THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 9, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all of the senators, as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
My name is Percy Mockler, Senator from New Brunswick, and Chair of the Senate Committee of National Finance. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves starting from my left.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, senator from the Gulf region of Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Hello. Senator Clément Gignac from Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Hello and welcome. Senator Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
Senator Galvez: Hello. Rosa Galvez, independent senator, Bedford, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Good morning and welcome. Pat Duncan, senator from the Yukon.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: Hello. Marc Gold, Government Representative in the Senate, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Shugart: Good morning. Ian Shugart, representing Ontario.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, and I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this morning, we will begin our study of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act, which was referred to this committee on May 3, 2023, by the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, this morning we are pleased to welcome the Honourable Randy Boissonnault, P.C., M.P, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance.
[English]
Before we ask the minister for his comments, Mr. Boissonnault, on behalf of the committee, all senators and staff, please accept our heartfelt thoughts for you and the people of Alberta as they are facing many challenges right now. Also, our prayers are with them as thousands of people have been evacuated. It touches Canada from the East Coast to the West Coast and from north to south.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for accepting our invitation, minister.
[English]
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you personally.
[Translation]
I believe this is the first time you are testifying as minister at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
With you today are Pierre Leblanc, Director General, Personal Income Tax Division and Galen Countryman, Director General, Federal-Provincial Relations Division.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Boissonnault. Because of the technical difficulties, we will respect the agreement that we have with you, minister, that at 10 o’clock you have another commitment with your responsibilities. This is also appreciated. I understand that you will be with us for the first round. On this, would you please make your comments and we will immediately proceed to questions?
[Translation]
Hon. Randy Boissonnault, P.C., M.P., Associate Minister of Finance: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, what an honour it is to be here with you today. Mr. Chair, technical difficulties are never our direct responsibility. If the committee wishes to add 15 minutes to the meeting, I am very conscious of these difficulties and am prepared to stay a bit longer if needed.
[English]
Let me say from the start, chair, senators, all, thank you for your heartfelt support for Albertans and for our province.
It is on fire now, as is the case in British Columbia. Some 30,000 Albertans have been evacuated. The premier spoke with the Prime Minister yesterday. The request for assistance has been made. All of the related and responsible federal departments are working with provincial officials to respond, and that includes municipalities ready to receive evacuees. The full weight of the federal government will be there to support Albertans. I thank firefighters and first responders from each of your jurisdictions who have responded to the call.
As it pertains to Bill C-46, thank you very much for the invitation. It is my maiden speech at committee here in the Senate. I couldn’t choose a better one than national finance, so thank you very much.
I will say straight up that this legislation is very much needed to help Canadians deal with high prices at the grocery store, and to assist the provinces and territories in delivering better health care. This is part of our ongoing commitment to support Canadians, especially those who need it the most.
It has been an honour on behalf of the Department of Finance to help move this critical piece of legislation through the legislative process. I introduced the bill in the House of Commons on behalf of Minister Freeland, and I was able to move the motion that saw it adopted at all stages in our chamber. Now, I am honoured to appear before this committee to talk about the important support that it will provide.
I want to thank all members of the House, as well as senators, for the spirit of cooperation that has helped move this legislation forward in an expedited manner.
[Translation]
Canada’s economy has grown faster than that of any of the G7 countries over the past year. There are now 907,000 more Canadians who have a job than before the pandemic. Nine hundred thousand Canadians are more people than the population of New Brunswick. That gives a good idea of how dynamic the job market is in Canada. Honourable senators, we know the population; we have more people working now than the population of New Brunswick.
[English]
But, senators, it’s not just jobs. Wages are also up, and slowly but surely inflation is going down. It has now fallen to 4.3% in March from 8.1% last June. While this is good news, challenges remain. We know that groceries, for example, are more expensive, and we understand that for many Canadians, this is causing undue stress. Bill C-46 would provide a new targeted inflation relief for those who need it the most.
[Translation]
Thanks to the grocery rebate, 11 million low- and moderate‑income Canadians and families will be able to receive financial assistance. Specifically, this represents up to an extra $467 for couples with two children, up to $234 more for individuals without children and an extra $225 on average for seniors.
[English]
The one-time grocery rebate would be delivered to eligible Canadians by direct deposit or cheque through the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, as soon as possible following the passage of Bill C-46. If the incredible cooperation we have seen continues and we can get this bill passed as soon as possible, the Canada Revenue Agency will be on track to deliver this payment alongside the July 5 GST credit payment. This would improve the quality of life for millions of Canadians and would do so without exacerbating inflation.
Bill C-46 would also provide a one-time $2 billion top-up to the provinces and territories through the Canada Health Transfer. Safeguarding the integrity of our public health care system is a priority for our government, as it is for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Canadians are proud of their universal public health care system. It is at the very heart of Canadian identity. However, Canadians are currently not always getting the top-quality care they deserve. Emergency rooms are overflowing and sometimes even closed. Major surgeries are being delayed or cancelled.
[English]
The funding proposed by Bill C-46 would help alleviate immediate pressures on provincial and territorial health care systems, in pediatric hospitals and in emergency rooms, as well as reduce backlogs and wait times for surgeries.
This immediate payment is part of the federal government’s $198.3 billion health care plan to improve health services Canadians receive. It is not to be used by provinces and territories to replace their own health care spending.
These are two urgent and critical measures in Bill C-46 that will provide help to Canadians in the areas that they expressed to us they needed it the most.
Once again, I would like to thank you, honourable senators, for your consideration of this bill. Let’s continue to work together and get this support to Canadians.
[Translation]
Thank you. I am ready to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, ,minister. I would like to acknowledge the presence of the sponsor of the bill, Senator Gold.
[English]
Thank you for being here, Senator Gold.
Honourable senators, we will move directly to questions of five minutes each with the minister, and his officials will stay if you have additional questions for the officials.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, minister, to you and your officials for being here this morning.
For those two programs, the $2.5 billion for the GST rebate and the $2 billion for health care, I notice in the budget document that those payments are going to be pushed back in the past fiscal year. What it looks like to me is that the government is moving money around, pushing this money back into the previous fiscal year, to make sure the deficits fall within a certain range. You yourself in your opening remarks said that the GST rebate will not go out until July 5. I hope the money for health care hasn’t gone out yet. We’re now into mid-May.
