THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 12, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:02 p.m. [ET] to examine Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025 and to examine Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023; and, in camera, to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (consideration of a draft report).
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: 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.
If 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.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
My name is Claude Carignan, a senator from Quebec and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I wish to welcome all of the senators, as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves starting on my left, please.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf division, in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier division, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Senator Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory — the only senator west of Ontario sitting at the table — Alberta.
Senator Loffreda: Welcome. I’m Senator Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Kingston: Welcome. Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Welcome. Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith. Hudson, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today, we begin our study on Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.
We have the pleasure of welcoming, virtually, Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer. Mr. Giroux is accompanied by Kaitlyn Vanderwees, Analyst. Welcome and, as usual, thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. Mr. Giroux, you have the floor for five to seven minutes, and, afterwards, we’ll see whether the senators have any questions. We have allotted 75 minutes for our meeting.
Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: Thank you and good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you. I would have liked to be there in person, as I usually am, but I must appear virtually because of a long-standing commitment.
We have been invited to discuss our report on Supplementary Estimates (A) for 2024-25, which was published on May 30, 2024. With me is Kaitlyn Vanderwees, the senior analyst for the report.
The 2024-25 Supplementary Estimates (A) contain a total of $12.7 billion in incremental budgetary spending, and Parliament’s approval is required for $11.2 billion of that. The remaining $1.5 billion represents an increase in forecast statutory spending that the government has already received parliamentary approval for under other legislation.
The planned increase is mainly due to two factors. The first is a $1.9-billion increase in public debt charges, primarily as a result of higher projected interest rates and greater borrowing requirements. The second is a $533-million reduction in elderly benefits, reflecting the revised number of projected recipients.
I will now continue in English.
[English]
Nearly two thirds of the proposed spending in these supplementary estimates — $7.8 billion — falls under the Indigenous portfolio, primarily for settlements and Indigenous claims. Planned spending on professional and special services accounts for $704 million in proposed spending, bringing the total proposed authorities for 2024-25 for these services to $19.8 billion.
Roughly $1.6 billion of proposed spending is for 11 Budget 2024 measures. Most notably, this includes $605 million for the Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles program. To support parliamentarians in their scrutiny of Budget 2024 implementation, we have prepared and published tracking tables that list all budget initiatives with planned spending in fiscal year 2024-25, the planned spending amounts and the corresponding legislative funding authority. These tables are available on our website and will be updated over the course of the year as the government brings forward its legislative agenda.
Ms. Vanderwees and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding our estimates analysis or Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, work.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Giroux.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Ms. Vanderwees, for being here and Mr. Giroux for appearing, though we usually see you in person.
I’m picking up on some of the information that you provided, not just in your Supplementary Estimates (A) report, but also in the Budget 2024: Issues for Parliamentarians. With regard to all those initiatives that the government has in place for cutting expenditures, I’d like your opinion as to whether they’re looking to save money or whether they’re just going to shift the money to spend somewhere else because they use the term “refocus.”
The reason why I’m asking is — I was looking at the operating expenses that they’re projecting into the future in the budget document. They say last year they spent $130 billion, this year is going to be reduced to $123 billion and then there is no growth. It’s practically flatlined for several years. I wanted to know how practical or how plausible those numbers are in light of the fact that they’ve made these commitments that they’re either going to save money or do something with reduced funding and refocus the money that they’ve saved.
Could you just comment on that and clarify that for me?
Mr. Giroux: Sure. The government announced successive spending reviews over time, starting — when we started tracking them in Budget 2022, and it’s announced various types of spending reviews; reductions in the planned spending in the context of a stronger recovery; reduced spending on consulting, professional services and travel; as well as Crown corporations, cross-government program effectiveness.
The majority of these are still under way. One was cancelled — the Strategic Policy Review announced in Budget 2022 — and one was aiming to find savings for the years 2023-24 until 2026-27, but instead the government claimed credit for lower spending that happened in 2022-23.
All that to say these various spending reviews seem to be mostly to reallocate spending to other areas because we don’t have details for most of them, but also because what we see is the spending track going upwards in successive budgets.
If you look at Budget 2021, it had a fiscal track with budget expenditures increasing. Budget 2022, there was a shift upwards in all subsequent years. There is a tendency to increase spending for any given year in every successive fiscal document, which leads me to your comment about operating expenditures that are flatlined in future years.
Given the history on government expenditures, the increase in the size of the public service and the fact that it’s proving difficult to reduce spending that should be easier to spend, such as consulting services, I’m not optimistic that, indeed, operating expenses will not continue to grow.
When we see operating —
Senator Marshall: Thank you. If we look at professional and special services, just that category of expenditures, already — we’ve just got Supplementary Estimates (A), and they’re already up to $19.8 billion. How confident are you that they’re going to get their spending on professional and special services under control?
Mr. Giroux: That would require a significant discipline for the remainder of the year. That being said, there could be additional funding for these types of expenditures in Supplementary Estimates (B) and Supplementary Estimates (C), if there is a Supplementary Estimates (C). It’s possible that spending will be lower than in previous years, but authorities so far don’t suggest that.
However, these are “up to” amounts, so it’s quite possible that the government could end up spending less or significantly less, but signs are not pointing toward that.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Giroux.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here, Mr. Giroux.
My first question concerns professional services, which are still increasing despite the government’s commitment to control spending on consultants after the McKinsey affair. You note that the supplementary estimates include $704 million in spending on professional and special services, bringing the total proposed authorities for 2024-25 to a staggering $19.8 billion. We have not yet received Supplementary Estimates (B) or (C), so it is very likely that spending in this area will reach last year’s heights, with a record investment of $21.6 billion.
Why are we still in this situation, despite what happened with McKinsey and despite the government’s commitment?
Mr. Giroux: That’s a good question. It’s hard to explain, because after the recent controversies, the government committed to drastically reducing its use of professional and special services. However, as you mention, we are almost at the 2023-24 level and we are only at Supplementary Estimates (A).
It is possible that the government will show restraint and authorize the departments to spend close to $20 billion or a bit more, and the departments and agencies will rein themselves in and finish the current year with lower spending on professional and special services. So far, the authorities are at almost the same level as last year, which doesn’t bode well for a considerable reduction in total expenses for that category.
Senator Forest: Especially a considerable reduction. In your experience, have you seen situations where expenses are authorized on the order of $20 billion but were not used?
Mr. Giroux: Yes, it happens. As a general rule, the departments can spend up to 5% less than their authorities for operating expenditures and carry the unused amounts over to the next year. Departments and agencies routinely spend 95% or a bit less of their budgetary allocations with the goal of carrying the rest over. That could happen, but in the case of professional and special services, it is surprising that the authorities are still so high, given the government’s stated and repeated commitments.
Senator Forest: According to your analysis, you do not seem optimistic that the government will meet its goal of cutting 5,000 positions in the public service. What leads you to that conclusion?
Mr. Giroux: Once again, it’s the government’s history in that area. In the departmental plans tabled in February or March, the departments project staffing decreases, but not until next year. Whatever year we examine, it’s always for next year. History tells us that staff numbers tend to increase rather than decrease. When the government announces a reduction of 5,000 employees over four years, that doesn’t seem at all ambitious to me. It’s a goal that could be reached in a few months, given the size of the public service, which exceeds 400,000 employees, or 400,000 full-time equivalents.
Senator Forest: Is this not a disturbing situation? We’re seeing spending on consultants increase while the public service is growing. The increase in both indicates a rather disturbing trend.
Mr. Giroux: It does indeed. I think I’ve mentioned this to the committee before. When the size of the public service increases that much, you would expect there to be less of a need for consultants. However, what has happened over the last few years is that professional services and the size of the public service are both increasing at the same time.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Welcome, Mr. Giroux. I would like to talk about zero-emission vehicles, since $605 million is being requested in these supplementary estimates. That is a large chunk of the $11 billion being sought.
