THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 24, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all the senators who are here with us and the viewers across the country joining us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Claude Carignan, senator from Quebec and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I would now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Forest: Good morning and welcome. I am Éric Forest, independent senator from the Gulf division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: My name is Sandra Pupatello. I am an Ontario senator.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good morning. I’m Clément Gignac from the Kennebec division in Quebec.
Senator Cardozo: Good morning. I’m Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross from New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we are continuing our study of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. We will be hearing from witnesses on the first panel, and then we will move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
We will be hearing from a number of senior officials whom we are always pleased to welcome. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Rigon, Executive Director, National Compensation Services and the Executive Liaison Officer to Veterans Affairs Canada; and Jeff Hutcheson, Director General, Corporate Management and Controllership.
From Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, we have Samir Chhabra, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch; and from the Public Health Agency of Canada, we welcome Kimby Barton, Director General, Centre for Biosafety, Regulatory, Operations and Emergency Management Branch. Finally, from Public Services and Procurement Canada, we welcome Lorenzo Ieraci, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Planning and Communications Branch.
Thank you very much for being with us this morning.
We will now hear opening remarks. We’ll spend an hour together. There will also be a question period. If you could keep your presentations brief, we would appreciate it.
We will begin with Ms. Rigon, followed by Mr. Chhabra, Ms. Barton and Mr. Ieraci.
Joanne Rigon, Executive Director, National Compensation Services and Executive Liaison Officer to Veterans Affairs Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
[English]
Thank you for the invitation to appear today as we gather on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Nation, and recognize the continuing presence of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people in this region.
As you have said, my name is Joanne Rigon, and I am the Executive Director of National Compensation Services and the Executive Liaison Officer to Veterans Affairs Canada for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am responsible for the delivery of compensation, pensions and disability benefits, including the member injured on duty benefit available to RCMP members under Part II of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the RCMP-related provisions in Part 5, Division 21 of the 2025 budget implementation act. My remarks will focus on the current iteration of the legislation, and I will also expand on the original policy intent of the now-rescinded information-sharing clauses that were removed through the adoption of a motion at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.
While the current legislative posture provides some clarifications to the authorities governing the administration of the RCMP’s disability benefits, it is a departure from the comprehensive enabling authorities, which were originally sought to ensure that our members receive the timely and transparent support they deserve.
For context, the member injured on duty benefit provides a monthly, tax-free financial pension to compensate for impacts on the quality of life of a member as a result of a permanent workplace disability, as well as special allowances and treatment benefits to serving and former members who have been injured due to their service. These benefits are administered by Veterans Affairs Canada, or VAC, as the external provider for the RCMP. This benefit also extends to survivors for both service and non-service-related deaths. This disability pension is not income replacement but rather is compensation for the pain and suffering of the member.
Additionally, through Bill C-15, Part 5, Division 19, the government would adjust the annual indexing formula so that RCMP disability pensions would be aligned with the consumer price index starting January 1, 2027, creating a consistent and transparent method for updating benefits. This change would align the RCMP disability pension adjustments with other federal and police service benefits, improving coherence and administrative efficiency.
A critical area where the current iteration diverges from the original policy objective is the omission of explicit authorities to facilitate information sharing between the RCMP, Public Safety Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada. While the new section provides a general framework, it lacks the explicit enabling authorities sought to streamline the exchange of medical and personal information and leaves a procedural bottleneck that risks delaying the very benefits to which our members are entitled. I want to reaffirm that the rescinded provisions did not allow for broad or open-ended information sharing. Rather, they were strictly limited to what is required to responsibly administer disability benefits, understand the nature and severity of service-related injuries, identify emerging risks and ensure appropriate accommodation for our injured members.
Existing safeguards are in place to ensure that an RCMP member’s privacy is being respected following an occupational injury. Public Safety Canada, Veterans Affairs Canada and the RCMP currently operate within a comprehensive privacy legislative framework designed to ensure that all data is collected, utilized and protected in accordance with the highest standards of integrity, security and accountability.
The legislation as currently drafted lacks the legal certainty originally sought to streamline the exchange of information and to narrow the scope of sharing only what is proportionate to adjudicating a claim, thereby protecting privacy by replacing existing practices with a clearly defined statutory framework. It restricts the RCMP’s access to complete information regarding service-related injuries, which creates ongoing challenges in making informed investments in occupational health and safety, ensuring timely access to treatment, and accurately assessing a member’s medical fitness for the demanding duties of policing.
Currently, the RCMP receives a statement of assessment from Veterans Affairs Canada that provides for five fields of information: name, regimental number, province, effective date and a brief medical description. It does not provide context nor a percentage of assessed impairment or severity of the service-related injury. Without this level of detail, the RCMP’s ability to provide appropriate workplace accommodations to prevent further injury is significantly hampered.
In 2025-26, the RCMP will spend upwards of $1 billion on disability benefits for both current and former members. Approximately 55% of currently serving RCMP members are in receipt of this disability benefit. This is up from 25% just five years ago. Access to shared information will help to mitigate this rising trend and associated impacts on our members. Establishing a clear legal authority will allow the RCMP to move from a reactive posture to a data-driven prevention model.
The RCMP’s ability to manage disability benefits — effectively and responsibly — as well as the RCMP workforce depends on the ability to access timely and complete information.
Mr. Chair, supporting the health and well-being of RCMP members is central to our mandate. When members are injured, they deserve a system that functions as intended, including ensuring the RCMP as an employer has met its duty of care to its members by identifying workplace hazards and implementing prevention measures to reduce associated risks.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
Samir Chhabra, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today on Division 23 of Part 5 of Bill C-15.
[English]
In Budget 2025, the government announced its commitment to providing a data-mobility right in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, to facilitate responsible data sharing across sectors. Division 23 of this bill would fulfill this promise and would amend PIPEDA to provide a new right to data mobility.
The amendments to PIPEDA found in Division 23 allow consumers to direct the transfer of their personal information from one organization to another — for example, a competitor or another organization that provides a similar service — so long as both organizations are subject to a data mobility framework.
In addition, the Governor-in-Council, through regulations, would be able to lay out general interoperability and data security requirements that a framework must meet, and would specify which organizations or activities are subject to the data mobility regulations. These amendments are designed to increase consumers’ control over their personal information and promote competition and innovation by facilitating switching between providers within the data-driven economy.
The proposed consumer-driven banking act in Division 9 of Part 5 of this bill would establish the very first data mobility framework. In the future, other frameworks could be designated as data mobility frameworks applying to different sectors.