Why are those two programs pushed back into the previous fiscal year? Is it to make the bottom line look a certain amount?
Mr. Boissonnault: It’s a great question, senator. I appreciate the attention to detail. The bill was tabled in the previous fiscal year, so that is why it is on the books in that fiscal year in question, despite the fact that it may take us longer to actually get the legislation passed. That is the norm of accounting. We’re very transparent with the money we spent on behalf of Canadians in Budget 2022 and in Budget 2023.
The deficit that we posted was because we were very clear about three critical things. Bill C-46, which you see here, has two of them, which is making sure that we get the $2 billion out in addition to the $198 billion, and that we make sure we have support for 11 million Canadians who need that support the most. Out of scope for today’s conversation but germane to Budget 2023 is building the net-zero economy of the future.
The direct answer to your question is these items are booked on our books last year because of when they were tabled in the House.
Senator Marshall: It looks very suspicious because I see those two, but there is also a third one there. I won’t get into that one.
My second question is regarding the GST rebate. How do you know that it is reaching the people who most need the money? We’ve all heard stories about young people living at home with very well-to-do parents who are receiving the GST rebate while older people living on their own are not receiving enough to make ends meet. What sort of work is the department doing to make sure that this money actually reaches the people who need it most? Has there been any type assessment of the last GST rebate that was given out a couple of months ago?
Mr. Boissonnault: It’s a great question, senator, and I appreciate the empathy. If we take a step back and look at who the GST credit goes to in the main, it goes to the most modest Canadians. Of this scope of 11 million Canadians, over half of them are seniors. We know we need to do right by seniors who built this country, and the most vulnerable seniors are included in this particular GST top-up with the grocery rebate.
The other piece, though, is really important for us to state: You need to have filed your taxes to make sure that CRA knows where you are and what your income level is so you can actually receive this grocery rebate. It is a very similar set of recipients to the GST top-up, but we heard very clearly from people that they wanted support to help with their groceries. So this was, quite frankly, the most direct way that we can get the most money to those who needed it the most.
The other thing, senator, that I think it is important for all senators to know is we had a calibrating exercise to do with this budget. We needed to make sure we could protect our AAA credit rating, which is a great symbol of economic stewardship. It’s us, the United States, Germany, the Dutch and also the Australians. On the other side, we had to make sure we did not put so much into the economy that we would cause the Bank of Canada to raise rates.
We’ve seen that the AAA credit rating is in place, and that the rates have not gone up. We can surmise from that — and we have seen before with comments from people like Kevin Page — that what we’ve done in Budget 2023 is not inflationary in terms of spending.
Senator Marshall: When I looked at the analysis of the GST rebate, there are 11 million people that will receive money under that program, so that is 30% of the Canadian population. I notice now that there is no mention anymore of the middle class and those trying to enter the middle class. The emphasis now is that the money is being provided to low and modest income. It just seems odd to me that 11 million people, 30% of the Canadian population, are living on low and modest incomes.
Why doesn’t the department do some sort of analysis to see who’s receiving the benefits and whether they really should be receiving it?
Mr. Boissonnault: Our analysis, senator — and I appreciate, once again, the detail in the question — is that the people who are getting the GST are those people who do need it. It is the design of the GST tax credit. When we double it or add it like we’re doing with the grocery rebate, it’s because we know those are the people who are going to feel the pinch of inflation most. Many of those 11 million people are Canadians on fixed incomes. We know that the relief that is going to come to them through this grocery rebate is going to be important relief.
I can tell you, if you look at the emails in my parliamentary account, there are people in my riding who are saying, “When do I get the grocery rebate? Please, get this out as soon as possible.” It does make a difference to those 11 million Canadians.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here, minister.
Just so I understand, Bill C-46 is simple enough, but Bill C-47, there are places where... Are the rebate amounts set according to the 2021 fiscal year, when the rate of inflation was 3.4%?
Mr. Boissonnault: I will ask my colleague, Mr. Leblanc, to answer your question.
Pierre Leblanc, Director General, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you for the question.
There are two components to this because the GST credit and the grocery rebate are based on income for 2021, as you said.
An individual has to be eligible for the GST credit in January 2023. If we go back a bit, the minister mentioned that the rate of inflation was declining. The most recent rate is 3.4%, but if we go back to January, the rates were roughly 6.5%. We are talking about a period when the rate of inflation was rather high. I think that these are two things that need to be considered.
Senator Forest: Eligibility is based on eligibility in January 2023, but the rebate is determined by the rate of inflation in 2021, which was 3.4% at the time. Is that correct?
Mr. Leblanc: For 2021, we are using the net family income to determine eligibility. It is the equivalent of doubling the GST credit for six months. It is truly a combination of the two.
Senator Forest: Are the amounts of $467 for a couple and $234 for a single person and $225 for seniors lump sum amounts? They cannot vary according to 2021 income, correct?
Mr. Leblanc: Yes, these amounts can vary because they are the maximum amounts.
As far as the GST credit is concerned, the reduction rate applies at roughly $40,000. Beyond that, people receive partial amounts. That will also be the case for the grocery rebate, which will be paid in the form of partial amounts. As for income thresholds where no amount is received, it depends on the type of family.
Senator Forest: The 2021 income is the foundation, an indicator.
Mr. Leblanc: Exactly.
Senator Forest: The measure is very interesting. It helps 11 million Canadians, or 30% of Canadians, who really need it.
My big concern with these programs is that 10% of Canadians do not file a tax return. They are even more vulnerable than the 11 million people this is going to help. We see these people in the street and in shelters. Has any thought been given to the 10% of Canadians who are not identified anywhere in our services, even if we want to help the most vulnerable, most disadvantaged Canadians?
Mr. Boissonnault: That is a very good question, senator, and it is also a concern of the government. That is why Budget 2023 includes a pilot project to help these people. The Canada Revenue Agency is exploring how it can automatically produce tax returns for the most vulnerable. This pilot project is very promising. We will continue to explore the issue.
If that 10% of vulnerable people were in our system, we would be able to help them. These people would receive the GST rebate and other financial supports and they would benefit from other federal government programs. That is why this initiative that seeks to automatically produce tax returns for the most vulnerable is something we are greatly concerned about.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Thank you, minister. I am pleased to see you here with us.
