Moved second reading of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to begin the debate at second reading on Bill C-69, Budget Implementation Bill, 2024, No. 1.

I’d like to thank Senator Gold and Minister Freeland for the trust they put in me by allowing me to sponsor this bill in the Senate.

I know many of you here in this chamber had nightmares regarding a previous iteration of Bill C-69 back in 2019. I promise you that this version will not give you nightmares.

In fact, thanks to many measures in this bill, many Canadians should sleep better at night knowing that their government is working hard to make life easier for them. I’ll get into that in due course, but first I want to take a few moments to address a few items.

As you know, the budget was tabled in the other place on April 16, and the budget implementation act, or BIA, was introduced on May 2. At 686 pages, it’s the third-largest BIA since 2003. Former Prime Minister Harper’s Budget Implementation Act, 2009 was nearly 1,000 pages, so we are not setting any records here with Bill C-69.

This leads me to my first item of business: The omnibus nature of the bill. There is widespread consensus that asking the Senate to pass a bill with hundreds of pages and dozens of measures in little time is no way of governing. I will not defend the practice because, like most of you, I don’t agree with it. However, these are the tools that are at the government’s disposal.

It’s also important to point out that every item in this legislation appears inside the text of this year’s budget, in either its chapters or the legislative annex. I agree that some of the measures in the budget implementation act, particularly those that have limited budgetary impact or make significant amendments to various laws, could have been introduced in separate legislation. In fact, most of our committees that reviewed the bill as part of our pre-study raised that very issue. For example, our Social Affairs Committee felt that there was insufficient time available to properly examine the divisions they received and that a budget implementation act should be linked to the costed measures in the budget only.

On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder how effective the Senate, or Parliament for that matter, would be if a significant number of the measures contained in Bill C-69 were introduced as independent bills. We already complain that our Order Paper and our committees are being inundated with bills. There’s a long line of bills awaiting study at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, for example. The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has five bills to examine. The question is, would we have time to look at a number of additional bills in the spring, in the hope of getting them passed before the summer break? It’s a rhetorical question.

Call it mismanagement, call it opportunistic — call it what you will — but even though I am the sponsor of Bill C-69, I join senators in calling out the government on including significant measures in this bill that should have been extracted from Bill C-69 and which could have been studied on their own merits.

Despite this criticism, let’s be clear here: Our 10 Senate committees stepped up and delivered once again. In total, our committees held 36 meetings and had 239 unique witness appearances as part of our pre-study. We’ve received dozens and dozens of briefs. We’ve done great work under the circumstances.

Before I get into the crux of it, it’s important that I say a few words about the economy in general and Canada’s enviable position in the world. I will begin by quoting our Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, Mr. Yves Giroux. When I questioned the PBO at our National Finance Committee meeting a few weeks ago and asked about Canada’s economy, he told us:

We compare rather favourably on a debt-to-GDP ratio with G7 countries. We are probably the least or second least indebted country compared to our GDP. When it comes to other comparator groups such as the G20, we’re again in the best quartile, so the low 25 when it comes to the level of debt related relative to the economy. We are in a good position, and that is in large part due to the public pension funds — CPP and QPP — that are partially pre-funded, which most other countries don’t have. . . .

Certainly in the couple of front rows.

With respect to the sustainability of the federal debt, he deemed it to be sustainable over the next 75 years under status quo policy assumptions, of course.

If you aren’t convinced yet that things are not as bad as some might suggest, consider these facts. Wage growth has outpaced inflation for the past 15 months. The International Monetary Fund, or IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, project that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 in 2025, and the lowest debt and deficit in the G7. We’ve recovered 141% of the jobs lost since the peak of the pandemic compared to just 128% in the United States, which many consider to be the strongest economy in the world at this time.

Canada continues to enjoy a Triple-A credit rating. I don’t hear that often enough in this chamber. For example, S&P Global explains:

Our ’AAA’ rating on Canada continues to reflect the country’s strong institutions; credible monetary policy; sound net external position; and wealthy, export-oriented economy. . . .

We have a gross domestic product, or GDP, per capita of about $55,400 American. S&P expects that Canada’s well-diversified economy will remain resilient through the end of their forecast horizon in 2027, and expects that economic growth will accelerate in the next two years.

The fun thing about numbers is that you can make them say what you want them to say; they’ll paint the picture you want or sing the melody you want to hear. I have no doubt the song we’ll hear from some soon will be a very different melody.

The point is that things are good; they aren’t as bad as some might claim.

I’m not suggesting everything is perfect. Many Canadians — seniors, immigrants, families and young professionals — are struggling to make ends meeting. Housing, food, gas and many essential goods and services are more expensive than ever. Many businesses and corporations are also worried about inflation, labour shortages and the cost of doing business.

Canadians are relying upon us to debate, review and pass legislation that will help them. Bill C-69 is part of the solution.

While I don’t agree with everything the government has done in the past nine years, I believe they have always had good intentions and have always been committed to making life better and fairer for all generations of Canadians. With Bill C-69, it’s no different. There are many measures in this bill that come at a time when they are most needed.