These amendments to PIPEDA will clarify how PIPEDA applies to the Consumer-Driven Banking Framework and will confirm that transfers of personal information in the context of open banking are backed by the federal privacy law and overseen by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
[Translation]
We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
Kimby Barton, Director General, Centre for Biosecurity, Regulatory Operations and Emergency Management Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada: I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to be a part of your study on Bill C-15. We welcome the opportunity to highlight some of the key proposed legislative amendments to the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act included in this bill. These amendments were informed by numerous consultations dating back to 2020 and will modernize Canada’s biosecurity and biosafety oversight framework and will protect the health, safety and security of those living in Canada.
[Translation]
The Public Health Agency of Canada is the federal authority and regulator of individuals and facilities working with human pathogens and toxins. The agency supports both the biomanufacturing and global health security agendas by providing oversight of academia, pharmaceutical, diagnostic and public health-related containment facilities working with human pathogens and toxins through a comprehensive licensing regime, security clearance, inspection and compliance program.
The Human Pathogens and Toxins Act came fully into force in 2015, establishing an oversight framework to protect against the health, safety and security risks posed by human pathogens and toxins.
[English]
In the years since the act was first established, we’ve seen a rapidly evolving security and threat landscape. There has also been significant growth in the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. Both of these factors have introduced emerging risks identified by security and intelligence partners that were not areas of concern when the original act was drafted.
In response to these developments, the proposed legislative amendments aim to provide the Government of Canada the needed flexibility to respond to evolving security threats, support emergency preparedness, provide greater clarity to regulated parties, improve security safeguards against potential threats, amend reporting thresholds to prevent underreporting of potentially dangerous incidents and modernize compliance and enforcement tools.
[Translation]
These changes will balance oversight, creating a unified focus across biosafety, biocontainment and biosecurity. Canada’s risk-based approach to human pathogen and toxin oversight balances the need to protect the people of Canada against harmful pathogens and toxins while maintaining Canada’s role as a world leader in scientific research and technological innovation.
[English]
These measures will allow us to strengthen safeguards and mitigation measures against potential incidents with human pathogens and toxins, support Canada’s international obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention and bolster national resilience and emergency preparedness, all while continuing to support Canadian researchers who are performing world-leading scientific research contributing to Canada’s prosperity and the well-being of its citizens.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
[Translation]
Lorenzo Ieraci, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Planning and Communications, Public Service and Procurement Canada: Honourable senators, my opening remarks will be brief. I didn’t know we would have speaking time at the beginning. I’ll present some points in English. I’ll ask you to be patient. I’ll translate them as I’m reading them. Thank you very much.
The Chair: You can read them in French. Don’t forget that we have translation.
Mr. Ieraci: I’ll still try, just to see if I can do it.
[English]
Good morning, members of the committee. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge we are gathered here on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Mr. Chair, before I begin to address the proposed amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act, I will briefly outline the current position of Canada Post.
[Translation]
As you probably already know, the finances of Canada Post are in a critical position. Since 2018, the corporation has reported cumulative operating losses in excess of $5.5 billion. The losses reported by Canada Post in the first nine months of last year were close to $1 billion dollars. This means that the corporation is on track to record a 2025 loss significantly larger than any in its history.
Given where things stood financially for Canada Post and in order to prevent the corporation from becoming insolvent, the federal government announced its intention to make up to $1 billion in repayable funding available to Canada Post this year.
[English]
Last year, the Industrial Inquiry Commission, led by William Kaplan, made a number of recommendations regarding Canada Post, which the government accepted.
The commission report stated that Canada Post was effectively insolvent and called for significant reforms. The recommended changes included amending letter service standards, ending the moratorium on community mailbox conversions and modernizing the 1994 rural moratorium.
In addition to these proposals, and in the interests of the topic for this morning, the Industrial Inquiry Commission also recommended amending the regulatory process to increase or change stamp rates. The Industrial Inquiry Commission report described the current process for setting regular letter mail price rates as “cumbersome.”
In order to address this recommendation and allow for timely adjustment of rates, the Government of Canada is proposing amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act to remove the need for Governor-in-Council approval of postage rates and related terms.
These proposed changes would provide Canada Post with greater autonomy when it comes to rate setting. However, in line with existing principles in the Canada Post Corporation Act, Canada Post will still be required to ensure that rates are fair, reasonable, publicly available and sufficient to cover costs. The proposal supports the government’s commitment to deregulate stamp rates and reduce regulatory red tape.
In addition, the government is proposing to reinforce its long-standing public service commitment by placing new statutory protections on free mailing for materials for persons who are blind and reduced postage rates for library materials.
Appropriate ministerial oversight, alongside Treasury Board review and approval of the Canada Post corporate plan, will continue to reinforce the government’s expectations regarding the provision of free and discounted service and ensure that stamp rates are appropriate.
The proposed amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act fall under the government’s broader commitment to reducing red tape alongside supporting services for Canadians.
[Translation]
The proposed amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act aim to streamline the process for adjusting stamp prices and address one of Commissioner Kaplan’s recommendations. This is one of the measures that will help transform Canada Post so that the Crown corporation can continue to serve Canadians across the country. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here. My first question is for Mr. Ieraci. You did a good job translating so that you could answer in French.
My first question concerns the amendment to section 196, which provides that Canada Post must deliver by post, free of postage, material for use by the blind, and deliver at a reduced rate of postage materials from library networks, which are very important cultural institutions in many communities across Canada.
What are your intentions regarding the reduced rate for the delivery of materials between library networks?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you for the question.
As you mentioned, the proposed amendment to the act will protect the reduced rates for library services. Canada Post and the government have no intention of changing the rates for libraries. Currently — and I’m speaking from memory here — libraries pay 10% of the standard rate. That rate would likely remain at 10% going forward.
Senator Forest: More broadly, will this corporate decision to continue supporting our library networks and the visually impaired affect Canada Post’s current rates for standard mail?
Mr. Ieraci: I just want to make sure I understood the question correctly. Are you asking whether the rate for libraries will be the determining factor for the rate that will apply to others?
Senator Forest: Not a determining factor, but will it affect anything? Given the financial objectives, will this measure, which does come at a cost, affect the rate, or will it be offset by an increase in fees for regular services?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you for the clarification.
Certainly, to set the price of stamps, Canada Post and the government will have to strike a balance.
On the one hand, we have a Crown corporation that’s incurring fairly significant losses; we need to raise the price of stamps because we see that Canada Post and its stamp prices are not competitive compared to other OECD countries. Prices will have to go up a little to help the Crown corporation improve its financial situation, but prices can’t rise to the point where Canadians will no longer want to use Canada Post’s services.