We studied Bill C-46, and Bill C-47 was presented at roughly the same time. It is a bit unusual for measures to end up in both bills. The last time I saw that was when I sponsored Bill C-8 on rapid tests. At the Treasury Board, we were told that this measure needed to be in both bills because they did not know which bill would pass first. It was important because of the March 31 deadline for negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. I will spare you the details.
Why was it decided to have these two measures in both bills, the grocery rebate and the provincial rebate, and to introduce a bill separate from Bill C-47, namely Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1?
Mr. Boissonnault: We took into account two things. We wanted to get the money out quickly instead of waiting for the lengthy process for approving Budget 2023. The idea was to have the $2 billion sooner than simply waiting for the budget approval process. The reason we are seeing these measures in two places is that we wanted to see collaboration in the House of Commons. We did not want this to happen too quickly. We were prepared for the process to take longer. The text appears in two places and we hope that the finance committee, during study of Budget Implementation Act, No. 1, can help us with these issues.
Senator Gignac: Is this a first or the beginning of a new trend? Every time there is a budget and the government wants measures to be adopted quickly, it can just use a little bill and then we will take more time to analyze it? I am trying to understand the idea behind this.
I understand and share your point of view on the specifics because there is a deadline, May 12. This needs to be approved and assented to because of CRA’s deadline if we want people to receive their cheque in early July. I understand your first point, but the provinces do not need the $2 billion right away. They can wait a few more weeks. I do not see the urgency of this measure. I do not understand why this measure was included in Bill C-46 when it comes to the provinces. I understand the specifics, but not for the provinces.
Mr. Boissonnault: Senator, we have several former health ministers around this table, and current health ministers want their money right away.
That is also true for people who want money for groceries.
Sometimes, the House of Commons is like a boat that navigates waters that ebb and flow. To answer your question, it is truly a case-by-case situation. This is not our new plan to have parallel legislation in both places.
Senator Gignac: Why not wait a few more months? We are working with 2021 tax returns. There were lockdowns, incomes have changed for many people, especially for low-income people who were working in the service industry. There were closures. Incomes were much lower in 2021. In 2022, many of these people have higher incomes. As Senator Marshall said, 30% of taxpayers are going to receive these tax credits. Why is it so important to do this at the beginning of July and not wait until fall, when 2022 tax returns are available?
Mr. Boissonnault: I will give the floor to Mr. Leblanc in a moment. If I understand the issue and the nuance correctly, it is that we wanted to give people the money as soon as possible. The first month we could satisfy CRA requirements was July 5. As for the reason we are using January 2021 as an indicator, that is a technical question for Mr. Leblanc.
Mr. Leblanc: Thank you for the question.
Using the 2022 tax year would not change the numbers for the beneficiaries very much. When we are talking about 11 million people, or individuals or families who are currently getting the GST rebate and who would receive the grocery rebate, there is not a lot of fluctuation. There is a slight increase over the years, but we expect the number for 2022 to be quite similar.
[English]
Senator Smith: Glad to see you, minister. The government announced a pilot project, as you mentioned, in Budget 2023 that would provide automatic tax filing for low-income Canadians so they can access benefits.
How did you identify this group of low-income earners? What alternative ways could they receive this benefit, as they have not filed their income taxes?
Mr. Boissonnault: That’s a really great question. I’m going to go to the first question.
If the taxes aren’t filed, it’s really tough for us to find Canadians and to know what their income level is. One of the things I say on a regular basis is please file your taxes, and if you know somebody who hasn’t, please help them do so. In your communications, senator, I would encourage the entire Senate to get that message out to the provinces and territories because it’s critical and the best mechanism we have.
In terms of program design, the government had to figure out — and we go back to a previous budget on this — how to support people during the pandemic in a quick way, in government speak, in a way that would not add to the inflationary fire and that would get to those people who needed the help the most.
We’ve heard the Prime Minister and Minister Freeland on this, and I’ll say it here in front of honourable senators: We simply don’t have the fiscal frame to help everybody with all of the pressures they’re facing with the rise in inflation. That is why our government’s number one priority is to essentially get out of the way of the Bank of Canada and let it do its job so that inflation can come down. We’ve seen that be the case.
This particular mechanism is the quickest. It gets to people directly. They don’t have to apply. It comes to them directly, as long as their taxes are filed. You can take a look at what Kevin Page has said about the budget and the design of this; it will not increase inflation. We saw that with the Governor of the Bank of Canada not adjusting rates in the last period.
Senator Smith: As a simple follow-up, how do we make sure that people who receive this money actually spend it on groceries?
Mr. Boissonnault: Senator, we will have no way of knowing that. What we do want to say, though, is if you’re feeling the pinch on your groceries and you get this money in your direct deposit or a cheque comes to your home, use it on groceries. We’re not going to ask Canadians how they spend their money. If it helps to pay the rent, gets their kids a new pair of shoes or helps stretch the bills at the end of the month, that’s what the money is for.
Senator Smith: Your government is targeting the demand side with a grocery rebate. The driver of inflation is simply a fact that the supply side is lagging. We’re not producing enough goods. We need to match the high demand.
What are the ways the government is assisting Canadian food growers and producers in growing more food in Canada?
Mr. Boissonnault: I love a supply-and-demand conversation, Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: I did take my degree in economics. I got hit in the head so many times that I’ve forgotten most of it.
Mr. Boissonnault: I think the modern league owes a great debt of gratitude to your time as commissioner.
I will say this. On the substantive issue, we have spent most of our time in government working on the supply side of economics to make sure the economy can grow and not stimulate inflation. That’s why the Canada child benefit matters. That’s why our tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure matters, and that’s why the $10-a-day child care matters so much. I can tell you, two years ago, the participation of women in the Canadian workforce was under 70%, and now we are at 85.7% participation, much higher than the United States. You can make a direct line to the $10-a-day child care and the participation of women in the workforce. That’s all supply side economics, as Janet Yellen and Chrystia Freeland call it.