Many people have asked me if the increase in the capital gains inclusion rate is included in this budget implementation act, Bill C-69. The answer is, “No, it is not.”

The bill has four parts covering 65 different measures.

Part 1 consists of 16 divisions amending the Income Tax Act. Part 2 enacts a law called the “Global Minimum Tax Act.”

Part 3 consists of four divisions dealing mainly with excise duties. Part 4 consists of 44 divisions. These are what I would call the bill’s non-financial measures.

As you already know, on May 9, the Senate instructed nine committees to undertake a pre-study of several of the divisions of Part 4, while the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance was authorized to examine the entire bill. Each of those committees has tabled a detailed report on its work. I encourage you to read them if you haven’t already done so.

At this point, I would like to highlight some but obviously not all — measures in the bill that I feel will benefit Canadians the most. I will go through them in the order they appear in the bill. I will begin with the measures in Part 1 that amend the Income Tax Act, something I know you are all as passionate about as I am.

Measure C in Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to exclude from taxation the income of the trusts that were established pursuant to the $23.3 billion First Nations Child and Family Services, Jordan’s Principle and Trout Class Settlement Agreement. Payments received by class members as beneficiaries of the trusts would not be included when computing income for federal income tax purposes. That is good news, makes a lot of sense and is similar to previous settlements of this nature.

Measure D will double the volunteer firefighter and search and rescue tax credits from $3,000 to $6,000. The government recognizes the essential role of these volunteers and the sacrifices they make to keep Canadians safe. For example, nearly 44,000 people claimed the firefighters’ credit in 2021 at a cost of $20 million in reduced tax revenues, and 5,800 people claimed the search and rescue credit, which lowered revenues by $2 million.

We all know about the fragility of Canada’s media landscape and journalism in general, so the government is proposing to enhance the Canadian journalism labour tax credit by increasing the cap on labour expenditures per employee to $85,000 and by temporarily raising the credit rate to 35% for a period of four years, up from 25%. In 2021, 116 corporations claimed this credit.

One measure I welcome, which I raised in the Senate not long ago, is the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses. About 600,000 small to medium-sized enterprises, or SMES, in provinces where the federal backstop applies will finally receive their share of fuel charge proceeds via a refundable tax credit. The amount is over $2.5 billion. Companies will not have to apply for it; the Canada Revenue Agency will automatically determine the amount for an eligible company. I’m very happy to see the government make good on its promise to return a portion of those proceeds to SMEs.

I know some of you have been interested in the changes the government first proposed in 2023 on the alternative minimum tax, which received mixed reviews at the time. The government listened to stakeholders, and I think Bill C-69 strikes a good balance. In broad strokes, the reform includes an increase of the minimum tax rate from 15% to 20.5% as well as an increase in the minimum tax exemption amount. Changes have been made to significantly lessen any impact on charitable donations, and donors will now be able to claim 80% of the charitable donation tax credit. This is good news.

Finally, there are a few additional tax credits in Part 1 related to the clean economy. They include the clean hydrogen investment tax credit, the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit and the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit. These measures reaffirm the government’s commitment to attracting investments, to stimulating business activities and to making Canada a top player in the clean economy.

Regarding the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit, for example, I want to add that this measure sends a strong signal to the industry that the government recognizes its vital role in our economy and, in particular, in local economies across the country, especially in northern and remote areas. The government advances that extending the credit would help keep investments flowing and support the earliest stages of mineral exploration.

As mentioned earlier, Part 2 introduces a new stand-alone act called the “Global Minimum Tax Act,” or GMTA. This section of the bill represents 41% of the entire bill — nearly 300 pages. Senators may be familiar with the genesis of this tax. In October 2021, an international agreement was reached to implement a global minimum 15% tax on multinational enterprises, or MNEs, with revenues above €750 million.

To date, 142 jurisdictions have signed on to it and agreed to a two-pillar solution that aims to address the tax challenges arising from the globalization and digitalization of the economy. The intention is to reduce the incentive for MNEs to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions and to set a floor on tax competition.

The GMTA will implement the primary rule for the minimum 15% tax, commonly known as the income inclusion rule, or IIR, and it will also implement a domestic minimum top-up tax. Under the IIR, Canada would generally impose a top-up tax on a large Canadian-based multinational enterprise if its operations are in a foreign country where the effective tax rate is below 15%.

So far, many of our partners have already taken action to implement Pillar 2, including all G7 nations — except the U.S. — the member states of the European Union and several G20 countries like Australia, South Africa and South Korea. As set out in Budget 2024, the government estimates that the implementation of Pillar 2 would increase revenues by $6.6 billion over three fiscal years, starting in 2026-27.

Based on historical data from 2019, over 220 Canadian multinationals met the revenue threshold for the GMTA, and more than 2,400 non-Canadian multinationals with operations in Canada also met the threshold.

Moving on now to Part 3, which is relatively quick and simple and focuses on taxes outside the Income Tax Act.

First, taxes are increasing for tobacco and vaping products. A carton of cigarettes will increase by $4, which represents a 12% bump. The government expects this increase to generate over $1.3 billion in revenue over the next five years. I personally think that the government is doing the right thing in increasing this tax on cigarettes and prioritizing the health of Canadians. The vaping product excise duty rate will also go up by 12%.

