to a few, but I think those elements are perhaps the most concerning. We are the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We analyze these types of Criminal Code amendments, and we held as many meetings as possible within our time frame. In fact, that’s also why, even though our report is — as you note — the lengthiest, we had to keep it as short as possible because yesterday was our deadline. We had to file it with the clerk. We also had to ensure we had enough time for translation.
Because we were sandwiched into such a tough time frame, we felt — as we noted bluntly — we were not able to do the kind of comprehensive work that we would have wanted to on this type of legislation. Had this been stand-alone legislation, we undoubtedly would have had some amendments that would have been part of it, including the one I’ve referenced a few times. It’s unfortunate when you see a problem that exists with a piece of legislation at this stage, before it has even passed Parliament, because you know that it will become the subject of lawsuits that will later be brought up. Criminal defence lawyers are always looking for ways to challenge different laws, and here they have a built-in one.
Senator Kingston: My question is for the Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples, and I don’t think I can ask that one, so I’ll pass.
Senator Ross: My question is for Senator Dean. With regard to the minister’s letter that rebutted, corrected and contradicted witness testimony on Division 39, you’ve mentioned that there were concerns about the policies, the non-budgetary nature of this section and that the bill itself warranted further study.
Did this letter cause a higher level of discomfort with this division, given that it highlighted such a disconnect between the witness testimony and the minister’s opinion?
Senator Dean: No. I’ve learned from long experience that when put to the test, the government can do better. I think the minister did do better.
I will say that I personally misunderstood some of the witness testimony. I didn’t fully understand the nature of the population and the subpopulation. I didn’t fully understand, although it was certainly a question for me, the reasons why this small subpopulation is currently held in provincial correctional facilities.
The committee was successful in causing the departments and the government to more fully articulate the reasons for, rationale behind and particular aspects of the proposal in a way that made more sense. But this isn’t unusual. Sometimes you have to ask the right questions to get the right answers. For the benefit of my public service colleagues, we ask a lot of them.
These are tough, busy and often dangerous jobs. This is one thing that was asked of those officials, likely on a busy day or week, and they don’t score 100% all the time. Our committee members asked the right questions, probed and got better answers. The minister put his own imprimatur on it, and that made a difference.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
I would ask this of all three of you: How do you feel about the timeline for studying a bill? Again, I’m a new senator. We were pre-studying, all of us, a bill that was then amended before we actually received it. How do you feel about that timeline?
Senator Batters: Yes. Doing a pre-study hopefully gives us a bit more time. At the same time, even with that, it was still extremely compressed for us at the Legal Committee. We held as many meetings as we could. As I read out, we had a lot of parts that we were supposed to study — very important, consequential things. We tried to devote as much time as we could, yet we still felt we didn’t have enough time to properly delve into some of those parts.
Often when we had an important issue, such as the disability benefit, we were only able to have one witness. We had witnesses on auto theft, police organizations, where their other commitments didn’t allow them to attend on the only day we could have them because of our compressed schedule. That caused us trouble.
Pre-studies can be good, especially for these kinds of things. At the same time, with some of the parts that the House of Commons had taken out — well, some of these committees obviously spent a lot of time studying those parts and may not have had to otherwise.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’m also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I’ll give you two examples of situations where time is of the essence. When it comes to car theft, we are starting to realize that manufacturers may not be blameless. However, there’s not enough time to explore this further. We have also learned that car theft in Canada is higher than in the rest of the world and the United States. Why is that? Are the solutions being proposed really appropriate? Are there others? Lack of time means we are missing some context because we can’t dig as deeply into the issue.
[English]
Senator Pate: I want to come back to you, Senator Dean. The letter from the minister that you mentioned talks about witnesses who appeared but doesn’t mention that one of the key witnesses was the former Minister of Justice, who opined on some of these issues as well.
He talked about the fact that people who are labelled as high risk are the people they’re focusing on and putting in federal detention. However, he hasn’t addressed the fact that the Minister of Immigration currently often assesses people at high risk based on mental health issues, nor that these are often individuals who have been released from federal prison on conditional release. They’re often near the end of their sentences. To be released, they’re actually not considered to be high risk, although their charges may have been serious at the outset. He doesn’t address any of those factors in terms of identifying how they assess risk.
Would you agree that significant questions still remain about the proposal, especially given they’re talking about labelling people as high risk in a context where that definition was called into question — not just by the former Minister of Justice but by many other witnesses who came before us — because the risk assessment appears to be based predominantly on mental health and flight risk rather than on risk to public safety?
Senator Dean: Some of the offences and behaviours mentioned by officials are ones most people would consider threatening and dangerous. I’m not going to repeat those, but there were references to behaviours that, arguably, one would be concerned about.
I’d also add in this context — and it goes back to some earlier questions — that the federal government was reacting to a pretty sudden decision by provincial governments without a great deal of notice.
Again, all those things have to be considered together, but certainly nobody disputes — I don’t dispute — the testimony provided by the former Minister of Justice, which was very compelling and clearly put, as we would all expect.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Senator Boehm, thank you once again for the work of your committee. I’m glad to hear that you miss this committee.
Senator Boehm: Sometimes.
Senator Loffreda: You said “a bit” and “sometimes,” anyway.
I’m also glad to hear that the subject matter studied by your committee fits well into the BIA.
I read your point 3. For brevity’s sake, I won’t read it now, but it states that your committee understands that Division 7 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase payments that the Minister of Finance may provide to the IMF in respect of Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, from a little over $11 billion to a little over $16.5 billion.
Mr. Mason did tell your committee that this amendment is being proposed following the IMF’s 16th General Review of Quotas in December 2023 and that it allows Canada to maintain its existing quota share of 2.3% at the IMF.
I’m curious about the ask by the IMF. Is there a specific need at this time?
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Senator Loffreda. Yes, there is a specific need because we’re in this polycrisis environment, to use a term. All members of the IMF agreed to a 50% increase in their SDRs, and Canada maintained its share. That’s the differential we’re looking at.
It’s all about lending and balance of payment support for emerging and developing economies. A lot of that has been steered toward Ukraine for the past few years, but there are other countries that are also experiencing crisis.
I think it was also to some degree — although our witnesses didn’t say as much — a knock-on effect from the pandemic, where a number of countries that were on the verge of becoming more emerging economies and not necessarily receiving official development assistance could count on greater support. It’s almost like increasing your insurance policy.
Senator Loffreda: I understand that there is a need across the world and poverty is increasing and so on. But that’s a substantial ask, especially in times such as these where we all want to be fiscally responsible.
All other countries have agreed to it. Was there any challenge to the IMF on that? I guess your committee wasn’t in charge of that, but whatever information you have — with your global and international experience — would be welcome.
Senator Boehm: To my knowledge, senator, there was uniform agreement in December, when these meetings took place in Washington. For Canada to keep its quota of SDRs as a founding charter member of the IMF, I think the government felt that it was obligated to agree.
Senator Loffreda: So it was necessary. I’m glad to hear that. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: This concludes our session for today. Thank you for participating. Thank you to our chairs for reporting to us. It’s not always easy. You have a good memory. I’ve been to a few meetings, and answering all these questions from memory, as you have, is excellent.
As for the rest of us, we’ll resume tomorrow at 6 p.m. We’ll have three one-hour meetings to cover the three orders of reference we’ve been given. It’s going to be a good evening. Thanks to our helpers, staff and translation. See you tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)