When it comes to making a choice — because to govern is to choose — we chose to help these people with the grocery rebate, and I know people in my riding and across the country are asking for it.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, minister, for being with us. I have two questions. One is to follow on from my colleague Senator Smith on the grocery rebate, and the other is on the health transfer top-up.
These are interesting numbers. Low- and modest-income couples with two children will receive up to $467, Canadians who are single up to $234 and seniors with an extra $225, on average. Are the dollar amounts that different groups can expect the same across Canada? While inflation and the rising cost of living, of course, have hit all of the country, in some places groceries are very expensive. Our National Security and Defence Committee was up in Iqaluit. I went to the supermarket just to look around and I was shocked. You’re not going to get very much for $467 in the Arctic.
Are eligible individuals and families entitled to the same amounts as eligible individuals and families let’s say in Iqaluit or in Ottawa? How do you figure that out?
Mr. Boissonnault: Senator, that is a great observation, and the simple answer is the money is the same across the country, regardless of region. The differentiator is income level. From what Mr. Leblanc said, the lowest and most modest-income Canadians will receive the highest payment, and as you make more money, the payment scales down. The key was to get it to people quickly. Had we added those other metrics and considerations, it would have slowed the process down considerably.
That is why my colleagues Minister Vandal, Minister Bennett and Minister Miller all worked together on addressing these issues in a Northern context in terms of food security programs like Nutrition North and others. There are senators around this table who know this issue much better than I in terms of the differentiation of pricing the further north you get. It is a consideration for the Senate, the House and our government. In this particular case, there is no regional differentiation.
Senator Boehm: Thank you. On the top-up to the Canada Health Transfer, how is the distribution of the $2 billion among provinces and territories decided? Are we using the usual formula that had come up in previous discussions? Were the amounts decided in consultation with provincial governments?
These discussions have often been fraught, and as you mentioned in your preliminary statement, you want to make sure that the money is used for the intention that it was set out for, such as urgent pressures in emergency and operating rooms, pediatric hospitals and the like. One side will always say the other side is not doing enough.
Is this $2 billion a stopgap measure or something for the immediate future, or is it anticipated it will make a significant and long-lasting difference? You alluded to this, but do you have measures in place to make sure that each province and territory uses their respective top-up for the stated purpose?
Mr. Boissonnault: How long do we have, Mr. Chair? That was a great question with lots of meat on it.
As quickly as I can, the conversation around the $198.6 billion was a conversation between the Prime Minister and the premiers. Out of that, they wanted a quick infusion of money to be able to stabilize the system in the short term. The conversation with the premiers and the Prime Minister is how they landed on the $2 billion.
It is a term of the agreement that it does not displace other funding, that it has to be additive. That is critical because the $2 billion is on top of $6.5 billion that is additional money that has come to the provinces in the last three years, in addition to the $72 billion that came to provinces for health during the pandemic, which is on top of the “emergency work with the provinces” fund.
Just in the Ontario case, senator — if other senators would like other numbers, we have them — it is $776 million for Ontario, and it is done on a per capita basis. To give an example, Quebec is $447 million, my province is $233 million. Let’s take New Brunswick, for the chair. It is almost $42 million.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here today.
Federalism is challenging, perhaps nothing is more challenging than fiscal federalism. I would like to follow up on Senator Boehm’s discussion with you.
The top-up to health care spending is repeatedly stated on a per capita basis. Per capita does not work in the North when one of our largest costs in our health care system is transportation to and from medical facilities.
I would like to follow up and ask about the markers, the accountability and what’s in place to ensure that this money is, in fact, going to health care and what health care priorities.
The other point I would like to make, minister, is that Canada has a fiduciary responsibility for First Nations people, and nowhere has anyone mentioned about additional funding for non-insured health benefits, which is, again, a health care cost. Would you please elaborate on Canada’s intention to increase funding similarly for non-insured health care benefits?
Mr. Boissonnault: On the latter one, I’m going to turn to Mr. Countryman to see if he has anything on that, but I will ask Minister Duclos particularly about that issue, and, collectively, we will get back to you.
You raise a lot of points, senator, as a former premier would. We have a duty to Northern people. I’m Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, and I live in Alberta, so I’m close. Well, I get some of it. I’m not going to claim that I’ve lived in the North, but I can say that what’s really important is when I’m in the North and I’m with Brendan Hanley or with Premier Pillai and we’re talking about 35,000 people, it’s not about 35,000 people in the North. It’s about 35,000 Canadians who are occupying this critical place in our country. Everything from Arctic sovereignty to how we project ourselves to the world, to the tourism opportunities, to being able to live in one of the most beautiful parts of the country matters, but so does access to medical care.
We’re seeing this right now with our transportation system. As Minister Alghabra heads into the air service review, it will be critical that Northern voices are heard. We just had this with Air North and with a rationalization of service. We have some communities that are not going to be served. I work with Caroline Wawzonek, Minister of Finance and Minister of Tourism in the Northwest Territories, on this issue.
When we get into the air service review, senators, we’re going to have to take a hard look at what happens in countries in the EU. When you fly to the fjords or the Greek islands, it is done on a basis where there is a community service obligation. You go to a bid process, the companies compete and whichever company needs the least amount of subsidy gets the routes. We should be looking at something like that for medical security.
When it comes to the health top-ups, I’ll get back to you from Minister Duclos.
Senator Duncan: Medical transportation isn’t covered by every province. It is unique to the North. To have it come out of the health transfer is an issue when health transfers are based on a per capita basis and when that is our largest cost.
Also, minister, if we could have — perhaps in writing — a response, if we’re able, on the accountability measures between the provinces and territories.
Mr. Boissonnault: Sure. I’m happy to answer that.
To access their share of the federal funding, including the guaranteed 5% top-up, provincial and territorial governments are asked to commit to improve how well health information is collected, disseminated and distributed. That data sharing, that information sharing, is now part of what needs to be an annual report back to Health Canada. That is new. That was something that was discussed at great length in the conversation with the premiers and the Prime Minister.
It’s going to be the Canadian Institute for Health Information that will be able to receive that information, but as you understand, senators, the information that we get from various jurisdictions is going to come in many forms.