Moreover, the government is capping the inflation adjustment on alcohol products at 2% for the next two fiscal years. It is also cutting by half the excise duty rate on beer brewed in Canada to provide craft breweries additional tax relief in 2024-25 and 2025-26. The 2% cap was also extended the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, or BIA, for a one-year period.

Division 3 is proposing changes to the Underused Housing Tax Act, which you may recall we passed in June 2022. The act implemented an annual tax of 1% on the value of vacant or underused residential property directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. Following consultations, the government is proposing changes to the application of the tax that will help facilitate compliance while still serving its purpose. These changes address filing requirements, penalties and introduce a new employee accommodation exemption for residential properties held as a place of residence or lodging for employees in rural or remote sites.

Now let’s move on to the part of the bill that probably interests you the most.

Part 4 has 44 divisions that cover mostly social policy or non‑financial measures that are not necessarily tax related. Nine of our committees studied 38 of the 44 measures in this section. I will only summarize about a dozen.

I will start with Division 1 of Part 4, which will extend the ban on foreign investment in the Canadian housing sector by two years, until January 2027.

The purpose of the ban is to curb foreign demand, based on concerns that non-Canadian buyers may be playing a role in pricing some Canadians out of the housing market.

The government says that extending the ban sends a clear message to foreign investors that homes are for Canadians to live in, not a speculative financial asset class.

This provision is in addition to the measure in Part 1 that aims to crack down on short-term rentals and help resolve Canada’s housing crisis.

Division 3 deals with the newly announced national school food program. The government has committed $1 billion over five years for the program, which will give 400,000 more children per year access to school meals. With Bill C-69, the federal government will be able to sign bilateral agreements and start flowing up to $70 million in funding as early as the upcoming school year. Research shows that participation in such programs can save families about $800 a year.

As we heard in committee from the Breakfast Club of Canada, this program:

. . . is an investment in the future of our children . . . . By ensuring that all children have access to the nutrition they need to succeed, we are fostering a generation that is healthier, more educated and better equipped to contribute to society.

Our Social Affairs Committee is urging the government to ensure robust data collection and to adopt a data-driven approach to ensure that resources for school food programs are allocated to communities with the greatest needs.

Honourable colleagues, Bill C-69 would make a major expansion to the reach of the Canada Student Loan forgiveness program to help incentivize more workers in key occupations to move to underserved communities.

First, here is a bit of background: Canada Student Loan forgiveness for family doctors, registered nurses, nurse practitioners and other targeted professions was originally implemented in 2012-13 to complement existing efforts to address health care worker shortages in rural and remote regions.

Part 4, Division 4 of Bill C-69 would permanently extend the benefit to 10 new occupations to ensure that Canadians who live in these communities can access the health care and social services they need. The new occupations are pharmacists, dentists, dental hygienists, midwives, early childhood educators, teachers, social workers, personal support workers, physiotherapists and psychologists.

After years of consultations, Division 16 introduces new legislation for key components of the consumer-driven banking framework. Canada is the last G7 country to introduce such a framework. The Senate Banking Committee published its seminal report on this subject back in 2019.

This division sets out elements pertaining to the scope and process for designation of the technical standards body. In our report, our Banking Committee underscored “. . . the importance of moving quickly and diligently . . . .” with the framework.

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC, has been chosen by the government and mandated with overseeing the application of the framework. Our Senate Banking Committee raised some concern about this choice. As we wrote:

The committee believes that a strong governance structure will be essential for the regulator so that Canadians can be confident when participating in the consumer-driven banking regime. The committee has serious reservations over the government’s decision to designate the . . . (FCAC) as the regulator . . . and questions why a more robust, independent regulator that has expertise in enforcement was not chosen.

I want to underline that other countries like the U.S. also chose the equivalent of the FCAC, and Canada wanted to go in the same direction. The government feels it is important that consumer-driven banking in Canada follows a consistent international approach. The FCAC has a long-standing role as Canada’s financial sector market-conduct regulator and is viewed as an effective supervisory and enforcement agency.

I want to be clear: The government is taking an incremental approach to consumer-driven banking. This is step one.

Elements contained in Bill C-69 will give industry more time to build toward implementation readiness while the government continues to engage with stakeholders to refine more complex elements related to the accreditation framework and the rules for privacy, security and liability. These elements should be introduced in BIA 2 later this year. That would be step 2.

To improve labour protections for gig workers, the Canada Labour Code is being amended in Division 21 to address an issue related to the wrongful classification, or misclassification, of independent contractors by employers. Fixing this issue will ensure gig workers in federally regulated private sector positions will no longer be denied some of their labour rights and entitlements under the code.

As explained by the government, misclassifying gig workers could lead to precarious working conditions and economic vulnerability. This measure could impact over 41,000 gig workers, and it could have a financial impact on employers who have previously misclassified their workers. Our Social Affairs Committee also heard that the Canada Revenue Agency could be losing billions of dollars annually due to the tax implications.

