Moved third reading of Bill C-79, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

She said: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to speak as sponsor of Bill C-79, Appropriation Act No. 4, 2024-25, which seeks approval for the spending outlined in the Supplementary Estimates (B).

Appropriation bills like this one are a fundamental part of Parliament’s annual financial cycle. They are the mechanism to approve funds presented in the estimates documents and are scrutinized by parliamentarians. Once they are approved, the funds will flow to departments and agencies so they can keep delivering the programs and services Canadians rely on.

A few weeks ago, on November 19, I tabled the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025. As usual, the estimates were then referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for examination and report, and I thank the committee for its work.

The budget, of course, is the government’s economic plan but it doesn’t provide the authority to spend funds. That’s why the estimates and related appropriation bills are necessary. They present spending plans for each federal organization and provide spending authorities.

Typically, the Main Estimates are prepared before the budget is introduced, so they don’t include items announced in the budget. The Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C) are then tabled over the course of the rest of the year, with additional expenditures that were either not sufficiently developed in time for the Main Estimates or have been revised since.

I will use the rest of my time to provide an overview of expenditures for which the government is seeking approval with this bill.

The Supplementary Estimates (B) presents a total of $24.8 billion in incremental budgetary spending with $21.6 billion to be voted and $3.2 billion in forecasted statutory expenditures. These planned expenditures provide concrete support to Canadians in a variety of ways and advance the work the government is doing on behalf of Canadians at home and abroad.

One of the largest amounts is $955.2 million for First Nations Child and Family Services. This funding will improve services which preserve the ability for children to be cared for in their communities, such as improving the availability of safe and adequate housing for children on-reserve.

In addition, $725 million would support the continued implementation of Jordan’s Principle, providing First Nations children with products and services related to health care, education and other social supports.

The estimates also propose significant funding for military procurement projects to ensure our Armed Forces have the resources to protect Canadians at home and abroad in these times of global unpredictability.

This includes $659.1 million for the Future Aircrew Training Program, which trains pilots and other aircrew members, including air combat systems officers and airborne electronic sensor operators; $561 million for the procurement of Poseidon multi-mission aircraft; and $315.3 million for Joint Support Ships, which perform tasks such as the resupply of other ships and transportation of cargo in support of combat and humanitarian missions.

The estimates also contain $942.5 million for programs and services for veterans and their families. This is in response to an increase in the number of benefit applications being processed and an increase in the number of veterans opting for lump sum instead of monthly payments.

The estimates provide $800 million to reimburse provinces and territories for costs associated with natural disasters. This funding is provided through Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, which help provinces and territories when response and recovery costs exceed what they can bear on their own.

The amount in Supplementary Estimates (B) will notably be used to reimburse British Columbia for costs related to flooding in 2021, the Atlantic provinces for costs related to Hurricane Fiona in 2022 and the Northwest Territories for costs related to the 2023 wildfires.

There is also $742.5 million in these estimates to advance the government’s housing plan, which is focused on increasing supply by lowering construction costs, supporting Canadians seeking to rent or buy a home and building more affordable housing. This funding will go to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to support the following: the Apartment Construction Loan Program, which provides low-interest loans to builders of standard rental units, seniors’ apartments and student housing; the Affordable Housing Fund, which supports the construction and repair of community housing, shelters and transitional and supportive housing; and the Housing Accelerator Fund, which incentivizes quicker housing construction with a focus on local land use planning and development approvals.

I’ve highlighted some of the bigger-ticket items in the estimates, but there are also many smaller dollar amounts that will have a significant impact on Canadians’ lives. For example, there’s $12 million in here for Futurpreneur Canada, a national non-profit that helps aspiring entrepreneurs under the age of 40 start a new business or buy an existing one. This is part of the total investment of $60 million for this organization in Budget 2024. Futurpreneur provides collateral-free loan capital, as well as mentorship and access to a supportive network of young entrepreneurs and business experts. I’m encouraged that the organization tracks and publishes its own demographic data, which shows that in 2023-24, 42% of the businesses it supported were led by women, 15% had Black founders and 5% had Indigenous founders.