Alberta Health Services is one jurisdiction for 4.5 million people, but there are 99 other health jurisdictions in the country. Those health systems aren’t all the same in terms of how they collect and share data. The Canadian Institute for Health Information will have some work ahead of it to make sure that data comes to us in a way that we can understand the health system across the country. That is the task of Minister Duclos and officials, to work with the Canadian Institute for Health Information on that.
When it comes to the issue of medical travel, that is an issue that Minister Vandal, Minister Miller and Minister Hajdu are working on. It’s not an easy fix, but it is an important element of living in the North.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here.
We know part of this $2 billion top-up to provinces and territories is to address surgical and diagnostic backlogs in our health care system. I appreciate that health care is a provincial jurisdiction, but how is the federal government tracking improvements in terms of backlogs? It is a major concern across Canada. How can we know and ascertain that these huge sums of money are producing positive results?
Mr. Boissonnault: It’s a great question, senator, and I’ll turn to Mr. Countryman for some of the technical details on this, but in the negotiations, it was very clear that there is a core transfer to the Canada Health Transfer. It is about three quarters of the $198.3 billion. Then there is new funding to do exactly what you’re talking about: reducing backlogs, long-term health care facilities, mental health supports, making sure we hire more people into the sector and that we get the data collection that I referred to earlier.
Part of the answer is the Canadian Institute for Health Information is responsible for collecting that data. We need the provinces to share that with us or the payments over time stop. That’s an important consideration. It is one of the greatest levers we have, which is the ability to transfer funding or withhold funding.
You’ve seen Minister Duclos do this recently. It wasn’t the extra billion, but it was encroaching into the private health care space in a couple of jurisdictions that some health care transfers were withheld to a couple of provinces. We’re watching carefully.
I know this is the case in my province of Alberta, but when I talk to people at the doors, they say to me, “We don’t just want federal money coming into the province for them to go and build roads and bridges. It has to be more money, full stop.” Citizens are attuned to this issue, too.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that response. My next question is about accountability. Because this $2 billion top-up is unconditional, how does the federal government ensure that the money is spent on health care? Historically, it has not always been the case. Is there any accountability mechanism in place?
Mr. Boissonnault: There are two. There is the data that we expect to have from Canadian Institute for Health Information, but there are also the regular meetings between Intergovernmental Affairs. Minister Dominic LeBlanc and his counterparts have been asked to follow this very closely. Minister Duclos and the officials at Health Canada are also staying in close contact with health officials. We can also see where money goes into provincial coffers.
This $2 billion, we have it on good faith and good trust that the provinces who asked for this quick infusion of funding will put it to the right place. We’re really quite pleased and grateful even for the collaboration we had with provinces on this health deal. We will be working with officials to make sure the money goes to the right place.
I’ll turn to Mr. Countryman to see if he has any other technical mechanisms to share with us.
Galen Countryman, Director General, Federal-Provincial Relations Division, Department of Finance Canada: I think the minister answered it very well. The Canada Health Transfer goes to provinces and territories. As part of that, they have to uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act. The provinces are accountable to their citizens in terms of their own health care spending. We know that there is clearly a demand for better service, so the expectation is that the provinces and territories will spend the money accordingly.
Senator Shugart: Thank you, minister. My colleagues beat me to this line of questioning on accountability, but let me push it just a bit further. You did say that the intention is for recourse in the event that provinces did not spend that money. We will be able to tell forensically if they did or didn’t just from the public accounts of all jurisdictions.
In theory, if there were an amendment to this bill saying that those amounts would be withdrawn from future transfers, would that have a particularly negative or disruptive effect on all of this?
Mr. Boissonnault: It’s a great observation. I think having the stick and saying we’re going to use the stick are two different things, and putting it in writing is a different order of warning, if we say. The state of negotiations we have with the provinces may not require that, but I’ll take that under serious advisement, share it with Minister Duclos and we’ll get back to you.
Senator Shugart: Well, the time to make such an amendment would be before the passage of Bill C-46, so we should do that quickly. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Hello, minister. I am still shocked by the size of the announcements for financial aid for families. The $467 for groceries for a family with two children adds up to about $10 a week, which is not very much. Some observers suggest that the grocery bill for those same people has increased by at least $50 to $60 a week. My first question is: Will this grocery rebate be taxable, even though these people pay little tax?
Mr. Boissonnault: If I understand the question correctly, as for the amount of the grocery rebate, if we take the $467 and spread it out over the entire year we are talking about less than $10 a week. When we talk about the size of the measure we need to understand that the people who need this money, really need it. This is important for them and I know that because I receive emails to that effect.
The important thing is that if we focus on only this issue, then we wonder why there is not more, but if we add the Canada child benefit, child care, the doubling of the Canada’s workers benefit, we see an entire series of measures to support Canadian families. The reason we proposed this grocery rebate and the doubling of the tax credit in the Fall Economic Statement, is that we know that inflation is hurting people. We have compassion for them. Under the current tax system, we were unable to do more. That is the reality. We are pleased that inflation is on the decline, but we want to help those who need it most.
Senator Dagenais: Will it be taxable?
Mr. Leblanc: Thank you for the question. No, these amounts will not be taxable and will have no repercussions on income-based benefits.
Senator Dagenais: There are people who do not file tax returns. Some have very low incomes and others do not file, in some cases it has been many years. Many people do not file tax returns because they worry that the tax system will be too hard on them if they do, maybe even harder on them than on those who hide their money in tax havens. That being said, to encourage low-income people to file their tax return from now on, given the small amount of money that is at stake, should we not consider wiping the slate clean for the previous years and giving them a chance to start back at square one? Some do not file tax returns because they fear the reaction from CRA, which is rather harsh with low-income people.
Mr. Boissonnault: Allow me to answer one of the secondary questions you asked. We are always trying to go after people who use tax havens, and I know that Mrs. Lebouthillier is working hard on that. Every dollar we gave her at CRA equals $5 we have received in return during our mandate. We are up to $2 billion and we have removed about a dozen; it is a good sign.
For those who fear CRA, I would love to get some advice from honourable senators on how to address that. I know that people can get more support by filing tax returns than by hiding money from the tax system. From my perspective, starting back at square one without seeing the numbers... My job is to protect our fiscal envelope and I think that the best way to lose my job is to support your question today, senator.