In Division 22, the government is implementing its promise to complete the development of a “right to disconnect” policy for the federally regulated private sector. This represents some 19,000 employers and just under 1 million employees in sectors such as banking, telecommunications and interprovincial and international transportation. Employers will be required to issue a policy that includes their expectations for work-related communication outside scheduled hours of work and any opportunity for employees to disconnect.

Announced in Budget 2024, the government is proposing the creation of an Indigenous loan guarantee program that will provide up to $5 billion in loan guarantees to unlock access to capital for Indigenous communities. This measure will enable Indigenous communities to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities and ensure they share in our nation’s economic growth in a way that works for them.

To set up the program, Division 25 will authorize a newly created subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation to issue and administer the portfolio. Natural Resources Canada will also play a role in the initial intake and review of applications. Our Indigenous Peoples Committee applauds this initiative and is calling for it to be established quickly, recognizing that:

The program has the potential to ensure that Indigenous governments can generate own-source revenue by investing in natural resource projects and participate equally in the wider Canadian economy. . . .

The committee is calling on the government to ensure that:

The management and operation of the new organization must also be Indigenous-led, and the program should be administered in a manner that reflects the diverse needs of the Indigenous governments it is meant to serve. . . .

In response to a Supreme Court decision from October 2023, the government is making the necessary changes to the Impact Assessment Act, or IAA. This is the previous version of Bill C-69 that I referred to earlier. The proposed amendments to the IAA in Division 28 would narrow the scope of effects within federal jurisdiction that are addressed under the act. Additional amendments would ensure that decision-making functions are clearly driven by the potential for adverse effects within federal jurisdiction.

Naturally, our Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources was mandated to review this section of the bill. In its report, the committee shared its regret that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and his officials did not appear before the committee to explain the government’s proposed amendments and how they comply with the Supreme Court’s majority opinion.

In its pre-study report, our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee also recognized the legal ramifications of Division 28.

Division 35 hopes to address a major problem in Canada that has been growing in recent years. Five measures are being proposed in Bill C-69 to help fight motor vehicle theft. Two new motor vehicle theft offences are being created as well as two new offences targeting possession and distribution of certain electronic devices that are suitable for committing motor vehicle theft.

The government is also proposing a new offence of:

. . . laundering the proceeds of crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. . . .

Although the Criminal Code already includes a robust framework to address these types of offences, the proposed new measures would strengthen the regime. These measures come after the National Summit on Combatting Auto Theft that was held in January and respond to calls from police for higher penalties.

Some senators have concerns about this measure and argue that the government should target car manufacturers instead of going after criminals with harsher sentences. I hear you, and the minister does as well. In response to a question from Senator Pate at our National Finance Committee, Minister Freeland was clear that she recognizes “. . . that there is a role for car companies to play . . .” and they “. . . are working with them as part of the solution to this problem.”

Our Legal Committee agrees. As they pointed out in their report:

. . . a multifaceted approach is required to address the problem of motor vehicle theft, including anti-theft technology for new motor vehicles produced or sold in Canada . . .

Through Division 37, the government is making changes to the Telecommunications Act to require telecommunications service providers to offer customers a self-service mechanism that allows them to cancel their contract or modify their plan. Companies would also be required to inform subscribers before the expiry of their contract and advise them of other service plans available. Historically, Canada has been home to some of the most expensive phone plans. The government has been making strides in recent years in supporting more affordable plans for consumers, and this current measure will make it easier for Canadians to find better deals on internet, home phone and cell phone plans.

Moving on to Division 39, on immigrant stations, allow me to offer a bit of context. As a result of decisions by provinces to terminate their long-standing immigration detention agreements, the government is now taking steps to build capacity to house high-risk immigration detainees in federal institutions, including immigration holding centres and federal correctional facilities that will be managed by the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA.

Most of us probably agree that immigration detention is a measure of last resort and the use of a correctional facility even more so. However, it is sometimes a necessary step if an individual poses a risk to the safety of Canadians. This measure clearly applies to high-risk immigration detainees. In fact, the definition of “immigration detainee” was clarified via an amendment at the committee stage in the other place.

It goes without saying that these measures do not change who is eligible for immigration detention and therefore do not change the Charter analysis on those provisions. All federal institutions are required to uphold Charter rights in their treatment of detainees.

It’s important to put on the record the views of our Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs on this matter. Here’s what senators on the committee had to say about it:

 . . . your committee believes that Parliament has not had sufficient time to undertake proper study of the proposed amendments, which would make significant changes to Canada’s immigration detention regime. Moreover, because the proposed amendments are unrelated to the financial management of Canada, your committee strongly feels that they should not have been included in budget implementation legislation.

As you know, the Minister of Public Safety sent a six‑page letter to the members of our National Security Committee, which I circulated to all senators. In it, the minister corrects a number of inaccurate assertions made during the committee’s pre-study. Regarding immigration detention, Minister LeBlanc reminded us that:

 . . . C-69 does not alter the provisions governing it, which have been upheld as constitutional by the courts. This Bill simply allows for the use of a new facility, namely a CBSA‑operated section of CSC institution instead of a provincial correctional institution run by provincial correctional staff. . . .