Finding a balance between those two things is always tricky, as it is in almost any other organization, but when it comes to regular stamps, rates for libraries will certainly be part of the considerations.
Senator Forest: Thank you. Let’s speak a universal language: Let’s talk numbers. You correctly pointed out that $1 billion will be injected into Canada Post. On the other hand, we’ve learned that you negotiated a 6% wage increase. Won’t that eat into the $1 billion set aside to improve service quality?
Mr. Ieraci: That’s a very good question.
As you know, over the past two years and more, Canada Post and its union have faced significant challenges in terms of labour relations. This has had a very significant and negative impact, not only on Canada Post and its financial situation, but also on many small- and medium-sized businesses that rely on Canada Post to deliver their services. We know that during the last two holiday seasons, they were in a difficult situation. Many businesses didn’t use Canada Post’s services at that time.
Canada Post and its union held negotiations and came to an agreement. Public Services and Procurement Canada is responsible for supporting the minister in his duties as the minister responsible for Canada Post.
I think everyone more or less shares the same view: To improve Canada Post’s financial situation, one of the first things that needed to be done was to reach an agreement between Canada Post and its union to avoid further difficulties.
Senator Forest: I understand that, but have you estimated the cost of this 6% increase? If I compare it to $1 billion of new money injected, what is the cost of the 6% wage increase for employees?
Mr. Ieraci: Canada Post calculated that. I don’t have the numbers in front of me right now, but I’ll be back this afternoon to discuss the Supplementary Estimates (C), and I can try to get an answer by then.
Senator Forest: If you can bring the numbers instead of mailing them to us, I’ll be content with that.
Mr. Ieraci: Certainly.
The Chair: To Canadians watching us, you can send us letters. No stamps are required; it’s free. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: My first question is for Ms. Rigon. I would like to ask about the veterans’ disability benefit. Are these same people eligible for the Canada Disability Benefit that came into force last year?
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the question. I don’t have the answer 100%. I think that they are eligible, but I would need to confirm that.
Senator Cardozo: If you could confirm within the next 35 minutes, that would be helpful, as we are voting on the bill. At some point I would like to know.
My other question is for Mr. Ieraci. You talked about the postal rates not being set by order-in-council and not being approved by the Governor-in-Council at the end. You mentioned that some of the criteria that would remain would have prices that were fair. Then you mentioned, “sufficient to cover cost.” Given the financial situation of Canada Post, “sufficient to cover cost” would be enormous. You are obviously balancing cost recovery versus making sure people use the service.
You can comment on that, but my larger question is this: What are the main pillars for the future of Canada Post, given the competition you have with other delivery services and the drastic reduction of the use of services as a result of the internet over the last couple of decades?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to respond to the two points. The Canada Post Corporation Act indicates that rates are to be fair, reasonable, publicly available and sufficient to cover costs. The simple fact is that Canada Post is operating at a significant operating loss, which has been exacerbated over the last two years, given the labour situation that the corporation and its union have been in.
We are all working to be able to get Canada Post back to a situation where it is financially self-sustainable. Part of that will be to be able to adjust stamp rates accordingly so that it can increase its revenue without decreasing market share while making some adjustments and changes. That leads to the second question: What are the main pillars?
Obviously, Canada Post was established, and its raison d’être remains the delivery of letter mail. In this area, the Crown corporation has a monopoly on delivering letter mail. Over the course of the last 20 years, there has been a sharp and continuing decline in the use of letter mail. Unfortunately, written letters do not seem to be a form of communication that Canadians are using on an ongoing basis.
Nonetheless, Canada Post provides important services, including the delivery of parcels, particularly in remote communities where they are the only service provider available. Kaplan’s report made a number of recommendations in terms of how the corporation could be adjusted to ensure its future sustainability.
In September, Minister Lightbound made the announcement that we are adopting the recommendations, and Canada Post is starting to move forward with some elements of that in terms of the transformation, including community mailboxes. The idea is that some of these activities, including community mailboxes, will decrease the cost of delivery of services, which will put Canada Post in a better financial situation.
Senator Cardozo: I’m not sure that completely gets us to a point of being non-bankrupt. With regard to postal banking, which is the idea that, while many banks and branches are dying across the country in small towns, wouldn’t it be useful to have banking allowed through our post offices, especially in remote areas?
Mr. Ieraci: Postal banking is one of the elements that has been tried and is used by Canada Post to a certain extent. That’s one of the lines of business that’s being explored going forward. I know that the union, CUPW, has often spoken about that as being a potential business line and source of revenue for Canada Post.
Senator Cardozo: But not actively. It just seems to me that’s a real lifeline because it also solves the problem of people who live in small towns not having bank branches.
Mr. Ieraci: It is a business line, again, that’s being explored. Obviously, having a location where you have letters and parcels versus having a location where you would have financial transactions, cash and so on, those are different types of locations, from security, from all the rest of the stuff, but needless to say that it is something that is being explored as part of the various elements of Canada Post.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Ross: My question is with regard to the PIPEDA, for Mr. Chhabra. What has been the industry’s response to the changes and amendments that are around PIPEDA and relating to the data mobility framework?
Mr. Chhabra: Thank you very much for the question. The data mobility right was also part of the proposal in Bill C-27 introduced back in 2022. We had significant interactions with civil society and with industry organizations about Bill C-27. The data mobility right was generally not a focus that we heard from industry a lot. There were other elements of Bill C-27 or PIPEDA reform that were more kind of highlights.
This is something that is, I think, becoming de rigueur around the world. Other countries have established this: other jurisdictions in Canada, in fact, Quebec’s, la loi 25 also include a slightly different kind of data probability right and data mobility right that allows consumers to go and direct the transfer of their information from one provider to another.
The types of questions that have come up from industry are how we’re going to ensure things like appropriate interoperability. It is an important area; security considerations are another one, which is why we’ve set the ability to set regulations in PIPEDA, if need be, to support future data mobility frameworks. In the case of consumer-driven banking specifically, which is also included in this proposal, the data mobility framework sets out enough rigour around how to go about doing this between institutions to enable that, but we are able to introduce regulations, if we need, to provide more stipulations around it.