Of course, when a young person starts a new business, they create new jobs and enhance the vitality and prosperity of their community. That’s what these estimates are about from start to finish: investing in Canadian communities and in the work Canadians are doing at home and abroad to make us all more secure, more prosperous and better equipped to thrive together.

I invite you to join me in approving these proposed investments by adopting Bill C-79. Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson, I think your speech was about six minutes long. We were told to expect at least 20 minutes or so. Can you please give us some more detail, given that we’re talking about $24 billion on some of the major items that we are dealing with here?

Thank you for the question. I would be happy to offer details on anything specific. It is a very large booklet for the Supplementary Estimates (B), so do you have a specific question, senator?

Given that you did not deliver a second reading speech — this is the first time we’re hearing any details at all in this chamber — I would like details and more information about, for example, the military. I was asking for details on some of the major expenditures out of that $24 billion.

Thank you for the question. Military procurement projects, as I mentioned, include $659.1 million for the future aircrew training program, $561 million for multi-mission aircraft and $315.3 million for joint support ships. It also includes support for veterans and their families to the tune of $942.5 million.

Yes, those were the exact amounts and details that you read from your speech. I made note of each of those. Can you give us more details about each of those amounts, please?

Senator, thank you for the question. I don’t have the Supplementary Estimates (B) in front of me, but I would be happy to provide your office with more information, if you would like.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-79, which flows from the adoption of the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2024-25. For those of us who do not sit on the National Finance Committee or who aren’t budgetary experts, it is helpful to situate what the supplementary estimates are and what their intent is. I know that Senator LaBoucane-Benson just went through this, but I will state it again.

As quoted from the Treasury Board’s website:

In order to make expenditures, the government must receive Parliament’s approval, either through previously adopted legislation or, on an annual basis, through the introduction and passage of appropriation bills. Prior to the introduction of each appropriation bill, the President of the Treasury Board tables an Estimates publication (Main or Supplementary) in Parliament to provide information and details on spending authorities sought.

While the Main Estimates provide an overview of spending requirements for the upcoming fiscal year, Supplementary Estimates present information on additional spending requirements which were either not sufficiently developed in time for inclusion in the Main Estimates, or have subsequently been refined to account for developments in particular programs and services.

With this context, senators, we understand the importance of the supplementary estimates and the supply bill before us for their role in providing or sustaining funding for critical services and programs that First Nations have been forced to depend on, not of their own doing but because various governments have not honoured the treaties, thereby making Canadians think this is welfare.

Per the Treasury Board’s website, I note that the supplementary estimates before us present a total of $24.8 billion in incremental budgetary spending. There are critical budgetary measures in here specifically for First Nations. I would like to highlight the $955.2 million for First Nations Child and Family Services, $725 million for services and supports for First Nations children under Jordan’s Principle and $562.5 million for non‑insured health benefits for First Nations and Inuit peoples. These programs each address different areas in access to care and the gaps that the government had promised to address over these many years.

While this earmarked spending is needed to continue on the path toward continuing to close the health and social deficits that First Nations people continue to experience across Canada, there is one critical program I would like to call attention to, which has been overlooked in this and other recent budgetary measures. It is the Strengthening Families Maternal Child Health Program that is administered regionally by the First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba, or FNHSSM. I would like to extend my thanks to Chief Derek Nepinak, Chief Sheldon Kent, Elizabeth Decaire and Stephanie Biswell from Manitoba for their work at FNHSSM on this and other critical areas.