Not everyone will be satisfied with the minister’s answer and the government’s approach to this matter, but the provision in Bill C-69 is time limited — thanks to an amendment in the other place — and being done for public safety reasons.

One measure some colleagues may bring up in their remarks is Division 40, which amends the Borrowing Authority Act to increase the maximum borrowing amount permitted under the act. Some of us are probably on the same page on this matter. Canada’s growing debt is a concern, but I think this measure is needed at this time because of Canada’s debt stock and the higher-than-usual cost of borrowing. The amendment is needed to support smooth financing operations for the government and Crown corporations. I agree that governments — at all levels — need to start reeling in their spending. The pandemic is behind us, and we need to be a bit more conservative with the public purse.

The very last division of Part 4, Division 44, seeks to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal provisions related to the ministerial power to exempt the legal operation of supervised consumption sites.

The government is now proposing amendments that would allow for the creation of a new regulatory system so that supervised consumption and drug checking services can be authorized through a structured system.

The data is rather compelling and obviously convinced the government of the positive impact these sites have on the overdose crisis.

Between 2017 and 2023, supervised consumption sites in Canada saw more than 4.4 million visits, attended to over 53,000 non-fatal overdoses and made over 424,000 referrals to health and social services.

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs even suggests that “streamlining and simplifying the application and renewal procedures for a SCS would improve the process for applicants.”

Of course, I could have gone on for a little while longer, but I wanted to focus on these specific measures from Part 4.

Without going into details, I’ll simply mention that the other measures included in Part 4 address a wide range of matters, including Employment Insurance benefits, pension plans, engagement to develop a regional red dress alert pilot system in Manitoba, amendments to regulations associated with therapeutic products, criminal interest rate changes, and amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to implement the Canada Health Transfer guarantee of 5% announced in 2023.

Honourable colleagues, I wish I had more time to go over all the measures in the bill. Regrettably, I don’t have the luxury of unlimited time like all of our leaders. I’m sure you are all relieved. I know my staff is relieved. Of course, I’m also not encouraging our five leaders to take advantage of that possibility. I am looking forward to some healthy debate and sensible exchanges.

I also hope the bill can be sent to our National Finance Committee as soon as possible so that it can undertake its clause‑by-clause consideration of the bill.

As I conclude, I hope my remarks have allowed you to get a better understanding of some key measures included in Bill C-69 that implement important elements of Budget 2024, which the government describes as its plan to build a Canada that works better for every generation, and where everyone has a fair shot at a good middle-class life. It is my hope that you will be assessing the merits of Bill C-69 with these key considerations in mind.

I’m sorry to take so much time so late in the evening and the session. It is an important bill. I want to put what is important on the record. Thank you for listening. I look forward to swift passage of the bill.

Thank you.

Will Senator Loffreda take a question?

Yes.

Thank you.

Senator Loffreda, this Trudeau government’s budget implementation act is several hundred pages long; I believe it’s around 680 pages. It has many parts in it that have nothing to do with the budget, as you referenced.

You will also recall that many senators from this chamber appeared at the Senate National Finance Committee last week. We told you this impeded our ability to properly study and amend those certain parts.

Two of those parts, which I want to reference, are the new Criminal Code auto theft provisions and the Trudeau government’s huge legislative fix to the Impact Assessment Act, which the Supreme Court of Canada found to be largely unconstitutional.

Although you initially joked that we wouldn’t have nightmares about Bill C-69 — this one — we clearly recall that old, scary Bill C-69 because it’s resurrected in this.

My question to you, Senator Loffreda, is how many times — I think it’s a few times, at least, already — have you sponsored budget implementation acts or the implementation of fall economic statements for this government?

If you don’t agree with the common practice of the government continuing to have these budget implementation acts that are several hundred pages long, and that force through major changes that don’t have anything to do with the budget — and it also impedes our ability to properly study and amend such changes — why don’t you tell the federal government that you won’t sponsor another one of their budget implementation acts until they stop doing this?

Senator Batters, first of all, thank you for the question.

I will be honest: For someone like me, it’s a huge privilege and an honour to sponsor a budget implementation act. When I was looking at the speech, I said, “Could it be?” I had to pinch myself. “Could it be that it is Tony Loffreda doing this? Wow.”

For me, as I said, I’m honoured to do this. I agree with 98% or 99% of what is in there. There is no perfect bill. There is 1% or 2% that I don’t agree with. There is no perfect person or bill.

This budget implementation act is not the largest; I said it from the start. At 686 pages, it is the third-largest budget implementation act since 2003. Regarding Prime Minister Harper — who I believe was a great prime minister — for the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, it was over 1,000 pages. They’re all doing it.

As I mentioned — Senator Housakos, it’s my turn to talk.

On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder how effective the Senate, or Parliament for that matter, would be if many of the measures contained in Bill C-69 were introduced as stand-alone bills.

We already complain that our Order Paper and our committees are inundated with bills. There’s a long queue of bills waiting for study at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, for example. At the Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, we have five bills to examine.

Our committees are overloaded. This is timely. Auto theft is timely. We have criminal organizations operating in Canada, breaking into homes. We have to put this on the record. We have to vote this bill in as fast as possible. I’m sending a strong message to the government.