I would say overall, generally, a good level of understanding. I think there were some challenges, but the way data portability has been implemented in some jurisdictions, where individuals take receipt of the date and that can cause a number of challenging events in terms of their ability to take it in a format and a file in a way that’s secure and then provides that back to another provider in the way that providers can receive as well. That’s one of the main reasons why, by learning the lessons from other jurisdictions, we’ve taken the approach from data mobility where it would go from the provider to the new provider without the individual having to be the intermediary.
Senator Ross: I wonder if you could give me a sense of what areas might be explored next for this type of data exchange.
Mr. Chhabra: It’s a wonderful question. I will say, from ISED’s perspective, we’re responsible for setting the overall framework in terms of PIPEDA, making sure that the approaches available that we have made room for and that it’s kind of established as an important extension of an individual’s right to access their data. This is an additional step. It’s setting the right framework in place to enable consumer choice and to enable greater competition.
Through PIPEDA itself, we won’t be pressing forward on specific areas. Other industries, other departments, and other organizations who have responsibilities for other sectors now have the ability to introduce or bring forward or press for the creation of data mobility frameworks in other sectors. It is not something that my office in particular will be focused on. We’ve set the framework in place. We have the opportunity available.
I understand the Department of Finance started with the consumer-driven banking piece, but there are others as well. When we look at other jurisdictions, including in Australia, utilities are an area of focus, insurance has been an area of focus, and telecoms have been an area of focus. In Canada, I think we have number porting. There are other opportunity areas, but given that PIPEDA is not sector specific, it’s a sector-neutral law. It’s really intended to set the framework in place to enable this kind of work to happen.
Senator Ross: I find it interesting, the conversation that we’re having about the exchange of data and interoperability, in contrast, with what Ms. Rigon was talking about in regard to RCMP veterans being unable to have their data shared to support their payments for disabilities. It’s a very interesting contradiction. That is just a comment, not a question.
Senator MacAdam: My question is to the RCMP witnesses who are here. Given that the proposed amendment strikes out the proposed new section 32.3 — I know you talked a bit about this in your introductory remarks, but I want you to elaborate the impact of this change on the ability of government departments and the RCMP to share the information necessary to administer disability benefits effectively. What are the risks to the RCMP members of you not being able to share this information? I want you to elaborate on that more.
Ms. Rigon: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
Without access to complete medical and personal information, the RCMP can’t fully understand the nature or severity of the service-related injury, which limits the RCMP’s ability to provide proper accommodation, identify workplace hazards or prevent further injury.
Senator MacAdam: But does it affect the calculation of the benefit?
Ms. Rigon: No, it does not. Currently, the use and disclosure of information are limited to Veterans Affairs Canada.
Senator MacAdam: And you mentioned this is not income replacement.
Ms. Rigon: It is not income replacement.
Senator Ross: It is more pain and suffering?
Ms. Rigon: Pain and suffering, impact on quality of life.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: My question is for Mr. Ieraci and it’s about Canada Post.
We know that one of the major problems this Crown corporation has faced is a series of labour disputes, which have eroded its competitiveness. We know that when a customer goes elsewhere, it’s hard to win them back afterwards — that is a basic principle of business — and I think that’s somewhat what Canada Post experienced at that time. Is Canada Post taking any initiatives to keep those types of things from happening again?
Mr. Ieraci: The good news, if I may start with that, is that there’s currently an agreement between the union and Canada Post. Union members will vote on the agreement over the next few months. If I’m not mistaken, voting ends on May 30, so we expect that by June or July, the collective agreement should be finalized — at least we all hope it will be. This will mean that over the next few years, Canada Post and its union will not face the difficulties of the past two years. Once that’s done, Canada Post and its union will be able to focus on winning back customers and, above all, encouraging small- and medium-sized businesses to use Canada Post’s services or start using them again.
As you mentioned, over the past two years, labour disputes have had a fairly significant impact not only on service levels but also on revenue. This has made an already unenviable situation even worse.
It’s not easy to convince people to come back, especially since the first time they went on strike was just before the holidays in 2024 — if I have the year right — which had a pretty significant impact on small- and medium-sized businesses. Many of them said at the time that they were looking for reliable partners. In recent years, given the situation with the union, Canada Post has struggled with that. The goal will therefore be to try to win back those lost customers once the agreement is ratified — which we hope will happen.
Senator Hébert: I’m glad to hear from you. Given the successive conflicts we’ve witnessed over the years, I hope work is being done to try to prevent such situations in the future.
I understand that there’s an agreement on the table, but this might be important in that regard.
I wanted to go back to the issue of post office closures. We know that, at one point, they considered closing some 3,600 post offices, but certain rural communities couldn’t accept that. I believe my colleague mentioned this earlier, but it would be possible to franchise these services and have them operate within an existing business. Where do we stand on this issue? Are we at a standstill, or are we still analyzing how to streamline operations — and thus reduce costs — through this type of solution?
Mr. Ieraci: One of Commissioner Kaplan’s recommendations in his report concerned the fact that the moratorium on the closure of rural post offices was established in 1994. Since then, Canada has changed dramatically, and many communities that were considered rural at the time are no longer so. Gatineau is a perfect example; Gatineau was considered rural in 1994, but I’m certain that the people of Gatineau would no longer agree with that. One of the recommendations was that, in cases where a town is no longer a rural community but has become a city, there are opportunities to review Canada Post postal stations to ensure adequate service levels.
In some communities where there are many Canada Post stations within a relatively small geographic area — within a one- or two-kilometre radius, for example, there might be up to three post offices. Given the business volume at most post offices, the supply exceeds demand. Consequently, based on Commissioner Kaplan’s recommendation and Minister Lightbound’s guidance, in communities that were once but are no longer rural, Canada Post is exploring the possibility of reducing the number of post offices. There are always concerns and fears when there is talk of closing Canada Post stations, especially in communities that are truly rural or further away than others. Of course, we don’t want Canadians to have to drive 75 kilometres to get to a post office; that’s not the goal or the idea behind this, but some areas do have more service or more post offices than they need.
Senator Hébert: Mr. Chair, we will have questions this afternoon to follow up on the number of post offices they are planning to close.
[English]
Senator Galvez: My question is to Ms. Barton, and it is concerning the amendment that was adopted in the other place on clause 422. Could you explain more about the implications, for example, for people who already hold security clearances, like researchers or experts or international partners? What might constitute “exigent circumstances” guaranteeing this exception, or what criteria will be used to determine that an individual being granted an exception is not a threat to public safety or security?