Colleagues, we must confront the devastating legacy of colonialism for First Nations families. The topic of unmarked graves of First Nations children serves as a contemporary and chilling reminder of the colonial past, but these injustices continue today as we continue to bury our children at an unacceptable rate, largely due to preventable causes. Infant mortality rates are three times higher among First Nations children than non‑Indigenous children. In Manitoba, 81% of infants who died in their sleep were Indigenous, as the “majority of incidents occurred in socioeconomically-disadvantaged areas, and 27% occurred in First Nations communities.” That was from the Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth.

Honourable senators, the Indian residential school system separated families, undermining traditional parenting practices for generations and leaving First Nations people without the skills to parent. I know; I was one of them. Communities must be empowered not only to lead the reclaiming of these lost skills but also to forgive themselves for allowing this atrocity to impact their families, their collective and territories. But that is what assimilation was about. Significant and meaningful contribution dictates that the government must commit to long-term, sustainable funding to ensure community success through understanding how assimilation impacted our role in this country.

The Strengthening Families Maternal Child Health Program helps to restore vital parenting knowledge lost through colonial policies. However, government underinvestment has continually undermined its success, and I note that the supply bill before us and Supplementary Estimates (B) do not provide the funding sorely needed for this program to continue to flourish. Maternal and child reconnection is critical for self-determination.

Colleagues, this Maternal Child Health Program previously faced a sunset notice in 2014, but was saved through advocacy by former Grand Chief Nepinak and MP Niki Ashton. While the program expanded to 34 communities in 2023-24, funding fell short by $186,281. This fiscal year funding has been further reduced, leaving a shortfall of $368,562.

The Maternal Child Health Program still supports 34 First Nations communities in Manitoba. Despite demonstrating their readiness, 29 other First Nations communities still lack access to the community-based funding needed for program implementation. Instead, these communities have been advised to submit proposals through Jordan’s Principle funding, showing the government’s lack of understanding of the unique niche of the Maternal Child Health Program. It also takes away funding from the intended priorities of Jordan’s Principle.

These poor health outcomes and avoidable morbidities that plague First Nations children and mothers also continue to fester without the funding needed to successfully address them. First Nations children face the highest rates of type 2 diabetes globally. Apprehension rates by First Nations Child and Family Services remain disproportionately high. In Manitoba:

First Nations infants are:

6.5 [times] more likely to be removed from the home of their birthing parent

7.7 [times] more likely to become a permanent ward before age 5

5.6 [times] more likely to be apprehended at birth

Postpartum depression impacts First Nations women at a greater rate than others, as 12.9% of First Nations women suffer from postpartum depression, compared to 5.6% of non‑Indigenous women.

While the data unfortunately conveys the realities of First Nations’ poor health outcomes and premature morbidities, it comes from a colonial origin. The data inherently fails to demonstrate that our children are falling ill and dying and that our mothers are silently suffering at a greater rate than other Canadians as a direct result of the prevailing systems, policies and programs that have created this reality. First Nations have long been relegated to vulnerable environments as a result of residential schools, reserves that represent a fraction of their traditional territory or the removal of First Nations children from their homes. Historically, First Nations have not received proper health care. The cumulative effects of living under these myriad colonial constructs and their resultant impacts are the impetus of the data we see, but these cumulative effects of vulnerabilities placed on First Nations are not adequately expressed in the data itself.

Honourable senators, First Nations people’s fear and apprehension resulting from their experiences of anti-Indigenous racism often prevent them from receiving adequate education and support in medical institutions, leading to significant gaps in hospitals, clinics, nursing stations and health care centres. The Maternal Child Health Program is an example of community-based programming that is so critical in addressing these gaps and ensuring that vulnerable infants are assessed and receive necessary care. Trust, an essential determinant of health, is built through culturally relevant, community-led initiatives.

What has this program accomplished? This program has seen positive impacts including a reduction in child involvement with child and family services, increased father involvement, improved immunization and breastfeeding rates, reduced postpartum depression rates and enhanced family capacity and resilience. The program also offers training to First Nations doulas to increase the capacity for a reinstitution of community-based birth ceremonies. The ceremony of birthing was removed from the community and medicalized, so that women, as creators and midwives, were removed by the federal government on the advice of medical doctors from performing their traditional roles.

