Moved second reading of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-46, also known as the cost of living relief act, no. 3.

The government introduced this bill following Budget 2023 to quickly implement measures that would help Canadian families cope with the increasing cost of living, and help provinces and territories deliver the high quality and timely health care Canadians both expect and deserve. The bill was adopted unanimously in the other place, with support from all parties, on April 19, 2023.

More precisely, Bill C-46 would deliver the new grocery rebate and a $2 billion Canada Health Transfer, or CHT, top-up to help reduce backlogs and wait times and to support paediatric hospitals and emergency rooms.

As we all know, with grocery prices going up, far too many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet.

In response to global inflation and rising costs, the government is providing much-needed help to Canadians to ensure that they can continue to put food on the table and pay their bills. Inflation in Canada was 8.1% in June 2022 and is now 4.3%, as Statistics Canada announced last week. Even though the rate is much lower than it was last year, it is still too high, and far too many Canadian families still need support.

As you probably read earlier this week, food inflation continued to outpace headline inflation in March. According to Statistics Canada’s latest consumer price index, the price of groceries increased by 9.7% last month, compared to the same period last year.

That is why the government is helping those who need it most with the grocery rebate. The one-time grocery rebate included in Bill C-46 is there to support the Canadians who have been hit hardest by the increase in the price of food.

This targeted inflation relief would provide about $2.5 billion for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who need it most. This would mean a one-time payment of up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children; up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children; and an extra $225 for seniors, on average. It is estimated that 9 million single people and 2 million couples will receive the rebate, including more than half of Canadian seniors.

Following the passage of Bill C-46, the grocery rebate would be delivered to eligible Canadians as soon as possible by direct deposit or cheque through the Canada Revenue Agency’s GST credit system.

Dear colleagues, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the health care system and the workers that keep it going are under enormous pressure. This situation was exacerbated by the pandemic, and immediate intervention is needed to provide better health care for Canadians.

Across the country, patients who need urgent medical attention are confronted with emergency rooms that are overflowing or even closed. People are waiting for surgeries that get either delayed or cancelled. The postponement of a good number of these procedures only makes the wait lists longer, which affects the health and quality of life of the people affected and their families.

Bill C-46 would transfer an additional $2-billion top-up to the Canada health transfer, as announced in February, to alleviate these immediate pressures on provincial and territorial health care systems, including the pressures on children’s hospitals and emergency rooms. The provinces and territories asked for more money, and the federal government is honouring its commitments by making more investments.

This CHT top-up is an additional, incremental investment, and builds on the $6.5 billion in previous one-time top-ups provided through the pandemic to address immediate health system pressures. The block funding structure of the CHT provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to invest the funds according to the needs and priorities of their residents. However, funds would be expected to respect the conditions of the Canada Health Act, including those respecting universality, comprehensiveness, portability, accessibility and public administration.

This investment is part of the government’s $198.3-billion plan to improve health care results for Canadians, to which nine provinces have already agreed in principle. In exchange for the new funding under the government’s plan, the provinces and territories must commit to not diverting health care funding of their own, and commit to improving how health information is shared, used and reported to Canadians in order to help manage public health emergencies and deliver better health outcomes.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw all levels of governments working together across the country to tackle big challenges. Bill C-46 demonstrates a willingness to continue to work in collaboration with the provinces and territories on the next steps in the best interest of Canadians, their families and health care workers. This will allow the delivery of concrete outcomes for Canadians, and improve the health care system that Canadians value and upon which Canadians depend.

Honourable senators, Bill C-46 will help support Canadians with the high cost of groceries, while improving access to the better health care that Canadians expect and deserve. Canadians need the government to continue delivering targeted support to those who need it the most — when they need it the most — while also remaining careful and proven fiscal managers.

Many of you, with good reason, will ask if government spending at this time can — or will — accentuate pressures on inflation. Honourable senators, a government must account for a variety of factors before intervening in the economy — this includes being especially attentive to the most vulnerable members of society, and acting in such a way as to allow actors in the market to innovate and develop efficiencies. There is a balance to be struck, and the government is doing just that. This is not only an assessment that I share, or the position of the government, but, more importantly, it is one shared by the Governor of the Bank of Canada as well.