Senator Dagenais: Could the strike by various public servants affect the refunds that will be paid? We know that there are delays in processing tax returns at the CRA right now.
Mr. Boissonnault: That is a very good question. We are very pleased to have reached an agreement with CRA employees and the Treasury Board and there will be no delay because of the strike. If we can continue at the same pace and adopt Bill C-46, we could make these payments on July 5.
On that, I have thought about Senator Shugart’s question and if you propose an amendment, senator, this will delay the process because the bill will have to be sent back to the House of Commons and we would lose our envelope for July. Bear in mind, and not to tell you what to do, but an amendment would push the process to the fall and not July.
Thank you, Senator Dagenais.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: Thank you, minister, and thank you to the assistants.
[English]
My question follows up on a number of colleagues. As you know, the recent 2022 Auditor General report found that the Canada Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada:
. . . did not have a clear and complete picture of the people who were not receiving benefits for which they were potentially eligible. Estimates overstated the take-up of benefits because they did not always account for people who had not filed tax returns, which are required to access most benefits. The department and agency had limited evidence that their increased outreach activities had resulted in increased take-up of benefits by hard-to-reach people.
My question for you, minister, and for your officials, is: What information do you have now that updates from that perspective with respect to the take-up rates for GST/HST benefits, particularly by areas of need? I know you’ve spoken a bit about that already, but I’d also like you to elaborate on what specific measures the department has taken to address the issues raised by the Auditor General in that report and to basically remedy the findings.
Mr. Boissonnault: I like the question a lot. I’ll say that having spoken with Minister Qualtrough and Minister Lebouthillier about this issue, they have accepted the report from the Auditor General and are working on those issues to actually get to that granular level. Even to Senator Dagenais’s point about how we get to the people who either have not, don’t want to or simply can’t get the forms submitted, we’ve heard other senators raise this. This is why with respect to the pilot that was referenced in the budget, we want to actually deepen and extend so that with the Auditor General’s findings, we can actually do a better job.
Senators, if you have advice for the government on how to do this work better, please share it. We are very open to your expertise and how we might get more Canadians to get on the tax roll because it’s critical for all of the things we have discussed today and the Auditor General’s report on this matter has been accepted by the relevant ministers.
Senator Pate: I’m presuming this is related to the automatic tax filing initiatives that are taking place. Particularly given the information that’s available about the inability to reach hard‑to‑reach populations, are there some new advances there that would be useful for us to know about? How can you see us assisting you in terms of the automatic tax filing file?
Mr. Boissonnault: Now, my team is going to kick me under the table and say, “Never freelance in front of a finance committee of senators.”
Something that affects my community as a 2SLGBTQIA+ person — and it’s the same with racialized Canadians, the same with persons with disabilities — is the importance of data and disaggregated data. We can’t find the people if we don’t know how to collect the data about them. Statistics Canada is up here, and they’re remarkable. We have provincial and city sources, but we also need to do a better job — and Statistics Canada is open to this — of working with community-based data sources to help find people we simply can’t find or get on the tax roll.
If you look at my own city where the houseless population doubled during the pandemic, how are we expecting those people to submit their tax rolls? They’re living in a tent or living rough. How do we get those people to see the benefit of actually getting on the tax roll? That requires a sophisticated, multi-government response — including working with First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities — to ensure that we blend all of that data. So when we as government officials see the opportunity to fund and connect disaggregated data sources, it ties directly to the Canada Revenue Agency being able to do a better job because they’re going to know how to find the people who need help the most.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for being here and thank you for answering our questions, minister.
I will try to propose something different from my colleagues, who asked very good questions.
I would like to talk about my province, Quebec. According to the Government of Quebec, nearly 1 million Quebecers do not have a family doctor. Experts say that is an under estimation because in fact, there are 1.2 million orphan patients. I am one of them. It has been four years since I have had a family doctor. The population is aging; in this post-pandemic era there is stress, depression, exhaustion, new illnesses. Demand is much greater than supply, to come back to the question of supply and demand. What is more, the pandemic showed us that Canada is behind in research and innovation when it comes to the care economy and technology. In the meantime, the other problem is that foreign doctors and foreign nurses who want to work here face many obstacles in the accreditation process.
[English]
Your government promotes a whole-of-government approach. You’re very proud of saying that public health and the environment is a whole-of-government approach. This money that we’re giving to provinces is a lot of money, and there are not many strings attached, but we still need to see improvement in public health services. We have positive indicators and negative indicators, but I’m asking about how you coordinate your activities with the health minister and with innovation in order to see the progress that we must attain with respect to public health services.
Mr. Boissonnault: You have talked about — thank you, senator. It’s great to see you and to be here at this committee.
You’ve talked about two of my favourite files, health and innovation, despite the fact that I have other responsibilities. Minister Duclos works closely with his counterpart in Quebec on the health file. You’re right, $198.3 billion is a lot of money. The $2 billion that the provinces have asked us to get them in short order is important for the immediate needs, and we trust that they will put that money in the right place.
You’ve also bridged to a really important issue about skills recognition and recognizing the credentials of newcomers. We have been very clear in Budget 2023 that we intend to have a national program to recognize the competencies of health care workers from coast to coast to coast. When you see Minister Duclos, give him some encouragement. When you’re talking with provincial counterparts, please encourage them that the time is now to do this because part of the $198.3 billion is indeed to get people into the workforce, and we can’t graduate enough people from Canadian systems to meet the demand that is in our health care system now.
Senators, just for a fine point on this, when I became an MP in 2015, we were bringing in 260,000 newcomers per year. Last year was 401,000, we’re going to 440,000 — we’re going to be at 500,000 newcomers by 2025 because our entire labour force growth comes from immigration. By 2032, the entire growth of our country will come from newcomers. We have to get it right, and we are starting in the health care field, and that’s important.
Just a few numbers I want to mention. There will be $447 million out of this $2 billion going to Quebec. In the budget, there is almost $48 million for the Bonaventure Expressway redevelopment, we are working on the Lac‑Mégantic reroute and the reciprocal agreement on child care was a very clear agreement. It’s important for us to continue to innovate.