You produced a nice little table showing the change in zero‑emission vehicle registrations over time. Could you tell us a bit about how that breaks down by province and to what extent the incentives and charging infrastructure can vary by province? Could you give us a bit more information on the breakdown by province?
Mr. Giroux: I don’t have the exact figures for the provincial breakdown with me, but Quebec and British Columbia are leading the pack in terms of the number of zero-emission vehicle registrations for electric vehicles. Ontario is close behind, but Quebec and British Columbia are overrepresented based on population. That is directly tied to the fact that, last I heard, both provinces have financial incentives for buying electric vehicles.
I know that Quebec is phasing them out. The financial incentives largely explain the high number of electric vehicles in both provinces.
One of the factors often cited for drivers’ reluctance to buy electric vehicles, aside from the higher price, is worry about vehicle range and the availability of charging stations. However, we have not yet studied the matter. We plan to do a bit more analysis of zero-emission vehicles and the government’s mandate to have zero-emission vehicles account for 100% of new registrations by 2035.
Senator Gignac: I am going to move on to a topic that isn’t related to the supplementary estimates. I’m sorry, but I can’t pass up the chance to talk about it while you’re here. It is the capital gains tax, a topic on everyone’s lips these days. The measure is one of the most important ones in Budget 2024, but it isn’t in the budget bill we are currently examining. A notice of ways and means motion was tabled, but the bill will be introduced later in the summer.
Do you remember the last time such a major fiscal measure came into force, perhaps a different kind of fiscal measure? I’m talking about a situation where a bill was not introduced and the measure was not in the budget bill. If you can’t answer, I would appreciate a written response. I’ve been following public finances for 35 years and I’ve never seen anything like this.
Mr. Giroux: I don’t recall any measures of this magnitude. I know that many technical amendments to the Income Tax Act are often announced through Ways and Means motions, but usually legislative amendments follow. They may follow a year or two later. However, I can’t recall a measure of this magnitude. If we find any other precedents, we’ll certainly be happy to send them to you in writing.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Smith: Mr. Giroux, it’s good to see you.
Mr. Giroux: Likewise.
Senator Smith: We were just nervous that you didn’t want to come and see us again.
In your report of the Supplementary Estimates (A) 2024-25, you note that your office has identified around 200 Budget 2024 initiatives that contain planned spending this year. Of the roughly $13 billion in budgetary authorities on these supplementary estimates, about $1.6 billion relates to 11 budget measures.
Given that there are 200 Budget 2024 items that require funding this year but funding has been sought for only 11 items so far, I’d like your thoughts on the pace as well as on the planning. I’m wondering if you have any concerns about where the government is heading.
Mr. Giroux: The fact that relatively few measures have been funded so far in the fiscal year is probably a reflection of the fact that the budget was late in the cycle compared to what we used to see prior to the pandemic or even before. A budget in mid‑April certainly did not leave time to include any measures in the Main Estimates because the mains have to be tabled by March 1. With Supplementary Estimates (A), there was little time for officials to include budget measures in Supplementary Estimates (A) — at least a significant number of measures.
That is a good opportunity for me to reiterate the many benefits there would be in having a budget that would be much earlier in the cycle so that more budget measures would be in the mains, and if not in the mains, at the very least in Supplementary Estimates (A). The fact that we have so few measures so far in the estimates puts in jeopardy the implementation of some of the measures that have funding that have to go out in this fiscal year.
Senator Smith: My supplementary question is this: Is this sluggish pace of implementing the budget an ongoing issue with the federal government and its departments? Is it an indicator of performance or leadership weaknesses? What’s going on?
Mr. Giroux: I haven’t looked at the inside of the budget-making process in a while, but I think it’s just a preference by decision makers to have a budget that’s later in the cycle. The reasons for that can be multiple, but I don’t know which ones are the determining factor.
It could be a factor of an uncertain economic environment. The Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister and the government as a whole want to leave themselves more time to see what is happening with the economy. It could also be for communications or tactical reasons to have a budget later in the cycle. It could also be due to the absence of proper planning and preparation for the budget — although I’d be surprised if that were the case because budget preparation is a very well-oiled machine, certainly at the Department Finance and with their partners at the main departments as well as at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Good evening. I have a question for you. I haven’t had time to analyze the supplementary estimates carefully. However, since you’ve done it yourself, I’ll take advantage of your analysis.
I notice that, of almost $12 billion in additional spending, two thirds is related to Indigenous affairs, of which $5.6 billion is allocated to various settlements. Have you analyzed why this is the case? Is it because the figures weren’t available before, but are now becoming available? The estimates have just been submitted. Yet there are already more than five and a half billion in the supplementary estimates.
Mr. Giroux: That’s an interesting question. There are two things to consider when looking at expenses for claim settlements or settlements related to claims or disputes with Indigenous peoples. On the one hand, there’s the point at which it affects the deficit, when we recognize and accept that the government has a legal obligation to Indigenous people. This is a determination made by Justice Department lawyers. It affects the deficit when we recognize that we would have a good probability of losing if the matter ever went to court.
On the other hand, when the agreement is settled, either by court decision or out of court, that’s when you need the funds and you have to write a cheque. I presume we didn’t include these items in the Main Estimates, because the amounts or details may not have been fully known. It was probably premature to put them in the Main Estimates. These expenses are now in the supplementary estimates.
Senator Dalphond: It’s as if we’ve concluded all the settlements since the estimates. I see $1.7 billion for one fund, $1.4 billion for another fund, $1 billion for a third fund and $500 million for a fourth fund. All the settlements have been made in the last few weeks?
Mr. Giroux: That does seem strange. The Main Estimates have to be finalized in February, which would mean that all these settlements crystallized or were confirmed between the end of February and probably mid-May. As you mentioned, that doesn’t leave a long period of time to have so many expenses finalized.
Unfortunately, I’m not the best person to give you the reason why there are so many in the supplementary estimates. Unless Ms. Vanderwees indicates that she wants to answer, it would probably be a good question for the department.
The Chair: She is shaking her head. If you don’t mind, I’d like to elaborate on this point. As I understand it, if the legal opinions had indicated that these were cases for which we would have to pay, or if the settlements had been reached in January, for example, they would have had to put them in the budget that the minister tabled in April. The deficit would then have been almost 10 billion higher.
Mr. Giroux: Yes. When the government’s lawyers recognize that it’s a valid claim, the government probably has to pay an amount. So it estimates the amount of compensation or claims that must be paid. That becomes an account payable and it’s recorded in the deficit in the year that that obligation is recognized, but the time to write the cheque is when the funds are needed in the government’s bank account; that’s when the funds are requested in the Main Estimates or supplementary estimates.
The Chair: Do you have access to these agreements to validate the dates on which they were made?
Mr. Giroux: I don’t think we have access to the agreements, because they’re often confidential. We certainly don’t know when they’re recognized and why lawyers say it’s an obligation that should be recognized. It’s all covered by attorney-client privilege.
The Chair: That’s fine. Sorry, I just wanted to continue in the same vein.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for being with us, Mr. Giroux.
[English]
And thank you to Ms. Vanderwees for being here with us.
Mr. Giroux, it’s always a pleasure to have you with us. You’re always insightful.
I’d like to shift our focus to the government’s commitment to reduce spending on professional and special services. Figure 2.3 in your report is quite telling and shows to what extent the government has increased spending on these services since 2015. We are talking about going from $11 billion to over $20 billion in less than 10 years.
On top of that, we also know that the size of the public service’s core administration reached nearly 275,000 employees, a 40.4% increase since 2014-15. If we include the entire population of the public service — agencies and whatnot — we are talking about 357,000 employees.