Commenting on the government’s spending in a recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Finance in the other place, Mr. Macklem stated:

. . . government spending patterns aren’t contributing to the slowing of the economy, they’re not contributing to the easing of inflationary pressures, but they’re not standing in the way of getting inflation back to target and in our projections which incorporate those measures, we have inflation coming back to target.

Honourable senators, there is no doubt that strengthening Canada’s public health care system — and ensuring better health care outcomes for Canadians across the country — is critical at this time. Bill C-46 will facilitate much-needed targeted inflation relief, and strengthen our public health care system at a time when provincial and territorial governments are eager to receive additional financial support.

Honourable senators, I thank you for your attention, and I hope we can adopt this bill as soon as possible. Thank you for your kind attention.

Senator Gold, I’m interested in a provision included within the budget that speaks to the possibility of employee ownership. It provides the structure for a group of employees to buy out a small company — in many cases where the owner is retiring and is going to sell the company.

We’ve heard from people who have worked on developing that proposal that similar provisions exist in the U.K., the U.S. and other places, and that they are very effective in drawing future and more investment into the economy, as well as effective in boosting the economy. However, there needs to be a series of incentives that are in there for the benefit of the owner who is selling. Otherwise, it is “sell today and get your money today.” If it will be paid over a period of time, which employee ownership provisions allow for, there has to be an incentive for this to work most effectively for the owner, for the employees and for the economy.

Can you comment on the government’s position with respect to such incentives? They are not included in the bill, and it is not clear to us that the provision will be effective without them.

Thank you for the question. I will have to look into that. As you correctly point out, the incentives are not in this bill. This bill is about two things: It is about getting money into the hands of 11 million low-income and moderate-income Canadians as quickly as possible in order to help them with rising costs, and, of course, getting money to the provinces and territories dedicated to health care. Whether these measures and others will appear in other bills, if they are to appear, I will have to make inquiries and get back to you on it.

The numbers that I have include $2.5 billion for the grocery rebate, if I can use that colloquial term, and $2 billion for top-up transfers to the provinces and territories.

It is my understanding that these provisions currently appear both in Bill C-46 and in the budget implementation act, which we will be debating. If and when this bill passes, there are provisions that will be removed from the budget implementation act, but they are accounted for in budgets in one form or another. When we pass this bill — if we do, and I hope we will — it will be able to be removed from the budget implementation act.

Thank you for both questions, senator. I’m not sure that I have the precise level in regard to your latter question. These are the questions that will be easily answered, I would assume, in the first meeting of the committee that is called upon to study this bill — where officials will be present. If that will not happen quickly, I will try to obtain the answer and report back to the chamber. I look forward to the study at committee of this bill, and those questions, of course, will be answered competently by the officials.

I have one brief question, Senator Gold.

The government claims that this is a grocery rebate, even though the payment is not tied to any actual expenditures. In fact, it does not need to be spent on groceries, and it requires no submission of receipts to show that you ever bought groceries. It is not a rebate, and it has nothing to do with groceries.

Can you explain why your government has chosen to call this a grocery rebate? Isn’t that a little misleading, as is somewhat typical of this government? Can you tell us why they would call it a “grocery rebate” when it has nothing to do with groceries?

Thank you for your question.

The impetus for providing assistance to Canadians was very much a function of the rising cost of groceries, a rise that continued even when global inflation came down through the combination of efforts of the Bank of Canada, the government and the operation of our economy more generally.

It is not misleading to identify this particular assistance as a grocery rebate, because that was really what was at the heart of it.

However, what the government chose to do was to deliver it in the most efficient, effective and dignified way to those Canadians and households — half of Canadian seniors — with moderate incomes.

It would be wrong to ask people who are struggling to pay their bills to not only continue to struggle but to keep their IGA clips for their litres of milk. This is the most efficient and quick way to get it into the hands of Canadians who need it most. It is designed to help them with the cost of groceries, and this government’s position is that it would be completely wrong to demand that; we’re not talking about huge sums of money. This is a prudent and practical way to assist, in some measure, those households. Nobody believes that this will solve the problem of the rising cost of groceries, whether it is a family of one, a single person or a family of five. It is help that the government can afford to provide and is happy to provide.

Senator Gold, again, you don’t need to explain why this bill is important. We understand that, which is why it passed unanimously in the other place. That is not the argument. You don’t need to sell the bill to me; we will likely support it in this place.