If you have ever met him, you know that François-Philippe Champagne, my colleague minister in Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, is working with all of us to ensure we are building the economy of the future, and Quebec is a big part of that.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
I realize you have to go. I’d like to know if you have any concluding remarks for us. I’ll ask the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, Senator Forest, if he has any comments. I have to respect our question period, so please go ahead with your comment.
Senator Forest: Thank you for joining us for the first time, Mr. Minister. It was very interesting.
This is just a comment, a heartfelt plea from me to you. Our Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is amazing. We have a wealth of diverse experience, and our goal truly is to work together to improve bills. My personal comment to you is this: Maybe it would be a good idea to rethink the budget cycle. We always come up against such tight deadlines, and it’s kind of frustrating because we can’t do our work as well as we’d like.
Plus, we get these massive omnibus bills. We spend a lot of time and energy on them, we work really hard, but we can’t ever do as good a job as we want. There’s one Standing Senate Committee on National Finance here. I myself have been a member for six and a half years. I won’t talk about Senator Marshall, a young senator who is a new member here. We’ve been here for a long time, and we want to make a valuable contribution. I’m just thinking about the 10% of Canadians we have to focus on for a short time. They are society’s most vulnerable, and we could make a significant contribution. The way the budget cycle works now, we’re always in a rush, painted into a corner, and we don’t have the time we need to make that contribution properly.
That’s the comment I wanted to make. I know we’re all working toward the same goal here, which is to have the best possible bills, bills that are equitable and in the best interest of Canadians. That is truly what we, as very competent members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, want.
The Chair: As chair, I want to bring this to your attention. I believe this is very important, and I think we have to keep looking for mechanisms that will get that 10% of Canadians who don’t fill out their tax return to do so.
Without a doubt, that would result in a better quality of life for those people too.
[English]
Minister, thank you very much. Do you have any closing remarks?
Mr. Boissonnault: Thank you, senators. I will remember this hour for the rest of my life.
When you turn 52, you wonder if there are going to be any more firsts in life, and you all provided me with a most remarkable first. I will remember it.
[Translation]
Mr. Deputy Chair, I hear you. We’re working on that with PCO and the Department of Finance. Duly noted.
Mr. Chair, the disadvantaged and the 10% of people who are not in the CRA’s files, we’re taking that seriously. I’m very grateful for your expertise and your dedication to our wonderful country. Congratulations on doing such great work.
[English]
I can’t wait to see you all again. If that means I get invited back, so much the better. Thank you.
The Chair: We have 15 minutes now with the officials for a second round.
Senator Marshall: I got the impression from what the minister was saying that the less income you were receiving on your tax return, the more your benefit would be. But we were told that a single person earning just under $10,000 a year will receive $154 under this bill, whereas a single person earning twice that amount, or $20,000, will receive $234 in rebate, which is 52% more. It just seems odd that for a program that’s supposed to target the most disadvantaged, the higher your income, the more you get back.
Can you just confirm if that is actually the case?
Mr. Leblanc: Thanks for the question, senator.
As I think we said a few times, this really builds off the GST credit. Basically, it’s taking those amounts and scaling them up. That’s the efficient way to get the money out to help low- and modest-income Canadians.
For single individuals without children, what you described is correct because of the way the current GST credit is set up. There is a single supplement, but it phases in between $10,000 and $20,000. If your income is less than $10,000, you’re going to get the $153. If your income is between $20,000 and $40,000, you’re going to get the $234. Then it will be phased in between.
You mentioned the student or young adult in a well-to-do family, to the extent that they have little income, they’ll be getting the $153.
Senator Marshall: It just goes back to my point that the most disadvantaged aren’t necessarily getting the higher benefit. I know some groups, like older women, live in poverty. You see what they’re going to receive and then you see what the student living in a well-off family is receiving. It just seems that the program might have been okay for the rebate of GST because the higher your income, the more GST you pay, but for a program to help the disadvantaged, it just seems like the GST rebate is not the best vehicle.
Mr. Leblanc: Let’s take a senior woman with a very low income who would be receiving Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. They would basically have $20,000 of income, so they’ll be receiving the full $234 because their net income is high enough while still certainly being low income.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I’ll skip my turn because I got more than my share of time with the minister.
Senator Gignac: My question is for Mr. Leblanc. Is this the first time a fiscal measure has been introduced outside a budget implementation bill? In this case, the budget implementation bill is Bill C-47 and the grocery rebate initiative is in Bill C-46. Is that a first?
Mr. Leblanc: Thank you for the question. Although most fiscal measures are put forward in budget bills — I will be here tomorrow evening to discuss those measures — fiscal measures are fairly frequently put forward in two bills.
Senator Gignac: This is the first time a fiscal measure has been put forward in two bills.
Mr. Leblanc: I believe the minister already talked about that issue.
Senator Gignac: If the budget had been introduced a week later, at the beginning of April, if I understand correctly, that $2.5 billion for the grocery rebate measure and the $2 billion for the provinces — which comes to $4.5 billion in total — would have been accounted for in the 2023-24 fiscal year instead of the 2022-23 fiscal year. The date the budget is introduced is what counts for accounting, because the deficit would have been $4.5 billion higher than last year.
Mr. Leblanc: Yes, or, actually, the date the bill is introduced in Parliament. Because that happened before April 1, it was during the previous fiscal year.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Smith: Mr. Leblanc, I would like to know whether there is a concern that grocery chains will have priced in these payments and if this cash infusion into the economy will actually increase the cost of groceries.
Mr. Leblanc: Thanks for the question, senator.
I have a few thoughts. To build on what the minister said, you’re talking about $2.5 billion in an economy that is well over $2 trillion in annual GDP. The aggregate addition to demand is pretty limited.
One thing about this measure is that while 11 million individuals and families will receive the amount, there are lots of individuals and families who have higher incomes who won’t receive the amount.
Providing a benefit that’s going to just a segment of the population is certainly less likely to have an effect on aggregate demand and therefore on possible price setting than let’s say a broader-based measure.
Senator Smith: I guess it’s based on whether we have total confidence in the market forces and how they respond. Thank you, sir.
Senator Pate: My question is a bit supplementary to what Senator Marshall asked. You had mentioned people on Old Age Security or Guaranteed Income Supplement, but what about folks who are on provincial disability or social assistance schemes who may be eligible? What kind of assurances, penalties or mechanisms are you using to ensure provincial programs don’t benefit from clawbacks to the detriment of the very people who are trying to be assisted, as they did with the Canada Emergency Response Benefit?