Ms. Barton: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. The amendment in question pertains to authorities that we had sought in Bill C-15 to provide exemptions to security clearance requirements for persons or groups accessing regulated facilities set out in the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act. As it was originally drafted, the new section 35.1 would have allowed the minister to exempt any individual or group of individuals from the requirement to hold a security clearance if it was warranted by reason of exigent circumstance or if they had a security clearance from a reliable source. The amendment narrowed the scope of the exemption. It removed the possibility of exempting groups of individuals, and it defined limits on the duration of an exemption.
In addition, they added a new requirement for the minister to report each exemption to the standing committee of each house of Parliament that normally considers matters related to national security for their review.
The changes that resulted are still in line with the purpose of the exemption in that it allows the minister to exempt individuals from security clearance requirements in specific exigent circumstances, and it also aligns with the original purpose of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act to protect health, safety and security.
Senator Galvez: Can you give me some examples that were presented to support the argument of the amendment?
Ms. Barton: There are two areas in the act that would enable exemptions to be put in place. One is under regulations, going through a Governor-in-Council, or GIC, process, so that process will still exist moving forward. This was much more of an exceptional circumstance, where the minister could do it under their own authority.
If I use an example of an exigent circumstance that we might use in the regulations: emergency personnel. So if somebody is in a laboratory facility and they experience an emergency medical event, we would need the ability to enable emergency health personnel to access that. Ambulance workers, for example, would need to be able to get into the facility, and we can’t, in that circumstance, expect somebody to have a security clearance as they’re going in. It would be the same if you were considering certain circumstances with law enforcement personnel.
Now, that will still be protected under the regulatory Governor-in-Council regulations that we can set, but the new authority — in fact, it actually would still work under the new authority with the ministerial power as an exigent circumstance. What really changed is that, previously, we had no limits on the time for that type of authority to exist, and it would have been a ministerial power on its own as opposed to something that goes through the GIC process and regulations.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
To Mr. Ieraci, around the world, in Europe, for example, in all post offices, there is a bank and there is a — there is so much initiative in order to raise the budget of the postal offices. Much more efficient than here in Canada. What are the initiatives that you foresee in order to bring up the competition of Canada Post against the other players?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. Two things I would say in response to that. First, in terms of international comparisons, countries in Europe often have different circumstances than within Canada, the first of which is geography. They’re not nearly as big as Canada is in terms of having to deliver. Two, oftentimes, in some of these countries, their postal organizations were involved in banking, particularly electronic banking, from the beginning. In Canada, there was a different route taken, which was done by our banking industry and then Canada Post separately.
In terms of international comparisons, we tend to look a lot more to Australia. They face similar circumstances that Canada does in terms of geography and so on and so forth. Then we look a little bit to the United States, although they’re quite a different system. Just about every postal system in the world is experiencing the same fundamental challenge, which is there is a sharp and ongoing decline in letter mail, which for postal services is, as I mentioned before, their raison d’être.
What we’re looking at in terms of Canada Post, as I mentioned, the Kaplan report made a number of recommendations in order to be able to start the transformation for Canada Post. Recognizing that Canada Post is an organization of more than 63,000 employees with more than 5,000 points of location of service, an organization of that size, from a transformation perspective, obviously doesn’t happen overnight. Steps are being taken now to be able to enhance Canada Post’s financial situation so that we can get it on a better footing as we look to the future of Canada Post and what that may entail. But that is a much more fundamental question, I think, for parliamentarians, for Canadians and for everybody: What does Canada Post look like 25 years from now, for example?
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to our witnesses. Let’s continue this discussion started by my colleague on Canada Post’s business model; I find it very interesting. About 20 years ago — correct me if I’m wrong — Canada Post delivered about 5 million or 6 million letters, meaning that Canadian households received at least one letter per day approximately; now, it’s more like one letter per week, on average.
You mentioned population density — that is to say Canada is a large country with a small population. I like that you’re comparing us more to Australia. I think it’s a much more apt comparison. What can we learn from Australia? Your challenge is to be self-financing — you’re currently talking about a $1 billion deficit this year — while maintaining fair postal rates. How could we achieve that while remaining self-financing? That’s quite a challenge. Please tell us about Australia.
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you for the question. Your data is correct. In 2006, Canada Post delivered 5.5 billion letters; in 2024, it delivered approximately 2 billion letters. Therefore, there’s been a fairly significant drop.
I would add that, since then, Canada Post has had to serve an increasing number of communities, branches and buildings, as Canada’s population has grown over the past 20 years. Like all other postal systems around the world, this presents a challenge.
Commissioner Kaplan made several recommendations in his report. I’m not sure if they were inspired by Australia, but several points are similar to what Australia is doing. One of the proposed changes is to modify delivery standards, which could help reduce operational costs.
The current standard for Canada Post is two, three, or four days. Delivery within the same city takes two days. It takes three days within the same province, and four days if it’s across the country. The standard now being adopted will be much more flexible. We’re talking about three to seven days. Therefore, Canadians will continue to have daily delivery, or at least once a week. However, delivering within these specific time frames involves higher costs for Canada Post. Over the next few years, Canada Post will implement changes to adapt to this new standard, which will result in a significant drop in the number of letters received and sent annually.
Australia began changing its postal system two or three years ago, and it’s starting to see positive results. That’s why we’re drawing inspiration from what the Australians are doing.
Senator Gignac: For residential service to Canadians, that’s how it’s done. The commercial and business sectors, however, require that parcels be delivered as quickly as possible, not within a week. I don’t know if things work that way in Australia, but for the commercial division, would it make sense to consider a partnership with the private sector, given that there are other competing companies? Sometimes, there’s a natural monopoly in certain territories, meaning that both entities lose money, but if only one entity is operating, it can be profitable. Have you considered this possibility?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you very much for the question. I will provide you with more details on Australia and how they handle parcels this afternoon. However, you have pinpointed the issue around parcels with Canada Post. In major urban centres, Canada Post faces significant competition from several other businesses. These other businesses generally have lower operating costs than Canada Post, for a number of reasons.
Canada Post is, by default, the preferred delivery service for rural or remote communities. I want to emphasize that it’s very important that these communities continue receiving letter and parcel delivery service. Their needs are not in question. However, we must find a way to provide this service, not only efficiently, but also at a lower cost. Unfortunately, there aren’t many solutions to this problem, since our country is quite vast, geographically speaking.
Senator Gignac: I look forward to hearing from you this afternoon.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that Purolator, the subsidiary of Canada Post, is not operating at a loss. Therefore, the model for parcel delivery is already in place.