The fact of the matter is that it is misleading. Don’t tell me it is not misleading. You’re saying it is a grocery rebate, when, in fact, a senior who goes and spends that money on tools at The Home Depot or on golf clubs or whatever the case may be — and I’m not suggesting that there is anything nefarious about what the government is doing, but call it what it is.

It is not a grocery rebate, so why is it called a grocery rebate? Every part of your answer, Senator Gold, was exactly what you heard Senator Batters say under her breath: “a PR game.”

That is what the term “grocery rebate” is, so you don’t need to sell your bill. Senator Lankin will help you answer this, if you need help — she is already helping you — but tell us why you are calling it a grocery rebate when it is not a grocery rebate?

That’s all I want to know. I don’t want you to sell the bill to me; I will vote for it.

Thank goodness for that.

We won’t need time allocation. We’ll move it ahead.

Senator Plett, I am going to keep a promise to myself today to not get drawn into this, so I am just going to say this: I have answered your question.

This initiative was in response to the continuing rising cost of groceries that affects moderate- and low-income Canadians. Putting food on the table for yourself and your family is one of the most basic human needs — that and shelter — and the government is doing its part to help Canadians. It is delivering it through the fastest, most efficient and dignified mechanism it can, as any responsible government would and should do.

It is not a PR exercise. This is an exercise in helping Canadians. Those who need it the most know that this is going to help them. With all due respect, I am not going to be distracted or misled by rhetoric around how it is named or — and I am answering the question.

No, you are not. You are way beyond that.

Order.

Senator Gold, we are talking about the grocery rebate, and I have to tell you that on my street the other day, I saw a senior go to Canadian Tire and buy a lot of tools. They could have used their grocery rebate to buy the tools, but I was looking at him, and he looked pretty healthy to me — well-fed. I am assuming he had eaten and that he had bought groceries as of late.

Is the government going to say he should not be eating because he bought some tools, or can he use the grocery rebate to rebate the groceries he bought, the prices of which are going up astronomically?

Do they apply to the groceries that he bought?

He’s got another assistant.

I am happy to assist in —

Colleagues, we will have some decorum, and we will continue this debate.

Thank you for the question.

This government is of the view that Canadians make responsible choices in their lives and that it is not the business of government to tell them what to do.

It is the business of government to help Canadians when they are in need, and in this regard, the position of this government is the same as the traditional position — or at least the position of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and, I would hope, the Conservative Party of Canada of today — and that is that we trust Canadians to make responsible decisions when they are given the benefit of either assistance or tax breaks.

We trust Canadians. We know that those who are in need will use the money responsibly for their families, and in this moment in time in our country, they need help putting food on their tables.

Government leader, no one is questioning the validity of a grocery rebate at a time when this government has created or helped create such great inflation, and Canadians are suffering, but we have seen time and time again in this place that when you pass legislation with all the best intent in the world that legislation isn’t clear and transparent in giving directives to those that are going to apply this particular bill and apply this particular program with clear regulations.

We are just asking if it wouldn’t make sense to have some regulations and guidelines to make sure that all these billions of dollars would go to a grocery rebate and not to a hardware store rebate.

And there is nothing wrong for people in need who might need tools, Senator Cardozo, but there is something wrong when you take a government program, and then it is used, for example, to go on a vacation or to buy accessories for an automobile or to buy sporting goods, for example, for entertainment and sports reasons.

Would the government leader agree that we need to attach to the title of this bill clear guidance to make sure that all the money goes for grocery rebates and nothing else?

I’m really perplexed by the question. You started by talking about adding regulations, senator, and then you talked about changing the title of the bill.

This bill is simple. It provides direct assistance to 11 million households with up to a total of $467 for eligible couples with two children. It provides money directly to the provinces to top up the considerable federal contributions that are already made to the health care system.

I am going to refrain from commenting on the insinuations that Canadians who would be eligible for this would spend the funds on vacations or irresponsibly. Again — again, we have —

We’ve seen that before.

Again, the position of this government is that it has confidence in Canadians to exercise responsible decisions, and it is also deeply committed to helping those who really need help putting groceries on their table and feeding their families and to provide that assistance as quickly as possible.

You are perfectly willing to vote against this bill, which I hope you do not do, because you don’t like the title. I have explained as clearly as I can to you and to whomever is listening what the purpose of this bill is.

I have been as clear as clear can be. Canadians who are watching this will know exactly what this bill is about and exactly what will be provided to those most in need.