I started with that statement because I don’t believe in omnibus bills. Some of this legislation could have been studied separately. There is so much of it that is so important, and it has to be put into this bill at this point in time. That is my answer to the question.

You said committee schedules are overloaded, yet government bills — especially government bills like this — certainly take priority.

You will also perhaps recall when we were discussing the auto theft provisions at the National Finance Committee when we were there last week. I was telling you about one particular provision that definitely requires an amendment because there is actually a wording change to the auto theft provision, which is incorrect in French and English.

Since we can’t really make such a change because it’s part of this 680-page budget implementation act, would you agree that is one of the definite downfalls of having a measure like that in the budget implementation act — a provision that we know already has a flaw in it?

In whatever you do in life, you have to weigh the pros and the cons. There is no perfect bill. There is no perfect measure. This is a necessity for Canadians at this point in time.

I go to a gym. I know there are many members at that gym who are waiting to hear that I passed this budget implementation act, and that the auto theft measures are in there because their homes have been broken into in order to get the car keys.

Obviously, Parliament regulation and legislation are not static; it is very dynamic. If there is anything we can do in the future, as I said many times on this bill, let’s debate legislation, bring it forward and make life better for Canadians.

Will Senator Loffreda take a question?

Yes.

Thank you, Senator Loffreda. I agree with you; Stephen Harper was a great prime minister. Regardless of how big the budget implementation acts were, the important thing is that he balanced budget after budget, except for a couple of years when we were facing an international crisis.

My question, Senator Loffreda, is the following: How do you feel supporting a budget that has $61 billion of new expenditures at a time when the Governor of the Bank of Canada has said it’s not helpful in fighting inflation and it’s not helpful in fighting interest rate hikes?

The former governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge — you know both of them, as a former banker — calls this the worst budget since 1982 because of these new expenditures.

Don’t you agree that, at some point, a fiscally responsible government who cares about future generations of Canadians would put some fiscal anchor in place? They’ve had nine years to do it. They refuse continuously.

Someone with your background — and I know the success you had as a banker and in business — surely would believe a responsible government would have some fiscal anchor, instead of spending $61 billion of new expenditures when we already set a record in terms of debt and deficits under Mr. Trudeau.

Thank you, Senator Housakos, for your questions. They are always insightful. Thank you for outlining my banking career, which seems to be so far behind me at this point in time. I thought that was difficult, but this is a lot more difficult.

I said it in my speech; I don’t think you were in the chamber when I did mention it. I will repeat it for the sake of others, because it is important.

We compare rather favourably on a debt-to-GDP ratio when compared to other G7 countries. By the way, I respect former Bank of Canada Governor Dodge and all the people you mentioned. We all have different opinions. An opinion is important to have, but judgment is what is needed. Judgment is based on facts. I will give you the facts.

In this chamber, I hear all kinds of things thrown out: how awful we’re doing financially, and how people are struggling. Maybe you should spend a few weekends with me and see the other 80% of Canadians — how well off they are and how well they are living — or maybe 90% of Canadians.

By the way, I started in a basement. I lived in a basement for 20 years. I can relate to both.

We compare rather favourably on a debt-to-GDP ratio when compared to the G7 countries. We are probably the least or second-least indebted country compared to our GDP.

When it comes to other comparative groups — and this is from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, who you respect so highly. The PBO said this when I asked him.

I’m quoting our PBO here. I am not the one saying this:

When it comes to other comparator groups such as the G20, we’re again in the best quartile —

— the top two —

— when it comes to the level of debt relative to the economy. We are in a good position . . . .

And he goes on and on.

You referenced people whom I highly respect. Well, I reference the IMF, the OECD. These are credible organizations. I’m certain a smart man, a smart senator like yourself agrees.

We have the strongest economic growth in the G7 projected in 2025 and the lowest debt and deficit in the G7. We’ve recovered 141% of the jobs lost since the peak of the pandemic, compared to just 128% in the United States. The United States economy is the strongest in the world. We’ve recovered more jobs than the U.S.A. Have we ever heard this in this chamber? We’ve never heard this, have we? Well, you’ve heard it here. Now, for the first time, you’ve heard it today.

Canada continues to enjoy a Triple-A credit rating! Senator Housakos, I’ll repeat it again: a Triple-A credit rating.

I’m not making this up. These are credible organizations. Look at the S&P economic outlook. I’ve got a whole binder of economic data here. I could go on and on here.

The S&P continues to give Canada a Triple-A rating. Do you know why we have this Triple-A credit rating?

I always hear people speak against our institutions, all of our big institutions. We are who we are because of our institutions, including the Senate of Canada.

For example, the S&P explains that it continues to give Canada a Triple-A rating because of our strong institutions; credible monetary policy; moderate net government debt; sound net external position; our currency’s growing importance and status as actively traded — the Canadian dollar; and a wealthy, exported-oriented economy with a GDP per capita of about US$55,400.

I’m not making this up. This is from the S&P and everyone else. S&P expects Canada’s well-diversified economy will remain resilient through the end of their forecast horizon in 2027 and expects the economic growth will accelerate in the next two years.