This program recently released the First Nations-led Honouring our Babies: Safe Sleep Cards and Facilitator’s Guide, which addresses unique challenges such as wood stoves, overcrowding and a lack of safe sleep surfaces, all of which contribute to high infant mortality. However, the development of similar tools such as the Traditional Parenting Manual and Breastfeeding Wellness Teachings for Mothers, Families and Communities are slowed due to insufficient funding.

Colleagues, the Maternal Child Health Program has provided culturally appropriate health and parenting support for over 18 years. It is guided by a First Nations framework that involves a collaboration with elders, families, youth, leadership and advisory councils to discuss, understand and address issues involving child health, safety and nutrition, parenting practices and prenatal care, strengthening relationships within families and communities, mental health support, language and cultural practices, effective communication and increased literacy.

However, the regional support offered by the Strengthening Families Maternal Child Health Program is being undermined by operational delays due to strained resources. While gatherings would typically be offered four times a year to reinforce teachings, they are now occurring just once annually. Key activities, including quality assurance, peer support visits, training and resource distribution are facing significant delays, which hinders the program’s overall effectiveness.

In conclusion, honourable senators, through residential schools, the Sixties Scoop and day schools, the government has severed our connection as First Nations parents in fulfilling our roles. This severance impacts the future of our nation. The Maternal Child Health Program demonstrates the power of community-led solutions in addressing systemic health disparities through honouring First Nations cultural traditions.

With long-term, adequate funding and support, we can stop the cycle of preventable loss of health and loss of life, and build a healthier, more equitable future for First Nations children and families. This is a call to action: not just to question the regrettable lack of funding, but to call for justice, reconciliation and the survival of our vulnerable children through the funding of these kinds of critical and life-saving programs. Education and lifelong learning begin in the home, and this Maternal Child Health Program should be given every opportunity to thrive in order to ensure a culturally appropriate way to support that learning.

Kinanâskomitinowow. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I recently had the great pleasure of meeting with Manitoba Chief Derek Nepinak and other First Nations leaders during the Assembly of First Nations winter assembly here in Ottawa to discuss critical issues regarding funding for First Nations maternal and child health initiatives. I want to recognize and thank the First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba for the incredible work and service they provide to Manitoban First Nations families. I also want to acknowledge that I am an independent senator from Manitoba, Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation.

The Maternal and Child Health program, or MCH, has provided culturally appropriate health and parenting support for over 18 years in Manitoba, guided by a First Nations framework that involves the collaboration with elders, families, youth, leadership and advisory councils.

The MCH is designed to support and nurture the overall well-being of children and families through strength-based relationships that utilize current, evidence-based resources and traditional practices grounded in community knowledge, focusing on child health, safety and nutrition; parenting practices and prenatal care; strengthening relationships within families and communities; mental health support; language and cultural practices; effective communication; increased literacy.

The period from conception to 6 years of age has the most influence of any time period on brain development, behaviour and health. The effects of maternal health during pregnancy as well as childhood experiences within the first six years affect the brain development for a lifetime. In addition, improving knowledge of pre-conception and reproductive health among young adults helps to promote a healthy start to pregnancy.

Since its inception, the MCH program has borne concrete, tangible results and improved the lives of First Nations children, mothers and families. These key achievements include reduction in infant mortality rates; reduction in child involvement with Child and Family Services, principally through the establishment of community-based supportive spaces outside of Child and Family Services where families in crisis can be referred to a first-line strategy to strengthen families and keep them intact; increased father involvement and sense of belonging; enhanced family resilience; stronger parent-child bonds; more families staying together as a result of this program.

Lamentably, the issue of maternal and child health has been noticeably absent from Budget 2024, from yesterday’s economic update and from other fiscal indicators and government investment priorities as seen in appropriation bills such as the one before us, Bill C-79. Despite the quantifiable and life-changing results achieved under this program, these advances are at risk due to chronic underfunding.