I know we’ve covered that, and many will complain about the ballooning size of the public service, but it’s worth pointing out that the Canadian population is growing at a faster rate. In 2015, we had 132 citizens per public servant; and in 2023, we had 111 Canadians per employee.
I don’t see that to be as bad as it sounds when we look at those numbers. Maybe you could comment on that.
Could you speak to us about your difficulty in obtaining data from the government on its planned spending reductions under the refocusing government spending exercise? Could you elaborate on how confident you are that spending across the board will eventually drop and we see light at the end of the tunnel?
Mr. Giroux: Thank you, senator. We looked at the number of employees per 100 Canadians. You’re right that it puts things in a slightly different perspective because it takes into account the growing population, and a growing population is normally expected to also require more services.
When we look at the number of public servants per 100 Canadians, we see that it has been higher, but it has also increased. Even if you take into account the size of the population, the number of employees in relation to the Canadian population has also increased in recent years, for a variety of reasons.
With respect to your question on the government’s possibility or commitment to reduce or reallocate spending, it’s not something that I’m overly optimistic about for a couple of reasons. There was one spending reduction exercise that was concluded prematurely.
In response to Senator Marshall, I may not have explained it well, but the government at that time had committed to reducing spending going forward. Instead, it looked backwards and noticed that spending in some areas was lower — notably, related to COVID — and it claimed victory on that front. That saved the government from doing a spending review exercise for that particular aspect.
Another spending review was cancelled, and the rest of spending reductions, reviews or reallocations are all under way. For the ones that are under way, some information was provided — namely, when it came to a reduction in travel and consulting services. In many of these instances, there was not a real reduction in these types of expenditures; it was, rather, that it will reduce our funds for contingencies or will have general efficiency.
All that to say that these spending reviews have the potential to reallocate spending; however, if history is any predictor of what will happen, I’m not very optimistic.
Senator MacAdam: Going back to the electric vehicle, or EV, issue: In Supplementary Estimates (A), you highlight some impressive growth in the uptake of new EV registrations in Canada, at 10.8% in 2023. But the lack of investment and availability of charging infrastructure across Canada, especially in rural and remote areas, is cause for concern for Canadians, despite the EV incentive program.
Last year, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development raised similar concerns. Similarly, Natural Resources Canada has also recognized that this is a key barrier to the adoption of EVs and announced the $680 million Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program, which is currently in its adoption phase.
Do you have any early findings on how this infrastructure program will be rolled out to support Canada’s EV sales targets?
Mr. Giroux: It’s an interesting question because, as you mentioned, EV chargers are an essential component of widespread adoption of electric vehicles. We have not yet looked at that specific aspect, but we are in the process of considering the zero-emission vehicle mandate that the government has put in place, which will require 60% of vehicles to be zero emission by 2030 and 100% by 2035. We will touch on the availability of EV chargers as part of that.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: Thank you for being here, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Vanderwees. I’ll try to connect the dots on something, so bear with me for a minute.
In your supplementary estimates document, you describe funding for the Interim Federal Health Program, and asylum claimants are part of that spending. We know there’s been an increase in both asylum claimants and their needs.
In the other document you provided, you talk about the money that’s being spent — $411 million — on health care support for asylum claimants and refugees. I have some experience with that at a local, provincial level, and there are some issues with that.
Is there any relationship between the money cited in your table, $411 million, and the money for professional services? Is some of this professional services money actually going to health care for asylum seekers? Because they are in a hotel and there are health care workers there, but they’re not very connected into the system. There are a whole lot of issues.
Is there interplay between the professional services money being spent and the money cited as being spent on health care for asylum seekers?
Mr. Giroux: There could be, but in order to be sure, we need to drill down on the specific contracts, where the money for the health care services for asylum seekers is going and what kind of contractual arrangements are entered into by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, in order to see if some of them are characterized as consulting and special services. We don’t have that level of detail.
We do a macroanalysis. We need to ask IRCC about the specific funding arrangements they have for asylum claimants, how they provide their services and how it’s characterized.
Senator Kingston: What I’m trying to figure out is how do you know what adds up to the amount of money being spent on professional and special services? It seemed to me this could be one area. They were hiring companies that hire health care workers, who then go where the asylum seekers are being temporarily housed. How do we know what’s in that list of professional and special services? They must be parsed out to different departments or different departments must have them in their budget. Is that correct?
Mr. Giroux: Totally. Yes, it is correct. Every department has to identify their spending, or virtually every invoice — so to speak — has to fit into a specific bucket. Is it for office supplies? Is it for capital acquisition? Is it consulting fees, consulting and special services? It gets tallied as a whole. That’s based on this as well as forward projections.
Projections follow the same path. Departments have to indicate to Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, for example, we will need $100,000 for contracts to that corporation or company. The totality of that, depending on how it’s allocated, they flag or identify those that fall into consulting and special services. That’s how we get the total of $19.8 billion that is sought so far this year for consulting and special services.
We don’t do a line-by-line analysis for every single department of what is in that exactly.
Senator Kingston: Those services are probably quite expensive, is what I’m trying to get at.
Mr. Giroux: Yes.
Senator Kingston: Because I know that travel nurses at a provincial level are very expensive.
Senator Ross: Thank you, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Vanderwees, for being here.
I’m interested in your observations about the fact that these estimates only contain $1.6 billion tied to Budget 2024 measures in comparison to $7.2 billion tied to Budget 2023 measures at this point last year, keeping in mind that a large portion of the money in this authority is not related to budgetary measures but other things such as claim settlements and so on.
Mr. Giroux: Well, it’s a bit surprising. Ms. Vanderwees and I discussed that before the meeting. Maybe Ms. Vanderwees will have more to say. It’s a bit surprising.
It’s also a result of the fact that the budget was late and that it does not allow departments to prepare their required documents to be included in the supplementary estimates. They often have to do a Treasury Board submission.
When you find out on April 16 you have money in the budget, it leaves little time to do a Treasury Board submission that would unlock the funding.
There’s a chicken-and-egg thing where the budget being late does not allow departments to prepare the necessary paperwork because departments very often find out the day before the budget or the day of the budget how much, if anything, there is for them for specific initiatives.
Kaitlyn Vanderwees, Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: Yes. I can mention, compared to Budget 2022, we are coming in a bit higher. Budget 2022 at the point of Supplementary Estimates (A), there was about $1.02 billion. Perhaps last year was an exception in the rollout.
As Mr. Giroux mentioned, it’s most likely due to the timing of the budget.
Senator Ross: You think it will catch up next time?
Ms. Vanderwees: It’s possible the supplementary estimates will show how many more measures are in and have been funded. We’ll have to see about previous years. I don’t have a prediction for anything past 2024.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Vanderwees, for appearing and for all of your work.
Your report on the Supplementary Estimates (A) states that nearly two thirds of proposed spending — some $7.8 billion or 61.8% — falls under the Indigenous portfolio, representing a 175% increase over the combined budgetary expenditures for 2017-18.
The majority of the proposed spending relates to settlements and Indigenous claims at over $5 billion, including $1.8 billion for the expedited resolution strategy for agricultural benefits claims, $1.5 billion for the federal Indian day schools and Indian residential schools day scholar settlement, $1 billion for the specific claims settlement fund and $448 million for the settlement of historical claims. These settlements reflect recognition the government has failed to fulfill a duty and harm has been occasioned against Indigenous peoples.
I have two questions. Spending on settlements and Indigenous claims represents more than three times the amount set for total proactive planned spending related to the implementation of Budget 2024, which was at $1.6 billion.
Budget 2024 contained few commitments toward implementing the Calls for Justice for the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The vast majority of those calls, of course, remain unimplemented five years later.
Does the breakdown of spending in the supplementary estimates raise concerns for you regarding the financial soundness of the way in which the government is approaching and too often not meeting the obligations of Indigenous peoples?