The Transport and Communications Committee recommended amending the section about Canada Post to protect libraries, which lobbied quite strongly to argue that it would be dangerous to repeal certain provisions. You said earlier that libraries would continue to pay 10% of the standard rate for their deliveries. How can that be guaranteed?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you for the question. I’d like to raise two points. Prior to the proposed amendments to the act, there was no plan to change the preferential rates for libraries or the free materials for the blind. The objective was really to modify the existing regulatory process, and consequently, other changes became necessary. I want to emphasize that this was not called into question. The implementation through amendments, as you mentioned, is intended to clarify that Canada Post and the government will continue to do it.
As for how we intend to protect competitive rates for libraries, there are two ways. For Canada Post, it doesn’t represent a huge burden.
Senator Dalphond: There isn’t enough volume.
Mr. Ieraci: Exactly. The financial difficulties Canada Post is experiencing have nothing to do with the corporation offering competitive rates to libraries — far from it.
Senator Dalphond: The current legislation defines libraries. Certain provisions are being removed and repealed. How can we reassure them that the preferential rate will continue to apply?
Mr. Ieraci: First, it is set out in the legislation. Second, Canada Post has to continue applying the competitive rate, which will be aligned with stamp price adjustments. The rate will also be adjusted accordingly, but it will stay very low.
Senator Dalphond: My second question is about just and reasonable rates, and I agree with that principle. Subsection 16.1(3) allows for special agreements to be made for certain large volumes. However, subsection 16.1(5) states that the content of those agreements will be unavailable to the public. All pricing has to be publicly available, but not the content of the special agreements.
If the result is a deficit, and the government is required to compensate for certain losses, why can’t people know the content of the special agreements?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you for the question. As a Crown corporation, Canada Post has to work with the private sector. It does business with a number of companies, and that is part of its strategy to maximize the services it provides various companies. If the rates are made public, other competing companies, especially in large cities with very strong competition, can use that information to lower their prices and find ways to reduce Canada Post’s sales. Those rates don’t need to be disclosed to the public; keeping them undisclosed protects Canada Post, which has to work in a highly competitive environment.
Senator Dalphond: They aren’t competitive in terms of salaries or management fees, but there’s an attempt to protect them when they’re entering into competitive agreements and competing with the private sector for high volumes.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: The United States Postal Service gets the lion’s share of its money from parcel delivery, and they are doing very well on that score. In America, Amazon has started offering a two-hour service in big cities. While we’re busy trying to save ourselves with letters, the rest of the world is moving to instant delivery of parcels. While the “50-plus club” is still writing letters, unfortunately, the “under-50 club” doesn’t seem to be doing so.
So that graph is going straight down on letter delivery, where we’re spending most of our conversation and filling the holes in terms of finances. My concern is about who is looking ahead 10 years to see what we’re building here. If we don’t take some of the examples that Senator Galvez made — what they’re doing in other places is to put people in postal offices, whether it is for an ATM or whatever other service while the 50-plus club is still on the planet and still wants that service. I want to put that on the table.
Second, I don’t get mail every day in my box. People who have to go to the corner to open their box in those neighbourhoods don’t go every day to get their mail. They might go once a week on Thursdays or whatever. I know that’s affiliated with your union contract language, but it doesn’t reflect the reality of how people check their mailbox when they have to go to the street if the flag is left up on the side of a country road. I fear we are not looking at where the public is on the mail.
I really appreciate small-town rural. It is the lifeblood of those communities, so yes, you just have to be creative like other communities have done. Maybe it is not a question, but you are thinking about these things more than just this year and plugging holes in a financial balance sheet.
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. The short answer to your question is yes, absolutely. We are looking at what we can do for Canada Post. This was the announcement made by Minister Lightbound based on the Kaplan report’s recommendations. We need to start getting Canada Post in a better situation. Those were the acceptance of the recommendations of the Kaplan report.
Moving forward, there are going to be a lot of questions, and I have alluded to it in terms of what Canada Post looks like. Pick your timeframe; 15, 25, 50 years from now, because we can see the trajectory, as you pointed out. Letter mail is in terminal decline. I don’t know when the last letter in Canada will be sent, but I know it will happen eventually.
Senator Pupatello: I’m going to keep sending letters.
Mr. Ieraci: Excellent. I’m in the 50-plus club, so I can say this, but I don’t know that the next generation will be sending letters as we have been.
For centuries, written communications via letter was the only and/or most secure form of communication that Canadians and people throughout the world had. That is no longer the case, unfortunately. We need to look at what Canada Post is going to be in the future.
In terms of the U.S. situation, the United States Postal Service makes a lot of its revenue from parcels. Canada Post does as well. The United States Postal Service is facing similar challenges. Their postmaster general last week was in front of a U.S. congressional committee talking about the fact that the U.S. postal system will need billions of dollars to maintain its current footprint and service levels going forward; otherwise, they will need to make fundamental changes. Again, that’s not unique to the U.S. or Canada. Almost every postal system in comparable countries is facing the same challenges.
The short answer is yes, we are looking at all these things. There is no easy fix or quick solution in terms of what we can do to Canada Post. We are taking steps now to get them into a better financial situation moving forward. But I think the question is what Canada Post will be in a quarter of a century from now.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
I had some questions, but I’ll save them for this afternoon. They’re mainly for Canada Post, in particular: How is it possible that an organization established in 1867, which had a monopoly with facilities across the country, could have completely missed the boat on e-commerce? You can take note of the question and provide some answers this afternoon.
Honourable senators, we will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a few points.
If you are unsure exactly where we are in the process at any point, please ask for clarification. I’d like to ensure that we all know where we are in the process of passing the bill, at all times.
In terms of procedure, I’d like to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed for the same clause, the amendments have to be proposed in the order of the lines of text that they amend.
If a senator opposes an entire clause, the normal procedure isn’t to move a motion to delete the entire clause but to vote against the clause in question.
Some proposed amendments may have impacts on other parts of the bill. It’s very helpful for a senator moving an amendment to inform the committee which other clauses in the bill could be affected by their amendment. Otherwise, it may be difficult for our committee to stay consistent in all its decisions.
Since there’s no need to give notice to move amendments, it’s obviously possible that there has been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to determine which ones may affect other clauses.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or the legitimacy of anything, they can raise a point of order. The chair will listen to the arguments, decide when there has been enough discussion on the matter of procedure and make a ruling.
Since the committee is the master of its proceedings within the bounds set out by the Senate, a senator may appeal the chair’s ruling before the committee by asking whether the ruling will be sustained.
I’d also like to point out to senators that if they ever have the slightest doubt about the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most seamless way to intervene is to request a recorded vote, which will give clear results.