We heard some very compelling examples from Chief Nepinak and the leaders with whom we met. The program has essentially operated with the same budget since 2013, despite expanding its operations and widening the number of First Nations communities beyond the original 14.

Previous efforts to defund the program via sunset clauses were only averted due to strong advocacy led by former Grand Chief Nepinak. While the program expanded to 34 communities in 2023-24, funding fell short by over $180,000. Funding has been further reduced this fiscal year, leaving a shortfall of over $360,000.

Despite demonstrating readiness, 29 First Nations communities still lack access to community-based funding. Even funding proposals submitted to the federal government under Jordan’s Principle, which is mandated to respond to unmet needs of First Nations children no matter where they live in Canada, have been denied thus far. The underfunding of this successful health program will have immediate and generational consequences for First Nations and for the entire nation of Canada.

Manitoba has some of the highest rates of First Nations children in care under Child and Family Services. Shockingly, over 90% of children in care are Indigenous. Apprehension rates remain disproportionately high.

In Manitoba:

First Nation infants are 6.5 times more likely to be removed from their birth parents, 7.7 times more likely to become a permanent ward before age 5, and 5.6 times more likely to be apprehended at birth.

First Nations parents frequently face the removal of parenting rights, often without adequate access to preventative support or culturally relevant resources to address systemic challenges. First Nations, as we know, are overrepresented in the criminal system largely due to colonial policies. This widens the gap further in health inequities for First Nations compared to the general population. Studies are conclusive:

Children born to incarcerated mothers are at higher risk for negative, long-term health outcomes. . . . These negative influences can increase the likelihood the child also experiences incarceration, perpetuating a multigenerational cycle of disadvantage.

These injustices underscore the urgent need for upstream, community-led programs that empower families and prevent unnecessary child apprehensions. Underfunding also slows the development, distribution and community-based training on maternal health, such as First Nations safe sleep guides, traditional parenting manuals, breastfeeding guides and other training and support programs that have been shown to have positive health impacts.

The Maternal and Child Health program is a critical initiative aimed at addressing these disparities and ensuring families have the resources to stay healthy and stay together.

Senators, the Strengthening Families Maternal Child Health Program works to provide culturally safe parenting support, including traditional parenting techniques and giving families the support they need at a critical time — the beginning of their child’s life.

Accessible support that is meaningful and built on trust should not be undervalued. Such programs have significant impacts on families’ ability to stay together, fostering healthier and more resilient communities and contributing to a more resilient and inclusive democracy in Canada.

As the government presses ahead with its list of fiscal priorities, I urge senators to draw attention to the critical supports provided by the Strengthening Families Maternal Child Health Program, including the delivery of the services for Jordan’s Principle, and petition the government to increase regional support funding and expand program activities across all participating communities.

I wish to note that my Youth Liaison for Manitoba, Landon, who is in Grade 12, went with me to visit the Jordan’s Principle office at the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs a number of weeks ago. We spent an afternoon with the staff. We met parents and families who were there for services. There can be no doubt whatsoever, first of all, that Jordan’s Principle is enshrined in law and, second, that the federal government is not keeping its promise. There are both delays and underfunding of Jordan’s Principle programs, in addition to the many other programs to which I have referred in my speech today.

This is the opportunity for us, as senators, to stand and respect the memory of little Jordan River Anderson of Norway House Cree Nation, who died because levels of government refused to put his survival as their priority and, instead, squabbled over who was going to pay the bill. We are probably facing similar situations if there is no resolution to both the underfunding and the more effective coordination of the desperately needed and entirely justified funding for maternal and child health programs for families and children of our First Nations.

Thank you for your attention. Meegwetch.

Yes.

Thank you. I truly wish we could answer the question of why there is chronic underfunding. These are clearly broken promises. The fact that the underfunding is chronic means that not only can the programs in existence not be adequately maintained, but the programs that need to be rolled out that are ready to be rolled out cannot even begin.