Would you consider it to be more cost-effective and beneficial in the long-term for the government to invest proactively in addressing the root causes of inequities faced by Indigenous communities, for example, through the guaranteed livable income recommended as well as so many other recommendations of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls?
Mr. Giroux: That’s an interesting question. I haven’t looked at whether it’s appropriate or not to have that mix of spending in the supplementary estimates in terms of claims settlement versus programs because one would need to look at the entire allocations between these two wide categories of spending. One would need to look at not only the supplementary estimates but also the mains.
The fact we’re spending quite a bit on claims settlement is probably a result of the fact that these claims have been allowed to be left unresolved for decades, and sometimes more.
On your second point, I think it’s widely recognized that it’s much better to prevent harm than to try to remedy it afterwards. It is also probably applicable to First Nations in general, especially when it comes to services.
One comment I’ve made is that the amounts set aside by the government last year or the year before with respect to First Nations Child and Family Services, where there was a legal case, were quite expensive whereas the remedies in retrospect would not have been that expensive to allow children who are placed in custody to have appropriate childcare or care arrangements as opposed to settling an expensive claim years after the fact. That’s one example that comes to mind to support your statement that it’s easier or better to prevent rather than to try to compensate for harm done.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Pate.
We will have time for a second round, three minutes each.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I wanted to pick up on the issue that Senator Dalphond raised. My question is in relation to the provision for contingent liabilities because sometimes that provision includes Indigenous-related claims.
I was wondering, Mr. Giroux — and we had talked about it before — I had the impression that you were going to do some work on the provision for contingent liabilities.
The budget book has two pages. It lists off quite a few of the settlements and agreements. Most of them are in the billions of dollars. Sometimes they flow through the provision for contingent liability. I have always had trouble tracking the settlements, so I was wondering if you were still going to do some work or if you had started doing some work?
Mr. Giroux: It’s something that is still on our work plan, and it would be something that would require significant work and resources. It’s probably worth doing for the very reason that the amounts at stake are quite high.
There are probably thousands of claims against the Crown, not only Indigenous, but all kinds of claims. It would be very challenging — but also interesting — to connect how much of an amount is set aside for a particular claim and how much the government ends up paying. There would probably be years in between these two elements in many cases, so it’s something that would require quite a bit of work, but it’s something that is still on my to-do list.
Senator Marshall: I tried to do it in my office, but like you say, it’s very complicated.
Going back to a question that you were asked about how the government is so slow bringing in the new budget initiatives. Do you think that part of it could be that the government hadn’t settled on what they were going to do with the capital gains? They’re relying on that money to come in at a certain budget deficit.
Do you think they are slow bringing in some of these new initiatives because they didn’t want to have a negative impact on their deficit, just in case the revenues didn’t materialize?
Mr. Giroux: It’s a possibility. The fact that the legislation for capital gains was not included in the budget implementation act would tend to confirm that interpretation.
However, I don’t know for sure because I was not in on the secrets when it comes to budget making. But it’s a very plausible suggestion.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: In your report, you mention not having received the information needed to be able to determine the exact amount of the reduction in planned spending on professional and special services. When you request information from Treasury Board or the department, is there a delay before you receive an answer? How does this work? How can we support you as legislators? I think it’s an important prerequisite to have the right information to make the most objective and accurate analyses possible.
Mr. Giroux: I agree that information is essential to our work. In general, when we identify the need for access to information, a letter is sent from me to the minister concerned, with a copy to the deputy minister, and they are usually given two weeks to send us the information. Sometimes it’s possible to get the information, and in other cases, departments need more time.
Generally, before sending a letter, we speak with the officials of the departments concerned to see if the information exists and if we need to refine our request to actually get what we need. There’s normally some work done upstream to make sure we’re asking for the right things and that those things exist.
The most sensitive issues involving access to information concern tax information. The issue of tax data is always more sensitive, because the Revenue Agency jealously guards the confidentiality — and rightly so — of taxpayers’ tax data; this includes corporations, trusts and individuals. They’re very afraid of what’s called “residual disclosure.” So, they fear that by giving us access to data that is anonymized, but not aggregated to a sufficient level, we could inadvertently guess which corporation, trust or taxpayer we’re talking about. So, an amendment to section 241 of the Income Tax Act allowing us access to this information would facilitate our tax intelligence work.
Senator Forest: I am struck by something — and I’m sure this has occurred to my colleagues as well. Is there any way your office could produce a summary in layman’s terms? When you look at budget spending, there are voted appropriations, statutory spending and non-budget spending. So when an ordinary citizen looks at all that, it’s very complicated for them to get an understanding — we’re talking really big numbers.
Would it be possible to have on your website a simplified, plain language explanation of what makes up the federal budget?
Mr. Giroux: It’s certainly possible. Access to intelligence or information, in plain language, is something we’re trying to achieve, but it’s hard to hit that target while remaining precise and rigorous. It’s a good suggestion; we’ll try to be simple without being simplistic. Thanks for the suggestion.
Senator Forest: You have our full confidence.
Senator Gignac: Tonight, we’re analyzing 11 new initiatives, meaning that the supplementary estimates contains $1.6 billion for 11 new initiatives; the rest are things that already existed, like the Indigenous program.
You mention in your report that, in the 2024 budget, there were 241 new budget initiatives; that’s considerable. I found your little note at the end very interesting, mentioning that this didn’t even include off-cycle measures. Off-cycle measures are those announced between two budgets or updates. There’s one sentence that worries me, because that’s what you mention in the appendix, and I quote:
Currently, there is no way to track funding that is introduced through the estimates for off-cycle measures that are included in the budget.
Can you shed any light on this? Do you have any recommendations for us in terms of governance?
Mr. Giroux: Yes, I can certainly shed some light on that. Off‑cycle measures are generally identified in budget documents by a line. It’s a provision for measures that have not yet been announced, but for which Finance Department officials and the finance minister plan to grant funds and anticipate that the government will have to disburse money.
It’s difficult, once the announcements are made, to reconcile how much had been set aside because obviously we’re talking about a set of expenditures whose details remain confidential, because it hasn’t yet been announced and because, in some cases, it hasn’t been approved by cabinet. It’s difficult to know where the money is coming from and what’s included in that, and then, when the measures are announced, to know whether they were included in that confidential line. It’s very difficult for us to get those details because of the confidentiality of cabinet deliberations.
On the other hand, I have to say that it’s better now than before. For example, in previous cycles, I had to be cautious in certain spending forecasts to enable these off-cycle measures to be financed without negatively affecting the deficit or surplus.
When it comes to governance, it’s difficult to make specific recommendations, because it’s hard to keep cabinet deliberations secret while making a good reconciliation. There are a lot of constraints and I don’t have an easy answer to this equation.
Senator Gignac: It’s opaque, but perhaps less so than before; is that what you mean?
Mr. Giroux: You have an ability to summarize my thinking that amazes me; that’s exactly it.
Senator Gignac: Thank you, that makes me happy.
The Chair: I assume that when you said “before” you meant last year, not the last decade.
[English]
Senator Smith: I would like to follow up on Senator Marshall’s question and pick up on the question of the sluggish pace of implementing budget items.
I’d like to ask you to give us your thoughts on the size of federal budgets over time. For example, I’m wondering how the roughly 200 identified Budget 2024 items that will require funding this year compare to previous budget items included in previous supplementary estimates? Is this something you’ve looked into? Are budgets getting bigger and more complex? Do we have a public service that can keep up?
Mr. Giroux: Are you asking whether we have the public service that can keep up with the size of the budget? Is that your question?
Senator Smith: Yes. Can they deliver on a proactive basis so that it’s not always pushing things ahead to 2030 and 2035 with some of their plans? There seems to be a lull, some form of malaise. I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just trying to understand, directionally, where public service, especially with finance, is going with the management of budgets.