Finally, senators know that in the event of a tied vote, the motion will be rejected.
Are there any questions? Is everybody comfortable with that? Can we proceed? Is that okay? Thank you.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: With your permission, is it agreed that the committee can group the clauses according to the five parts identified in the analytical table for Bill C-15 to facilitate passage of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Shall Part 1, entitled Amendments to the Income Tax Act and Other Legislation, which contains clauses 2, on page 1, to 125, on page 230, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 2, entitled Digital Services Tax (Repeals and Other Measures), which contains clauses 126, on page 231, to 158, on page 242, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 3, entitled Amendments to the Excise Tax Act (GST/HST), the Underused Housing Tax Act, the Select Luxury Items Tax Act and Other Related Texts, which contains clauses 159, on page 242, to 176, on page 259, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 4, entitled First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act, which contains clauses 177, on page 259, to 190, on page 281, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We have a proposed amendment from Senator Galvez on Part 5, entitled Various Measures, which includes clauses 191 to 600. The proposal number is RG-C15-208-302-3. This is a proposed amendment. Senator Galvez, has it been distributed? I don’t know if people had received it before.
[English]
Senator Galvez: Colleagues, I am just checking with you. Do you have the motion of my amendment in French and in English?
[Translation]
The Chair: First, can you read the motion?
Senator Galvez: I will read it.
The Chair: Second, start to explain.
Senator Galvez: I’m going to read it in English, but I’ll present my arguments in French.
[English]
For use in committee, Bill C-15, forty-fifth first, clause 208, pages 302 and 305. It is moved:
That Bill C-15 be amended in clause 208,
(a) on page 302, by replacing line 3 of the French version with the following:
“économique dans le secteur des technologies propres ou”;
(b) on page 305, by replacing lines 27 and 28 of the French version with the following:
“croissance économique dans le secteur des technologies propres ou des technologies financières.”.
[Translation]
Colleagues, this is a technical amendment. This is a non-partisan amendment. It simply aims to correct the text in the French version. This is a terminological adjustment that doesn’t change the bill’s policy intent at all. It actually improves the legislative quality without creating new obligations. In the past, in this committee, this type of amendment is generally consensual and simply strengthens the rigour of the text.
I’d like to add that this adds legislative and fiscal consistency, because the term “clean technology” is already in use, as we heard in the Income Tax Act. It’s important to maintain consistent terminology to avoid ambiguities in the interpretation of tax and budget legislation. This reduces the risk of litigation or application discrepancies by the Canada Revenue Agency.
The other reasons I’m proposing this amendment are legal clarity and terminological precision. This amendment, which aligns with existing federal policies, sends a clear signal to the market and investors. That’s all. This is a small, harmless amendment.
[English]
It doesn’t pose any danger to anybody, and hopefully you will accept. Anyway, at some point, it will have to be corrected because if we leave it like that, it is incoherent with the fiscal act.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Are there any other comments?
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Thanks for giving me a moment to explain. I did bring this up with the minister’s office last night when I became aware of this. They have assured us that they are going to make this change. Ideally, it will be done in the regulations that will follow the passage of this bill so that it does align the terminology. They used the terminology that was presented in the other place, and that is something that should have been caught when that happened, because the terminology that Senator Galvez is proposing is, in fact, aligning with the Quebec legislation, et cetera. So using the proper word is important, and it’s going to be done.
I’m hoping that the committee will consider that we can get that done in regulation so that as soon as this bill is passed, we could just change that. I’m not a drafter, but it would be language like “. . . and this is the definition of this,” and what that means so that it is perfectly aligned.
In addition, as with another piece, there will be an additional financial bill coming every two months or so, so that there will be an opportunity to have that change made then as well. That would help us not to delay the bill, given that we’re at the end of March, and with the weeks that we are not sitting in April, we would be looking at something in May. If it moved quickly, it would still be May. I’m hoping that a regulatory change would suffice.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are you proposing to make an observation about that to send the message to the other place?
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Since I’m not a voting member of the committee, can I propose an observation that would be listed that the committee would strongly request the proper definition to find in regulation or amended in the very next bill that will be tabled in the chamber?
[Translation]
The Chair: We can discuss that if the amendment is defeated.
Senator Hébert: I have a question. I understand the solution you’re proposing, Senator Pupatello, but I’m wondering if there have been similar situations with other bills, where there’s clearly an inconsistency between the terminology used in English — because it’s also a matter of translation — and the terminology used in French. If I understand correctly, “clean technology” in English translates not as “écotechnologie,” but as “technologie propre.” There is a real language and translation inconsistency in the bill.
Are there other known precedents, in other legislation, where this situation has occurred? What has basically happened is that there are two different interpretations of the same act, depending on whether you look at it in English or in French, which is the problem raised here by the senator — a problem that I think deserves to be analyzed.
The Chair: Yes, it happens; not frequently, but it does happen. That can be corrected, as we discussed, but there are also interpretation rules that apply to anticipate these situations.
I will give the floor to our friend Senator and Justice Dalphond, who asked to speak, and who can say more than I can about the rules of interpretation when there’s a language distinction of this nature.
Senator Dalphond: I was just about to speak to that. The chair has opened the door for me very nicely.
First, it’s not a translation. As we now know, federal laws are drafted by two different teams of jurists; each one is proficient in the technique of bijuralism, so this isn’t a translation. Here, the proposal is to amend the text only in the French version on the grounds that it doesn’t reflect the same concept as the English version, which doesn’t necessarily pose an issue . . . . On the surface, yes, perhaps, but the reality is that the people who apply the law, as well as the judges who will interpret it, must find the version that best reflects the legislator’s intent.
We have before us a representative of the Office of the Government Representative who tells us that she has spoken to the department and that the explanation she was given was that the term generally used in Quebec for the English term “clean technology” isn’t “écotechnologie” — though this may be a term used in France — but “technologie propre,” and that this could be corrected in future to clarify the interpretation of the legislator’s intent. I’m satisfied with that explanation.
I don’t think it’s necessary to make an amendment, but rather to make an observation to invite the government to reconsider the use of the word in future legislation, or through regulations, to clarify what the word “écotechnologie,” which means “technologie propre,” means.
Senator Gignac: First, I think we should congratulate our colleague Senator Galvez for her insight and for seeing the nuances.
I think I would be on board with Senator Pupatello’s proposal. To explain for the people watching us, when the Senate amends a bill — and we have often amended them since 2015, since we have had an independent Senate — it has to be approved by the House, but it has to go back to the House of Commons afterward. Because of the calendar, there’s a delay if the Senate decides to do so, and the legislation may not be implemented until mid-April.