The statistics are very clear. We are way behind the goals that were agreed upon in terms of services to First Nations and thereby delivering the metrics on increased health and capacity of children, not to mention, under Jordan’s Principle, the absolutely critical health care that children in crisis need. This is the whole idea behind Jordan’s Principle.

The fact that we see this chronic underfunding, including in this bill, is a telling reminder for us that reconciliation is more than words. Reconciliation is action and following through on promises that currently are not being kept.

Yes, we are still behind, yes, we are still continuing the mistake and yes, First Nations children and their families continue to suffer as a result of this inaction.

On debate.

Honourable senators, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-79, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

I want to make a few observations about what we heard in committee and share my concerns with you, but I can’t begin my speech about the Supplementary Estimates (B) without first saying a few words about what happened yesterday.

I am obviously referring to the fact that the Minister of Finance stepped down just hours before the economic update was tabled. That is unprecedented. The minister’s resignation was a political bombshell in and of itself, but Ms. Freeland’s letter of resignation revealed a lot about the Prime Minister’s governing style.

Clearly, Ms. Freeland was no longer comfortable playing the Prime Minister’s sidekick and found the courage to put her foot down, although some would say it was perhaps a little too late. Didn’t she herself sign the government’s most recent budgets in red ink?

In her resignation letter, she wrote a few sentences that really say a lot:

For the past number of weeks, you and I have found ourselves at odds about the best path forward for Canada. . . .

That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war. That means eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment.

I know Canadians would recognize and respect such an approach. They know when we are working for them, and they equally know when we are focused on ourselves.

Colleagues, when we say that the Prime Minister has lost control, the crisis facing the government today is simply the most eloquent demonstration. Nevertheless, let’s get back to our study of the Supplementary Estimates (B).

As part of the National Finance Committee study, we obviously discussed the anticipated deficit. We could only speculate, as the economic statement had not yet been tabled, nor had the Public Accounts of Canada. I’ll come back to that later.

So, with regard to the deficit, Mr. Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, told the Finance Committee that he still expected last year’s deficit to be close to $47 billion. However, he said he had no inside information regarding any surprises the government might have up its sleeve to bring down the deficit. As I’m sure you’d all agree, yesterday’s surprise was a big one.

For example, certain claims against the government may have been lowered, or some of the public service pension surplus may be used to reduce last year’s deficit.

Be that as it may, the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s estimate of a $47-billion deficit for last year is higher than the $40-billion deficit reported in the April budget.

The estimated deficit for this year, as indicated in the budget, was $39.8 billion. In October, however, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that this year’s deficit is likely closer to $46 billion. The GST/HST vacation will increase the deficit. The PBO’s estimate is therefore very realistic, if the figures in the economic statement tabled in the other place yesterday are anything to go by.

Moreover, the government pegged the additional revenue from the changes to the capital gains tax at $6.9 billion for 2024-25, but Parliament has yet to approve that tax increase. If that $6.9 billion in revenue is not collected during the fiscal year, the deficit will increase.

That is what I was planning on saying about this subject prior to yesterday, but the infamous economic update has finally been tabled in the House of Commons.

Honourable senators, what happened yesterday in the other place when the 2024 Fall Economic Statement was tabled is simply outrageous. The government had its House leader table the economic statement, and then every last minister got up and left their seat, effectively preventing any opposition member from asking the government a single question. The Trudeau government made a huge mess and then ran off before parliamentarians and Canadians could hold it accountable for its mismanagement. It was running from reality, and after reading the economic statement and finding out about last year’s deficit and this year’s expected deficit, now we can understand why the government is so embarrassed and reticent.

Sixty-two billion dollars is the known deficit for 2023-24. Sixty-two billion dollars is $22 billion more than the former Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, promised in the last budget that she tabled a mere eight months ago, in April. It exceeds the April forecasts by 50%. That is huge. Any CFO responsible for a mistake like that would be shown the door in a heartbeat.