Mr. Giroux: The public service has the capacity to deliver with the condition that the direction comes from the top. I’ve seen that in the public service — but also since I’ve taken this position — whenever there is strong direction or clear direction from the top, public servants can and do deliver because that’s what they’re trained to do. That’s why they get into the public service in the first place. But when there’s no big incentive or no push for them to deliver, that’s where things start to take a bit more time.
With respect to the size of the budget, I’ve seen budgets with close to 600 single items, so a budget that has 240 spending initiatives or items is nothing out of the ordinary.
The size of the budget, the number of proposals or measures, it ebbs and flows — higher some years, sometimes lower. It’s all a matter of the political decisions or the policy decisions that are made and whether the government wants to have many initiatives that are less targeted or many smaller initiatives targeted or whether they want to have a couple of bigger main items.
I haven’t noticed a strong trend with a higher number of initiatives or lower. There is no trend or magical number; that is what I’m trying to say.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Mr. Giroux, in your report, you refer to an additional $1.9 billion for the debt. Did you mention any interest rate assessments that were incorrect?
Interest rates haven’t risen in the last three months; they’ve actually fallen recently.
Does this mean that, in the Main Estimates, it had been estimated that the decline would be faster than that announced by the Bank of Canada?
Mr. Giroux: The fact that the government is asking for $1.9 billion more in debt charges so soon after the budget does suggest that there has been a slower decline than Finance Department officials had anticipated when they contributed to the Main Estimates in February. I agree with your assessment.
Senator Dalphond: A crystal ball can’t predict two months in advance.
Mr. Giroux: It’s hard to predict, especially when you have such a large stock of debt; when you’re talking about $1.5 trillion of debt, a small difference of 0.1% on Treasury bill interest rates means hundreds of millions of dollars in extra interest or less, but more in this case.
Senator Dalphond: Would this be an indication that people made a more optimistic assessment of spending to arrive at certain figures?
Mr. Giroux: That might be the case, but I wouldn’t want to be the one to lend ill intent to anyone at the Department of Finance in their spending forecasts.
Senator Dalphond: Strangely, you also talk about all these expenses increasing, but there’s one that’s decreasing, and that’s the $533 million for benefits for seniors. Yet it seems to me that demographics show that the number of seniors is not decreasing, but increasing. Is this because services are hard to access?
Mr. Giroux: I don’t know if this is due to a difficulty in qualifying, because Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) has done a lot of good work in recent years by automatically paying benefits to people who qualify. Maybe it’s a prediction, or maybe people are delaying their Old Age Security (OAS) applications to take advantage of the actuarial bonus. When people apply a little later, they are entitled to a bonus. This could be one explanation, with financial literacy improving and more and more financial advisors suggesting that people delay receiving the benefit. It could also be linked to the modestly rising participation rate, but which is increasing a little for people aged 65 and over. These are possibilities, but we haven’t done an in-depth analysis.
Senator Dalphond: And if it’s the first scenario, people deferring demand, does that mean we’re making some kind of bubble that will appear in two, three or four years?
Mr. Giroux: It’s possible, but unlikely, because if it’s a trend, it would be unlikely to be an event restricted to a cohort of people who turned 65 this year. It’s likely to be something that’s repeated from year to year. But it’s also possible that it’s just because of the current forecast in the supplementary estimates and that it’s reversed in Supplementary Estimates (B) or (C), for example.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The Chair: Could this be an effect of excess mortality due to COVID?
Mr. Giroux: It’s possible, but in that case, it would have appeared earlier; we would have had the same thing.
The Chair: We would have had the information before.
Mr. Giroux: Yes.
The Chair: I understand. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Mr. Giroux, I was going to continue on the elderly benefits. I was questioning the same issue, the decrease. Are you confident, basically, on the sustainability of our Old Age Security, or OAS, nets? Has your office done any work on this in recent months? Are we ready for the influx of pensioners and retirees?
To continue on that, I’ll quote directly from your report on the budget, your supplementary estimates report:
Including these Supplementary Estimates, the total proposed year-to-date budgetary authorities are $461.8 billion, which represents a $30.7 billion (or 6.2 per cent) decrease compared with the Estimates to date for the preceding year.
There, too, it’s the delay of the budget. I agree with your comment that there have been larger budgets. At 686 pages, this budget implementation act is the third largest since 2003. I don’t think the issue is that the budgets are getting bigger and bigger. I guess it’s a delay. Maybe you can comment on that?
Last, I was reviewing the supplementary estimates and looking at the expenditures for the Department of Finance. In 2022-23, they were at about $117 billion. That amount rose to $136 billion in the following year and proposed authorities, so far, are $145 billion. If I understand correctly, this is attributed to the cost of servicing the public debt.
Your report does note that, beyond 2024-25, it will stabilize, slowing the growth of the public debt charges. You’re projecting the public debt charges will reach $62 billion in 2028-29. Have your projections on debt charges changed since the budget was tabled in April in light of these additional spending authorities and these supplementary estimates?
It’s a three-part question, but for the sake of brevity, I put it all together.
Mr. Giroux: Thank you, senator. I took good notes, so I hope I will be able to answer all three components of your question.
On the Old Age Security being sustainable or not, we look at the overall fiscal sustainability of the federal government as well as the provincial governments, and we do that annually. Last time was in July of 2023. We are in the process of updating that.
Old Age Security is a big component of federal government expenditures. Last time, we found that the federal government was sustainable despite the fact that we are expected to have an aging population that will require more spending on Old Age Security. Overall, the federal government is sustainable, including for OAS payments.
With respect to the $30.7 billion decrease compared with year to date last year, that’s just a result that there is — we compared to last year’s authorities, the total authorities, and so far this year it would be a $30.7 billion decrease, but we know there will be Supplementary Estimates (B) and very likely Supplementary Estimates (C).
All in all, when we get the total for this year, we expect that at the end of the year when all the estimates are tabled government spending will have increased from last year.
Your question regarding the Department of Finance estimates, it is in good part due to the increasing debt-servicing costs. It’s also related to the fact that transfers to provinces are growing in line with gross domestic product growth, to simplify. It’s a combination of debt-servicing costs going up and also transfers to provinces.
Finally, have our projections with respect to debt-servicing costs changed since the budget? We have not updated our economic and fiscal outlook yet. We typically do that twice a year — in spring, before the budget, and in fall, before the Fall Economic Statement. At that time, when we do our fall economic and fiscal outlook, we will update our debt-servicing costs for the year, if they are rising.
Senator MacAdam: I’m going back to zero-emission vehicles. You said earlier you didn’t have any breakdown on vehicle registrations by provinces, and you mentioned provincial incentives and the fact that British Columbia and Quebec are ahead of most provinces. Do you know if all provinces have incentives to supplement anything that the federal government is doing on zero-emission vehicles?
Mr. Giroux: I’m not aware of every single particularity of provincial programs, but I know some provinces don’t have incentives. If my memory serves me well, Alberta and Saskatchewan don’t have any, and maybe Ontario, but I’m not sure about that.
I know Quebec and British Columbia for sure do have something, but with respect to other provinces, I’m not sure.
Senator MacAdam: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Giroux: Maybe Ms. Vanderwees, who is in the room, knows.
Ms. Vanderwees: Ontario did have one, but I believe they recently cancelled it.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: I am looking at your document that talks about a 175% increase in Indigenous Services Canada, although you’ve already spoken to the fact that a lot of that has to do with Crown-Indigenous Relations. Do you have any sense, of that 175% increase, how much of an increase Indigenous Services Canada has in their budget?