It will accelerate in the next two years. I hope — if I do a good job and if the government believes — I could sponsor another few budget implementation acts. I hope I could. And I will tell you in a couple of years, “Remember, Senator Housakos, what I told you two years ago. Look at that.” I hope I can do that.

As I said, you can cherry-pick the numbers you want, but these numbers speak for themselves. I hope I answered your question. If I haven’t, you can ask me a supplementary one.

We have 45 seconds, so we need a very quick question and a very quick answer.

We have 45 seconds? I would like Senator Loffreda to explain this to me. Maybe the 80% or 90% of Canadians who are living in this wonderful utopia are living in Westmount, but the Canadians with whom I spend my weekends, Senator Loffreda, are lining up at soup kitchens. They’re complaining about getting shoes on their kids’ feet.

Tell me how the $61 billion in new expenditures helps bring down the inflation and the cost of living, which, according to you, is minuscule in this country.

I know I will have to ask for more time.

First of all, Senator Housakos, we’ve been good friends for a long time. Many here don’t know that. You spend your weekends like I spend my weekends; let’s not make people believe otherwise. I think I’m a workaholic. You’re not. So you’re probably having much more fun on the weekends than I am, but inflation —

Senator Loffreda, are you asking for more time to answer the question?

May I have two minutes?

May he have five minutes?

Senator Loffreda, I am afraid a few people said “no.”

Honourable senators, I always thought bankers had ice water in their veins. It was nice to see the blood running hot.

Senator Loffreda, thank you for a terrific speech and your interesting and informative answers.

I’m speaking today on second reading because that’s when we talk about the principle of the bill. I’ve got a problem with the principle of the bill that I will lay out here.

I abstained on Bill C-59, which I think is also problematic for the same reasons.

My own view, since this new era in the Senate, has always been — as it was for most of the time I was with my friends on the Conservative side — to support the government on financial items. In my view, the role of a senator is to support the government on financial bills. But I can’t support budget implementation acts that are loaded with non-budget items anymore.

We’re here on June 19, and it’s like déjà vu for me. I want to take us back 363 days to June 21, 2023. We were considering Bill C-47, which was a budget implementation act. It contained multiple items that had no connection to the budget of Canada. Some items clearly needed further study, amendments or both.

We had a spirited debate about this whole issue of amending. What do we do? We’re up against the wall for time. There is this conventional shield. We decided to vote the bill and go home, and that’s what we did.

That was then, and where are we now? We’re in the same spot. The budget implementation act arrived a few hours ago. A number of divisions in the bill have no connection to the finances of Canada. We have Criminal Code amendments, which I know our Legal Committee finds deeply problematic.

We’ve got items in there that have flaws or need more study or were too complicated or had subject matters that should be in stand-alone legislation. In fact, 6 out of the 10 committees that reported to National Finance and then through National Finance to us had concerns about this very issue.

We talked about time pressures being a major problem of budget implementation acts. We talked about this hands-off pressure. We’re completely discouraged from amending or dividing the bill in order to take time with the various sections that need our attention and where we could add some value and provide sober second thought.

All those things Senator Loffreda alluded to — we’ve talked about them before here. We’re in the same spot. We’re in the same spot such that I believe we will have a nice spirited debate, like we’re having here, and we will vote the bill and go home. That’s what we’re going to do.

It’s a little bit of a depressing end to what I think has been a very productive session that we’ve all put in. Work has been done. We’re starting to see a revival of our committees producing exceptional studies that are getting a lot of recognition. We did consequential work on legislation. We spent a lot of time on private members’ bills, both from the House and here, and some good bills came through. A lot of them we improved as we studied them.

What have we learned? What have we done? What do we need to do if we are to solve this problem?

I think we learned a couple of things. I certainly did. Number one, governments love the shortcut of using the budget implementation act and putting non-financial items in it. Successive governments have been quite proactive in using this. I think the current government, left unchecked, will continue to use it. I have no doubt that a potential future government will use it extensively in the future. I think it’s safe to say that we are living a sentence on these kinds of bills that from time to time will be worse than they are now, and maybe sometimes they’ll be better if we do nothing.

The second learning — again, for me, it’s a confirmation — is that we in the Senate, by nature and by convention, have an absolute extreme aversion to using our constitutional tools to amend, delay or divide a bill in order to respond to what many of us view as an abuse of process. We just won’t do it. It’s almost like an abusive relationship that we’re stuck in. We have these time-sensitive and hands-off issues that have tied themselves together in these budget implementation acts.

What I think we have learned about ourselves is that, because it’s a budget bill, we really are not keen on using our normal legislative powers that we don’t hesitate to use on other bills — even though we know that is an absurdity because the stuff we are focused on amending has nothing to do with the finances of the country.

Nonetheless, that is where we are. I think we’ve checked and double-checked our gut on this over the last couple of years. In my view, this is an issue that we should not think is going to change.

What has happened over the last year? What have we done in terms of trying to grapple with this issue over the last year? We passed a resolution tasking the National Finance Committee to study this specific issue and report back. What can we do? What do they suggest we do in order to maximize the value that we can bring to this process? What changes to our process do we need to consider based on their best judgment, their experience and everything they have heard?