Now we are looking at a projected deficit of $48.3 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year. This amount, too, is higher than the $39 billion announced in the last budget, as the Department of Finance indicated in the economic statement unveiled on Monday. None of the numbers are lining up, and it’s deeply troubling.

According to Robert Asselin, senior Vice President of the Business Council of Canada and a former close associate of ex‑finance minister Bill Morneau, the Trudeau government has lost control of public finances. Mr. Asselin said:

The problem is that they’re already running a $60-billion deficit even as dark clouds appear on the horizon. The threat of American tariffs is looming, investments must be made in defence, and Canada is flirting with a recession.

For all intents and purposes, this government has lost control of public spending.

Now let’s look at Bill C-79 itself. This bill, the fourth appropriation bill for this year, calls on Parliament to authorize additional spending to the tune of $21.6 billion.

This request builds on the Supplementary Estimates (B), which state the purpose of the $21.6 billion in new spending. The Supplementary Estimates (B) also provide for a $3.2-billion increase in statutory expenditures that have already been authorized by other legislation.

If we include these supplementary estimates of up to $21.6 billion, the total proposed spending authorities since the beginning of the year amount to $487.4 billion, which is $5.2 billion less than this time last year.

However, don’t assume that this $5.2-billion decrease means that spending won’t be as high this year as it was last year. The government is still indicating that spending this year will reach $543.6 billion, which was the amount budgeted in April. Considering what we know now, can we really trust these projections?

What’s more, new spending initiatives will further increase this year’s spending estimates. The government had not yet published last year’s financial statements, so we did not have a reliable figure for spending for that period against which to compare this year’s spending estimates.

It is unacceptable that the Public Accounts of Canada were only tabled today, December 17. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that the government waited until the very end of fall to table the economic update demonstrates a lack of transparency, which is preventing parliamentarians from examining the update in time to vote supply.

If we compare last year’s spending authorities with this year’s, we will see that all categories of spending authority have increased, except “public services,” which decreased by $2.4 billion.

Surprisingly, or perhaps some would say unsurprisingly, “Professional and special services” shows an increase in spending authority of $1.1 billion.

One of the observations that we considered adding to the National Finance Committee’s report was that, in the case of the federal workforce and professional services contracts, the number of full-time equivalent federal employees rose from 368,165 in 2018‑19 to 431,698 in 2022‑23, an increase of 17.3%.

In 2021-22, the federal government also spent an estimated $3 billion on professional services contracts, a 5.8% increase. We are also aware of the government’s initiative to refocus some of its spending.

Colleagues, in light of yesterday’s economic update, it is clear that this government views the verb “refocus” as being synonymous with “increase.” The latest measure, the two-month GST holiday, is a good example of that. It will add between $1.5 billion and $2.7 billion to the debt-financed shortfall. This is a highly questionable measure that experts generally consider to be inappropriate. Even Department of Finance experts opposed it, according to The Globe and Mail last week.

Officers of Parliament are independent entities that are responsible directly to Parliament rather than to the government or a federal minister. They carry out duties assigned by specific statutes and report to one or both chambers of Parliament.

There are nine officers of Parliament: the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Privacy Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The funding mechanisms differ from one officer of Parliament to another. Some obtain approval directly from Parliament, while others have to request approval through the departments. The departmental approach can compromise their independence, or at least, it can give the impression that their independence is compromised.

The Information Commissioner told the committee:

Although I am an independent agent of Parliament, I do not have the ability to request funding directly from Parliament.

Whenever my office needs additional funding, I am obliged to submit a request to the Minister of Justice, who has his own priorities, who may or may not send my request to the Minister of Finance and eventually to the Treasury Board for their approval.

This lengthy process forces me to seek funding through the very institutions that I am investigating. Frankly, this does not reflect my independence.