Mr. Giroux: I know that Indigenous Services Canada was created in 2017, and in its first year its budget was relatively low because it was a partial year. In 2018-19, Indigenous Services Canada had a budget of $11.6 billion, and that has since grown to an expected $23.2 billion this year. It has more than doubled between 2018-19 and 2024-25. Even accounting for population growth, it’s a significant increase on a per capita basis.
Senator Kingston: In one of your tables in the document you provided for tonight, it talks about $239 million in Supplementary Estimates (A), and in your description, in your other document, you talk about the fact that it’s for children and to improve the availability of things like adequate housing.
Do you have any sense of the improvements that there have been for children regarding housing for them and their parents or is that something that’s sort of hidden away within that spending?
Mr. Giroux: It’s something that is more detailed than what we have done for the purpose of this report. Maybe Ms. Vanderwees has more information, but I certainly don’t have that level of granular detail.
Senator Kingston: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Marshall: One brief question. Mr. Giroux, talking about the debt, every year the government forecasts for the future five years how much they’re going to borrow each year. Then if you sort of track it, as you go from budget document to the fiscal update to the next budget document, the numbers increase significantly. Have you ever done any work on that?
Mr. Giroux: We did work a number of years ago on the debt management strategy, if I’m not mistaken, but that could have been either during the pandemic or even before. So not recently is the short answer.
Senator Marshall: Maybe Ms. Vanderwees can tell me what year that was in, and I could go back. It might provide some insight because some of these things are — there is consistency as you move from year to year.
Mr. Giroux: Yes, there is. There is a good Debt Management Strategy document that Department of Finance releases, very often as a companion document to the budget or even as a chapter of the budget. For those who are interested in that, it is worth having a briefing with Department of Finance officials, which I had in my previous capacity at the Privy Council Office, and it’s much more interesting than just reading the Debt Management Strategy. Maybe I’m a bizarre person and I find that interesting whereas nobody else does.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux. It’s always a pleasure to hear from you. You’re always so informative and make things easy for people to understand. It’s much appreciated. Thanks also to Ms. Vanderwees for accompanying you.
[English]
We will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-59.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023? Agreed or not?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: This is my first experience to chair and my first vote.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the shorter title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: With your consent, is it agreed that the committee may group clauses according to the five parts identified in the analytical table of Bill C-59 when appropriate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
This is Part 1, Amendments to the Income Tax Act and to Other Legislation, which includes clause 2 on page 1 to clause 95 on page 248.
Shall Part 1, entitled Amendments to the Income Tax Act and to Other Legislation, which includes clauses 2 to 95, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
[English]
The Chair: Shall Part 2, entitled “Digital Services Tax Act,” which contains clauses 96 to 128 carry?
Senator Marshall: On division.
The Chair: Part 2, on division. Perfect.
[Translation]
We are on Part 3, entitled Amendments to the Excise Tax Act and to Related Legislation, which contains clause 129 on page 371 to clause 144 on page 384.
Shall Part 3, entitled Amendments to the Excise Tax Act and to Related Legislation, which includes clauses 129 to 144, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
We are now at Part 4, entitled Amendments to the Excise Act, 2001 and to Related Legislation, which contains clauses 145, on page 385, to clause 167 on page 395.
Shall Part 4, entitled Amendments to the Excise Act, 2001 and to Related Legislation, which contains clauses 145 to 167, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
[English]
Part 5, “Various Measures,” clauses 168 to 365.
I think we have an amendment. Senator Ross, could you proceed?
Senator Ross: Certainly. The amendment number is KR‑C59-236-429-20.
I move:
That Bill C-59 be amended in clause 236, on page 429, by replacing lines 20 and 21 with the following:
“proper substantiation, the proof of which lies”.
The Chair: Will you explain your amendment?
Senator Ross: Certainly.
I’m proposing this amendment because I think this legislation needs to be very clear and very direct. I’m not against the clause. I think it’s a good clause, but I don’t believe we can leave wording in this legislation when we don’t know what it means. We need to remove ambiguity and uncertainty.
There is no clear definition of “internationally recognized methodologies,” and during the single committee meeting on these amendments, both government officials and stakeholders said they did not know what it meant. The clause was not part of the original government legislation and, I’m going to presume, not their intention.
Instead, these amendments were added during clause by clause by our counterpart committee in the other place, so there was no consultation or scrutiny on how these three words would be applied. So that is the main impetus behind my motion.
I would suggest that we were all in receipt of a great number of documents, letters and presentations on this very issue. Even the Commissioner of Competition stated in a committee meeting at the other place, “. . . I would suggest that the Competition Act probably isn’t the right vehicle for that kind of regulation or legislation.”
I’m very concerned about this and I think that —
Senator Smith: Could you give a little background on the greenwashing concept?
Senator Ross: Certainly. It is on the greenwashing aspect of the legislation. Essentially, the words as it reads now say, “. . . that is not based on adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology . . . .”
Basically, everybody who was a witness or spoke at our committee meeting, including government officials, said that there was no specific internationally recognized methodology. So that’s a big concern for me.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I don’t support the amendment. When the amendment was put forward in the House of Commons Committee on Finance, the parties came to an agreement and something was proposed precisely to counter greenwashing. There was a consensus among the parties, and it was also something many of the stakeholders recognized.
What’s more, the House of Commons unanimously passed the provision amending the Competition Act. When the bill was examined by the committee and debated in the House, members passed the parts one at a time. The 12 divisions in Part 5 were passed separately, one by one. The amended division pertaining to the Competition Board was unanimously passed by all the parties. There wasn’t anything in there that was considered controversial.
When the Competition Bureau officials appeared before the committee, they highlighted that the criteria were being strengthened when it came to recognizing the scope of the greenwashing problem. The officials cited Keurig as an example. You may be familiar with the case. Keurig was claiming that its coffee pods were recyclable when they weren’t, and the company was fined $3 million.
On May 31, the Competition Bureau sent the banking committee a letter. Yesterday, a witness referred to statements by the bureau indicating that it opposed the proposed amendment, which actually refers to international standards. Today, the Competition Bureau sent us a letter. I’m not sure whether the committee members have had a chance to read it yet. We got it at six o’clock, so I’ll read you what it says. It’s in English, but I just want you to hear what the Competition Bureau said.
[English]
My name is Anthony Durocher, and I am the Deputy Commissioner of the Competition Promotion Branch at the Competition Bureau. We noted with concern that yesterday, when discussing an amendment to paragraph 74.01(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act, the Chamber of Commerce indicated that your committee should consider the Commissioner of Competition’s advice to fully withdraw this amendment. The commissioner has made no such statement. As I recently outlined in the letter to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, the bureau’s view on this amendment is as follows:
Although we recommended further study, we respect the decision by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance to make amendments to clause 236(1) on this important issue. As noted above, it took this decision after hearing from various stakeholders. The amendments were ultimately adopted unanimously by the House of Commons at third reading on May 28, 2024.
The bureau also recognizes the importance of providing guidance to the business community following new legislative changes. For example, the bureau provided new guidance on wage fixing and no-poach agreements following the 2022 amendments to the Competition Act. I’ve attached the letter that was sent to the Banking Committee.
What is also important is that we were also invited to rely on the expertise and skill of the Competition Bureau, which has explicitly told us that it respects the decision of the elected representative and considers the proposal before us today as a long-awaited and necessary upgrade of our competition law framework.
What they are saying is that, in addition, we have also heard at length from officials at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, about the usual process that will follow the passage of the bill unamended. It says that these are important points that the Competition Bureau is providing, that it is committed to reviewing and developing guidelines to incorporate the amendments in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 following consultations with stakeholders.
The Competition Act is a principled, market-independent framework. The general terms of the act are first clarified by the Competition Bureau through guidelines developed with stakeholders and then by the courts through case law. This process should apply to recent amendments.