For the consideration — and ultimately the acceptance — of this chamber, a number of us in the leadership crafted the motion together and put it before this chamber. As we started this process, Senator Shugart recommended to me that we try to involve the government. He said that they will probably say, “No, thanks.” And they did; they politely said, “No, thanks. We have no interest in changing this. We’ll leave it to you to see what you want to do.”

However, we have that resolution. We had a date to report back at the end of April. For good reason — I don’t think there were any bad reasons — the National Finance Committee has said they need until the end of December to study this. We did that. It’s a good first step.

We have to acknowledge that the government is increasingly paying attention to what we’re doing over here as we try to grind through 700 pages, look at all the divisions and try to parse what is being done. As we flagged some issues in our pre-study, the government showed that they were listening. They withdrew one of the divisions and made consequential amendments and clarifications to another division. It wasn’t everything it should have been, in my opinion, but it was something we had not seen before. We talked about pre-studies as being something that should generate a reaction from the government. It’s a good idea, but during my 13 years here, I’d never seen one.

There is some movement towards a solution, and I take heart from that. However, I think we are coming to a crossroads, colleagues. Over the course of the coming year, we have two choices in terms of how we want to deal with this chronic issue of non-financial items being in a budget implementation act.

I take what Senator Loffreda said. There are a number of non‑financial items that go into a budget implementation act that are not big enough or important enough to be their own bill. Occasionally, there might be time-sensitive issues, but everything becomes time-sensitive when it’s in the government’s bailiwick and they’re looking to get it passed. The fact is that I think there will always be a Division 4 with a bunch of items in it that are bits and bobs. But I think we have to concern ourselves with consequential, non-financial items.

The crossroads involve two roads. We can do nothing other than complain every June. That is a choice, and we can make that choice. We can say, “That is tradition; it has always been; it is ever thus; it is our lot in life.” Fair enough. We can make that choice. If that’s what we want to do, let’s make that choice, make it clear and eat our cooking for the next decade. If that’s what we want to do, let’s do that. We can have both hands tied behind our back — time and our legislative powers — and we can just take whatever the House of Commons gives us.

The other road involves supporting and challenging the National Finance Committee as they go through a study process to help us. I think there are a lot of things that they could and should look at — and that I have no doubt they will look at — that can help us get through this and get back on the road to adding maximum value.

I have some ideas. I think the pre-study process could be far more robust. There’s a triage at the front end, and it could start with the budget bill. As we know, this government has said that if it’s in the budget document, it’s going to come in the budget implementation act.

When we see the budget bill, we should pore through not just the numbers but all the annexes where there is the innocuous little sentence that turns into a 12-page piece of the budget at the back, like we had last year. We should be anticipating what might come to the National Finance Committee, and they should be doing some triage in terms of early signals we see that we might want to flag. That’s an idea that I think is worth studying.

We could provide more support. We could demand more for and from our government leader. The government leader should be in cabinet. As the Senate, we could take that position and send the message to future prime ministers to say that the government leader needs to be at the table.

We heard much about the days of government leaders in the Senate and the frank, open conversations that were had around the cabinet in relation to timing, bills and the amount of time we needed to do our work probably. That is just an idea, but we can strengthen the role of the Government Representative in the Senate and, in particular, the mirror role of the Senate representative in the cabinet.

We can work to try to build some trust with the House of Commons on purpose. It is especially important we do that when new governments are around, that they understand where we are, how we will interact with them and that we do that proactively and in good faith.

We should also clearly define the circumstances under which we would consider exercising our rights of amendment, division and delay. Without that, we will always be subject to abuse of process or the temptation.

If our National Finance Committee — together with all of us — can find a better way forward, we’ll be advancing Senate reform, adding value for Canadians and fulfilling our duty to provide proper sober second thought.

I know which road I want to take. I hope you do too. I ask that you support and encourage our colleagues on National Finance to do their best for us in the coming months. Thank you.

Senator Wallin, you had a question, but we’re out of time.

Senator Black, are you asking for two minutes?

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

We have an agreement for one minute, Senator Wallin.

I have a couple of questions for Senator Black. Is it true that you are one of three people in the last 70 years to be awarded the Canadian Society of Soil Science honorary membership, bestowed on those who have rendered valuable or special service to soil science?

Is it true, Senator Black, that you have received this award in recognition of your leadership on the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and your work to “. . . inspire action, foster collaboration, and ignite a renewed sense of stewardship towards our precious soils,” and that your strong support led to the successful bid by Canada to host the 24th World Congress of Soil Science?

Is it true the honour was bestowed in Vancouver last week, after your presentation on the Agriculture Committee’s groundbreaking — excuse the pun — soil health study report called Critical Ground: Why Soil Is Essential to Canada’s Economic, Environmental, Human, and Social Health?

And are you aware that we are proud and thank you for the recognition and honour you have brought to this chamber?

Senator Black, you have about one second.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)

Honourable senators, it is now seven o’clock. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I hear a “no.”

Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is, therefore, suspended, and I will leave the chair until eight o’clock.