I want to congratulate my colleague, but I think I would be satisfied with the assurances that Senator Pupatello gave us regarding the department: that there will be a review as part of a future bill to correct the situation, if necessary.
The Chair: Just a small point of clarification: From 2015 to 2017, the majority in the Senate was from the Conservative Party, but there were also amendments, with only a few independent senators.
Senator Hébert: If I understand correctly, because of the way the courts interpret the legislation and because of the interim correction that can be made through regulations, there would be no risk of misinterpretation if a case were brought before a court in French rather than in English. Great, thank you.
Senator Dalphond: We heard it straight from Senator Pupatello, who speaks on behalf of the department and confirms —
The Chair: We know the legislator’s intent.
Senator Dalphond: It was the legislator’s intent.
Senator Hébert: Thank you.
The Chair: It isn’t just the courts; the Interpretation Act also supports that view.
Senator Galvez: In terms of the words “écotechnologie” and “technologie propre,” there are commercial connotations.
There are consultants and product vendors who will use those words.
That means that within the market and among the public, there are differences. I didn’t want to talk about that here because I’m working off the fact that this term has already been defined in the tax act. That means we should be consistent, and I think that should suffice.
I’d like to advise my colleagues that these are two words that, for the public and merchants, mean different things.
Having said that, I think it would be good to reflect this discussion in a brief observation, if possible, to ensure that it’s done, as stated by Senator Pupatello, who isn’t a voting member of this committee.
Can I ask the committee to do that?
The Chair: Observations are coming up soon — and the analysts must have taken notes, given how insightful they are.
Senator Galvez: Excellent.
The Chair: I think it has already been noted and will be in the proposed observations later.
Do I understand correctly that you are withdrawing your amendment to prevent it from being defeated?
Senator Galvez: Yes, I withdraw it.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Great, thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I agree, and I want to add my congratulations to Senator Galvez for reading the bill that closely.
[Translation]
The Chair: Yes, because for the people following us, this is a huge undertaking, so the fact that we managed to highlight this distinguishing feature deserves praise.
So the proposed amendment has been withdrawn; there is unanimous consent to that effect. Duly noted.
We are at Part 5, on various measures, clauses 191, at page 281, to 600, at page 595. Shall Part 5, entitled Various Measures, which contains clauses 191 to 600, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall Schedule 1, at page 596, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall Schedule 2, at page 597, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall Schedule 3, at pages 598 to 601, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall Schedule 4, at page 602, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall Schedule 5, at page 603, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall Schedule 6, page 604, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Based on the conversations, it’s clear that senators want to add some observations.
We received an observation about the discrepancy in some of the terms used.
Analysts, you can make an observation that will be submitted to the steering committee, which will ensure that the text is consistent. We’ll pass it later so that we can give this power to the steering committee.
Are there any other comments?
Senator Forest: Given the letter received from Minister Champagne regarding the omission of the Official Languages Act —
The Chair: The Official Languages Act included in the list of laws that apply notwithstanding, within the context of sandboxes?
Senator Forest: Yes, that’s right. Given the nature of the minister’s letter, it might be appropriate to note that we would like this to be addressed through regulations or . . . . He clearly told us that it was an oversight, so we need to be able to correct it.
The Chair: To clarify for those following along, there is a list of laws that continue to apply within the sandbox framework, and it’s not possible to set them aside. During the hearings, we identified as part of that list the Official Languages Act, which had not been excluded.
When we questioned the officials who were there, we were told that it wasn’t a problem, because the act was applicable. Only legislation that falls within a minister’s own mandate can be set aside. For example, the Minister of the Environment cannot exempt the application of the Official Languages Act because it does not fall within his mandate. So we were told that —
Senator Forest: We were reassured.
The Chair: — that particular feature. I think the list has been identified for greater certainty.
The minister wrote to us in the past few days to let us know that they had omitted the Official Languages Act from the list. I know that Senator Pupatello has been in contact with the minister’s office in the last few hours. Can you explain what happened, senator?
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Yes. Colleagues, I regret that the letter didn’t also include what the fix would be. Despite it not being necessary, it was mentioned by the bureaucrats. I think clarifying language would be important to the committee members. What he has said is that it will happen at the very next opportunity for his next bill, which apparently happens every couple of months. There is bound to be one again by the spring, or the end of spring. It will be in very short order that clarifying language will be added to that. It’s easier to do it in a next piece of legislation than in regulation because the regulatory environment wouldn’t say, “Oh, and this one that we forgot.” It wouldn’t be written in that fashion. It will be easier to put it in the next bill, which he has committed to doing.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Since I’m relatively new to all these processes, I would like some clarification. Can the observation refer to “the most effective short-term mechanism,” that is, the regulation, whether by order or by legislative change, and so on? Can we suggest one or the other, depending on which would be the quickest and most effective in the short term?
The Chair: Yes, we can put it in the observation, since we agree.
Senator Forest: That is the best way.
The Chair: Very good.
Senator Hébert: The best isn’t necessarily the fastest, but we get the idea.
Senator Forest: The best path in terms of speed.
The Chair: I think there is a consensus, and we don’t need to vote on it.
So there are two observations at the moment. Are there any others?
Very good. Are senators in agreement with the observations that have been identified?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
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 as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Is it agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
That concludes the public portion on the motions. We have a proposal from Senator Gignac, who asks that we go in camera.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I have a question on this: When do you anticipate tabling the report by the end of the week?
[Translation]
The Chair: The goal is to have it done tomorrow. That’s why we did the clause-by-clause study today. You will recall that we were supposed to do it on Wednesday but, to improve the process and the speed of the coming into force, we moved it forward and did it today. It absolutely has to be tabled tomorrow if we want to achieve our objective.
[English]
Senator Galvez: My colleagues couldn’t understand what you were saying.
The Chair: Okay. That was the question or the answer? The answer?
Senator MacAdam: The answer is it’s going to be tabled this week?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator MacAdam: Okay.
The Chair: The report will be tabled this week.
Senator MacAdam: The report I mean.
The Chair: Probably Wednesday, tomorrow. That is the objective. We decided to advance the meeting. We were supposed to have clause by clause Wednesday and our first draft of the notice of convocation, but we changed it to today to ensure we would be able to continue the debate this week and, hopefully, adopt the bill before we leave Thursday night or Friday.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
We have received a proposal from Senator Gignac to go in camera, so we will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)