Just to say that this is a first step. When complaints can trigger investigations by the Competition Bureau, the bureau must determine whether an application to the tribunal is warranted, and it should do so pragmatically, taking into account the novelty of the provision.
In a nutshell, what the Competition Bureau is saying is that they are going to be bringing guidelines according to the change that was brought in by Finance. They will discuss these guidelines with stakeholders to make sure that they can be well put in place and don’t hinder or bring excessive stress on the different groups.
Senator Marshall: I’d just like to say that I support the amendment because we had received I don’t know how many emails, phone calls and letters that had particular concern with that phrase. I don’t think the fact that there’s a commitment there that the Competition Bureau is going to provide guidelines, I don’t think that’s going to allay the concerns. There’s substantial concern about that phrase, and that’s the only thing that the amendment changes, that particular phrase.
The comments and emails that I’ve received, they aren’t just people writing in saying, “I don’t like that phrase.” These are organizations or people that are sending in quite lengthy explanations as to why they are very uncomfortable with that phrase in the amendment. So yes, I think there’s an issue there for stakeholders.
Senator Kingston: I wanted to point out that we did receive a letter — it came to the committee and then was emailed to us — dated May 31, 2024, from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Ecojustice and others. The letter cites guidance from the Competition Bureau, which says that there are several internationally recognized methodologies that are readily available for firms willing to make environmental claims. There are references in the letter: the International Sustainability Standards Board and the United Nations report entitled Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions.
According to them and according to the Competition Bureau, apparently, because they lifted this from a letter written to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on March 1, 2024 — which I believe Senator Moncion was speaking to as well, and that’s lifted as part of a quote from this letter.
Senator Tannas: I want to thank Senator Moncion for that intervention, and also Senator Kingston. I’m in favour of the amendment.
First of all, this does not change the intention of the amendment that came in. It simply deals with that: those three words that are so nebulous and dangerous as to give concern to multiple industries and industry organizations that have had to mobilize because of zero consultation on this particular subject in a matter of days. That is the fact.
We have letters, phone calls, urgent requests for meetings, appeals from all manner of industries, other organizations, premiers, et cetera, to say the Senate needs to do its job here because the House of Commons did not do its job — and neither did the Competition Bureau; they weren’t holding consultations on this particular item.
We can respect the intention of the House of Commons. We can abrogate our role as legislators completely and say, “This comes out of the blue. There’s your intention.” But these words tie the courts and the Competition Bureau to find international standards in all cases.
Why would we — why would anybody, any good legislator in this country — force the courts to have to find on any issue where there are all kinds of evidence and common sense one way or the other, but, “Oh, no, I have to find an international standard on which to apply my judgment”?
We should not be tying the Competition Bureau to this. They do great work on their own. They’ll be able to get it right; I have every confidence. But with these words in there, we tie their hands. It may work out beautifully, in the view of Ecojustice and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, to have the Competition Bureau’s hands and the court’s hands tied to whatever international standard we need to apply. Maybe it will be a standard from Saudi Arabia for —
Senator Moncion: They have quoted a letter from the Competition Bureau.
Senator Tannas: Understood. The point is that the Competition Bureau did not plan for this to happen. As much as they maybe scrambled over the last few days, they did not plan for this to happen — unless there is a plot somehow that the Bloc Québécois was doing the government’s bidding by putting in this particular amendment.
We’ve got a problem. We should fix it. If we can’t fix it because we’re scared to fix it, I think we’re in the wrong place. This is typically within the wheelhouse. We should do our job.
Senator Loffreda: I thank Senator Ross for bringing forward the amendment; and I thank Senators Moncion, Kingston and Tannas for their observations.
I’m not going to echo what Senator Moncion just said, but I do agree with her that the Competition Bureau is a very credible source. We’re not dealing with a non-credible source. They mentioned respecting the decision. They mentioned that they have consulted various stakeholders. It was adopted unanimously in the House of Commons.
I agree with the fact that some of these environmental groups are gaining too much power. Many of them are federally funded. They should not run our economy nor our judicial system. I do agree with that. That’s why I agree with the strong observation being made by Senator Dalphond in Bill C-59. It’s a strong observation, stated clearly.
I’m just mentioning my thoughts now. I’m not adopting the observation.
From experience, there are internationally recognized standards that at times may be difficult to find; however on such a topic, to the extent that it’s discussed — greenwashing, what have you — there are clear internationally recognized standards. I think Senator Kingston made mention of that.
I don’t support the amendment. I feel that we should make a strong observation and move forward with it. I agree with certain elements — that this should not occur and we should do our job — but I think we are doing our job with a strong observation.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: As I see it, the purpose behind the amendment is extremely commendable, and that’s precisely the issue. As for the language “adequate and proper substantiation,” the focus of the amendment as it relates to international standards, when I look at the letter the Competition Bureau sent, I think we can make the following observation: Ultimately, our objective is to have the Competition Bureau define specific standards so that all companies and concerned parties — including those that have to defend themselves in relation to greenwashing — know what the parameters are. I don’t think the amendment adds any value to the current language. I think we should instead make an observation. Looking at the language in the observation we’ll be examining later, I think it could address the issue.
[English]
Senator Ross: What I would say in response to everybody’s comments — and I appreciate them very much — is that in removing those three words, the intention is not to change the intention of this clause. The intention is good and is still there. There would still be a reverse onus on businesses. The only thing it would be removing is the uncertainty and undefined wording.
I want to quote Mr. Chhabra from ISED, who said, “. . . As I mentioned in my opening remarks, ‘internationally recognized methodologies’ is an undefined term . . . .”
We were told that by officials in our meetings, not just through the letters we received — although, again, we did receive many.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I want to thank Senator Ross for bringing the amendment forward. This is her first amendment. Congratulations. Well done.
Thank you to Senator Moncion and to everyone who has weighed in.
I’m not going to rehash things. I want to talk about how this amendment came to be in the House of Commons.
It was an amendment by one of the opposition parties. The government moved the subamendment, saying it was a bridge too far and pulled it back. It did pass, 316 to 0. I’ll say that it does include the Alberta and Saskatchewan members of Parliament. The House broke it into sections of clauses, so they specifically voted unanimously on this group of clauses.
Knowing that the parties in the other place came to this careful collaboration — and, I would say, compromise — I want this group to think about the likelihood of it going back there and them undoing that compromise.
I think that’s worth considering because it was an all-party, all-in compromise that they came to on this amendment. We should think about whether that compromise would be undone.
Senator Pate: Senator LaBoucane-Benson answered my question. I was going to ask if they had the benefit of this information because it seems like the Ecojustice folks informed that amendment. Is that accurate?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: The first amendment moved by an opposition party was in response to stakeholders’ observations. They needed this to not just be products but also practice. The government said, “Wait a minute. That’s a little bit too far. We need to bring this back.”
This is the result of a carefully negotiated compromise responding not only to stakeholders saying it didn’t go far enough but also to stakeholders who were saying it went too far.
Senator Ross: I feel it’s not our place as senators to speculate how they may respond to an amendment that we make. This is our due diligence. I appreciate where you’re coming from.
I also think that, although it was passed, they did not have the benefit of the response that we have had because this response all happened post that amendment. The amendment came in. There was no consultation on that specific wording of the amendment, and all this response came as a result of it.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: [Technical difficulties] started during their third reading. It was passed at committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: I think we’ve covered the issue, so I will put the question. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Ross
That Bill C-59 be amended in clause 236, on page 429, by replacing lines 20 and 21 with the following:
“proper substantiation, the proof of which lies”.
All those in favour say yea. All those opposed say nay. Are there any abstentions?
The amendment is negatived. Would you like a recorded vote?
[English]
Mireille K. Aubé, Clerk of the Committee: I just want to bring to members’ attention that we have a membership change. Senator Galvez is being replaced by Senator Moncion.