As well, one of the challenges within the Department of Finance has often been resistance to things like the motion that was just passed at the most recent Liberal convention about guaranteed livable basic income. Have you looked at some of those measures? Will you be having a new examination in light of that new policy direction combined with the focus on homelessness, houselessness, Indigenous peoples and their overrepresentation in all of the above?
Mr. Leblanc: Thank you for the question, senator.
First, building on what I told Senator Marshall, it would really depend on what their net income is. If you’re looking at individuals with disabilities who are receiving social assistance, one of the things we know is that the amounts vary quite a bit across provinces in terms of maximum amounts you can receive from social assistance. I think it would vary. The situation could vary a good amount depending on the province or territory where someone lived and the amount of social assistance they were receiving.
We know now that the GST credit isn’t taken into account. It’s one of the benefits that provincial ministries don’t take into account when calculating social assistance amounts. Given that the grocery rebate builds off of the GST credit, I think you could expect something similar, especially since it’s a one-time payment.
On your second question, we’re always looking at issues that the government wants us to look at.
Senator Pate: Sorry to perhaps not have been sufficiently articulate. If, in fact, you find or hear there are being clawbacks as there have been with some of the pandemic benefits, what would be the reaction of the department?
Mr. Leblanc: I think the government would be concerned. Here we’re looking at one-time payments for the dollar amounts that we’ve been discussing, so we don’t expect that to happen.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: I would just like to build upon Senator Pate’s line of questioning and ask very specifically if there is a dedicated group or individual looking at the universal basic income or guaranteed livable income. The reason I’m asking the tax department is because there are very complicated tax-sharing arrangements involved in developing a universal basic income with self-governing First Nations and non-self-governing First Nations with Indigenous Services Canada.
P.E.I. has looked at this significantly. It is contained as a commitment in the Putting People First report of the Government of Yukon. They are examining it. Where is the federal government on this, particularly the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency? Is there a dedicated group looking at this project individually with provinces and territories or as a country? It would be fine to provide an answer in writing.
The Chair: To the officials, I’ll need to close immediately. Senator Duncan, I’ll ask if it’s possible for Mr. Leblanc and Mr. Countryman to answer that question in writing for us.
Mr. Leblanc: Yes, we can certainly look into it.
The Chair: Thank you. To the officials, thank you very much for your time. It was certainly informative.
[Translation]
We will move on to the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-46. I believe you all have a copy of the bill, and I’m sure you have familiarized yourselves with it. This is Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act. Can I get a directive from the committee? I’d like to first draw one thing to your attention.
[English]
As per the instructions from our clerk, we have not received any amendments or observations on Bill C-46.
Therefore, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 1, which contains the short title of Bill C-46, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Shall clause 2, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, carry, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 3, the Income Tax Act, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that Bill C-46 be adopted as presented?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
[English]
Honourable senators, are there any comments around the table? Do you have any observations?
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I might have an observation to make. This is the second time we’ve seen elements in one bill that are also in another. I remember Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. Now we have Bill C-46 and Bill C-47.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has a lot on its agenda, and I’d like us to send a message in hopes the minister might introduce her budget a few weeks earlier. I’m trying to understand, but I think the idea is to make sure the May 12 deadline is met so the Canada Revenue Agency can implement that tax cut on time and send taxpayers their money.
It becomes a slippery slope if the government starts duplicating measures because it’s afraid of delays in the House or the Senate. Fiscal measures belong in the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1. I understand that these are things that might come up in the fall when there are economic updates and whatnot, but this is the second time I’ve seen this. I don’t have as much experience as my colleagues around the table, but I certainly hope it won’t become a new trend where the government introduces bills that duplicate certain elements. I’m somewhat uncomfortable with that way of doing things. Obviously, I’m not opposed to Bill C-46, but I think this approach is odd, to say the least, and I think the government should respect the work we do as parliamentarians.
The Chair: If I understand you correctly, that was a comment. Here’s how we can proceed. We can bring the matter to the steering committee’s attention and, following consultations with senators, send a letter to the Minister of Finance when we look at the timeline. As I said at the start of the meeting, the bill’s sponsor, the Government Representative in the Senate, is here with us. I have no doubt he will take note of this. I would ask him to follow up in writing once the steering committee has discussed the matter.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Whether we put it in as an observation or include it in the letter to the minister, the case that my colleague referenced, Bill C-8 and Bill C-10, we mentioned that in our report on whatever bill a couple of years ago. We could use that as an example and say that this is the second time we’ve noticed this. It’s not a one-off. It seems like it’s going to be a recurring theme, so we should reference the first example that we picked up.
The Chair: Any other comments?
Senator Gold: Thank you for receiving me here. Duly noted. Minister Boissonnault was quite clear that this was not a trend, that it was a case-by-case thing, but your comments and concerns are duly noted, and I’ll certainly pass them back to my colleagues in the other place.
Senator Duncan: Mr. Chair, you have, in your public comments, consistently noted the time and energy that the Senate Finance Committee spends on these important bills, and it’s in stark contrast to the time the House of Commons spends. I appreciate you noting that for Canadians, not necessarily in this report, but in your public remarks.
I understand it is a minority Parliament, and what we’re trying to do here — and there are different pressures in the House of Commons — but I appreciate the public recognition of the work that my colleagues have put in on this bill.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: To be clear, this isn’t a permanent trend, but a strategy seems to be emerging with Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 and now C-46 and C-47.
I think it’s reasonable to raise a red flag here.
[English]
The Chair: There seems to be a consensus of the comments that we have received. Is there also any indication to give us the green light in respect to what I’ve heard, that I will, as chair, bring it to the attention of the steering committee, that it will be discussed as per the conversation I’ve heard around the table and subsequently, as we proceed to the end of June, we will bring it to your attention?
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate as soon as possible?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, that concludes our clause-by-clause study of the bill.
[English]
I will take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you, and also our staff behind the scenes, for your dedication. And also, as senators, permitting us to do our job and representing Canadians from coast to coast to coast because it is about transparency, accountability, predictability and reliability of a budget.
(The committee adjourned.)