[Translation]
The Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C.?
Senator Carignan: Abstention.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Abstention.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Gignac?
Senator Gignac: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Kingston?
Senator Kingston: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Loffreda?
Senator Loffreda: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator MacAdam?
Senator MacAdam: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Ross?
Senator Ross: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: Yeas: 3; nays: 8; abstentions 2.
The Chair: The motion is negatived. We are now continuing with Part 5, entitled Various Measures, which contains clause 168, on page 395, to clause 365, on page 526.
Shall Part 5, entitled Various Measures and containing clauses 168 to 365, carry?
[English]
On division. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division. I like that. Shall the bill carry?
[Translation]
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to append observations to the report? We have two proposed observations. We can start with Senator Dalphond’s.
Does the committee wish to proceed in camera to discuss the observations? I think we can do it in public. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will start with Senator Dalphond’s observation.
Senator Dalphond: My observation stems from a discomfort I have. I think a number of committee members, including those who voted against Senator Ross’s amendment, appreciate the quandary we’re in with just a few days to go until we rise for the summer. Personally, I heard what witnesses had to say, in particular, those representing Quebec’s aluminum smelters and representatives from an association out west, as well as people in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
[English]
They expressed serious concerns about these internationally recognized standards. I was also worried when I heard that the officials from the department said, “Well, it’s a new concept, and it could be interpreted in many ways, but we trust the bureau will do things properly.”
I’m also impressed by the fact that the bureau has, in the past, been very professional and have shown themselves to be in line with what’s going on in Canada, understanding legislation, monitoring what goes on in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I trust they’ll do the work because I also understand that the commissioner was supportive not only about greenwashing of products but also greenwashing of businesses. That’s what this topic is about; it’s brand new. Senator Moncion referred to greenwashing more in connection with specific products, but here it’s about the business, which is something new as a concept.
I have concerns. I’m not opposed to the idea, but I think these words could have been a bit filled in, and I would have been much more comfortable with the process before us. This is where we are. We are a few days before adjourning for the summer. The other place is closer to adjournment than we are.
I have drafted these observations which are before you. Do you want me to read them? My explanations are sufficient, but I can read it for the transcript if you want. Is it necessary? I can read it for those who are listening:
The Committee notes that a meaningful proportion of industry players active in Canada have made real efforts to support the move to a net-zero economy and to differentiate their products and firms on this basis. These legitimate efforts should not be deterred or impeded, for fears of the unintended consequences of the pursuit of greenwashing actions.
Your committee believes that meaningful consultation by the Competition Bureau, to set out clear guidelines in this area, is important, and for any private right of action to be informed by such guidelines as to what may be considered deceptive in the area of environmental pursuits.
Furthermore —
— And I will add clause 236(1) of Bill C-59 —
— while Bill C-59 notes the importance of internationally recognized methodology to substantiate such claims, the Committee believes that the analysis should include federal and other Canadian best practices, such as those set out by Environment and Climate Change Canada.
At least to say international guidelines are important, certainly, but we should also consider Canadian guidelines, especially projects approved by the federal government or the provincial government in Quebec, referred to in my questions with one witness; they should be a part of the analysis also.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Thank you, Senator Dalphond. I did a bit of work with my fellow senator. I’m no lawyer, just an economist. In my view, members of the other place were somewhat hasty in adding that, going forward, this affects not only products, but also business activities. This is uncharted territory, as they say. We’re jumping into this.
I must say that I didn’t find the Competition Bureau’s letter all that reassuring, but I don’t think this is very business-friendly. We are getting into something that could cause new businesses with innovative ideas for tackling climate change to put more time and money into their legal teams to deal with legal actions than into investing in new technologies.
I fully intend to keep a close eye on the Competition Bureau to see how many complaints and legal actions ensue. As Senator Loffreda mentioned, it’s important to respect publicly funded environmental groups — especially, in my case, since I’m a senator and grandfather. It’s not true, however, that this will be an open bar for frivolous legal actions. We’ll really be looking to the Competition Bureau to see how many legal actions arise as a result. Otherwise, businesses will set up shop in the U.S. instead of Canada to avoid frivolous legal actions, especially new businesses because they can’t afford to spend time or money on these legal issues.
As you know, there are regulators, securities commissions that monitor disclosures by businesses, and they are subject to the regulations. I commend Senator Dalphond for his effort, but we could again be seized with this issue in the next year if the amendment triggers too many complaints from businesses. I’m not talking solely about oil and gas companies. I’m also talking about sectors such as aluminum, transportation and agriculture. That’s my observation.
Senator Moncion: I just want to say that the first change we saw in the Competition Act had to do with another division the government proposed last year.
The second change under the Competition Act review was much more comprehensive. Extensive marketplace consultations were conducted. I met with Competition Bureau officials, and they explained the major changes and new policies. All the work the Competition Bureau does is really being updated here. I was reassured to see, and above all meet, all the people who worked on the competition reforms and amendments relating to the Competition Bureau.
Simply put, I’m much more comfortable with the observation, because the bureau has been modernized. Bill C-59 delivers an act that is much more up to date. The people at the Competition Bureau will be doing a lot of work as a result of these new reforms. They’ll be monitoring new trends and standards.
This is an opportunity, and we’ll be the watchdogs. That’s important. What’s more, when they do consult on everything related to greenwashing, we’ll have something that suits the needs of today, not those of 15 or 20 years ago.
[English]
Senator Ross: Thank you. I appreciate the observation you made, Senator Dalphond. I will say I don’t think it goes far enough because I don’t think it addresses the terminology “internationally recognized methodology.”
I don’t know how much longer I can keep saying “as a new senator,” but as a new senator I feel uncomfortable that the wording in your explanation included our looming summer break because I don’t think we should limit time we spend — or decisions we make to legislate — based on our or the other place’s summer break.
Senator Dalphond: Sorry, the reality or the kind of framework within which we are operating is not part of the observation. I must say the observation, however, addresses at the last paragraph specifically the words “internationally recognized methodology.” So it’s in the last paragraph.
Senator Ross: The way I read it, it sounds like —
Senator Dalphond: No.
Senator Ross: The importance of internationally recognized —
Senator Dalphond: We acknowledge that. Maybe we have another word we can use.
My idea is to say we acknowledge it is one of the factors that would be considered. That is what the law refers to specifically. But it should not be the sole factor to be considered. It should be part of a larger framework of analysis. That’s what I’m trying to achieve. The wording could be corrected if you have a better suggestion. I am open.
Senator Ross: Maybe “rather.” Something like, “the committee believes the analysis should rather follow or include federal and other Canadian best practices.”
Senator Dalphond: “should rather” or “should focus”?
Senator Ross: I would not say “also” but “instead of,” rather “instead of.”
The analysis instead should include federal and other Canadian best practices.
Senator Dalphond: Should also include federal —
Senator Loffreda: Yes, should also include, not rather, because then it is strictly —
[Translation]
The Chair: Is that clear? Does it need to be reread as amended? I think it’s clear. Are the senators in agreement? Great.
[English]
Senator Pate: In her opening remarks to our committee, Minister Freeland presented the housing and food affordability as crucial goals of Bill C-59. I’ve got the testimony. I have all of that, if senators want more details.
As a result of that, I thought it would be prudent of us to include an observation that, since the government has identified housing and food affordability as priorities in Bill C-59, it must ensure its policy decisions are supported by adequate implementation of the bill’s proposed tax fairness measures and they effectively address income security and inclusion for Canadians experiencing financial instability and those most in need.
[Translation]
The Chair: Does anyone want to comment on Senator Pate’s proposed observation? Is everyone comfortable with it?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate, in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We are going to suspend and resume in camera to discuss our report on Bill C-69.
(The committee continued in camera.)