What the Information Commissioner said is deeply alarming. If we want officers of Parliament to be truly independent of the government in order to safeguard their objectivity and autonomy, it is imperative that we overhaul their funding approval process. This raises a question: Does the current government even want truly independent and effective officers of Parliament?

In contrast, other officers of Parliament, such as the Chief Electoral Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, have independent funding mechanisms built into their enabling legislation, which reinforces their autonomy. That should be the norm. That’s why I think it’s so important to review the funding model for officers of Parliament who do not receive funding directly from Parliament, in order to better support their ability to fulfill their mandate independently and effectively, because this will improve transparency and strengthen public confidence in Canada’s institutions.

However, considering how the Liberals presented yesterday’s economic statement, this government doesn’t seem at all interested in real government transparency, and that is very worrying.

Now I’d like to make a few remarks about certain departments’ spending.

I will begin with the Department of National Defence.

This department is requesting additional appropriations of $3.3 billion, of which $1.7 billion is for capital equipment.

As my honourable colleagues are aware, the government is under pressure to increase military spending to meet NATO’s target of 2% of GDP. Canada’s delay in meeting this target unfortunately discredits our country on the international stage.

In July of this year, the government committed to achieving this 2% target by 2032-33.

The new defence policy states that military spending will reach 1.76% of GDP by 2029-30, but a recent Parliamentary Budget Officer report contradicts that statement and indicates that military spending will reach only 1.58% of GDP by 2029-30.

Be that as it may, the government has yet to provide a roadmap to show how it will increase spending to meet the 2% target.

Once this bill is passed, the Department of National Defence will be authorized to spend $34.6 billion, which is significantly more than the $29 billion approved this time last year.

The most notable item is the increase in funding for capital equipment, which went from $6 billion last year to $9 billion so far this year. While the increase in funding is a good sign, it is worth noting that the Department of National Defence has a poor track record when it comes to spending the funds it is allocated, particularly when it comes to capital expenditures, because of its cumbersome procurement system.

For example, in 2020-21, the department spent $5 billion of the $5.8 billion that was approved. In 2021-22, it spent $4.6 billion of the $5.8 billion that was approved. In 2022-23, it spent $4.9 billion of the $5.9 billion that was approved.

The government has not yet announced spending for 2023-24, so we don’t know how much of the $7.2 billion was approved and was actually spent. In any case, the government has yet to provide a roadmap showing how it will achieve this 2% target by 2032-33. Many are concerned about how the government’s idea of “refocusing government spending” will affect National Defence.

During Question Period in the Senate on November 7, Minister Blair was asked about the impending budget cuts to his department. He replied that none of the cuts would affect operations, training or support for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The fact remains that National Defence has suffered the biggest budget cuts of any department: $810 million this year, or 36% of the government’s total, $851 million next year and $907 million the year after that.

Canada’s Procurement Ombud, Alexander Jeglic, appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance as part of the study on the Supplementary Estimates (B), in compliance with the order of reference of November 26, 2024. The Office of the Procurement Ombud is not requesting funds under the Supplementary Estimates (B). Mr. Jeglic appeared immediately prior to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was the first witness to appear in the committee’s study of the Supplementary Estimates (B). The Procurement Ombud’s mandate is set out in the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, which provides that the ombudsman must review the procurement practices of federal departments to assess their fairness, openness and transparency and make recommendations during the year. Crown corporations are not covered under this mandate.

In his testimony, the Procurement Ombud drew attention to major systemic problems affecting the federal procurement system. He repeatedly shared his concerns about the current state of federal procurement and stressed that the system was in urgent need of reform. He said that the comments and concerns outlined in his reports dating back several years are as relevant today as they were then.

Mr. Jeglic also told us that his reports highlight long-standing problems in government contracting, including favouritism toward certain bidders, the complexity of federal government contracting, overly restrictive evaluation criteria, lack of documentation and gaping holes in the quality of contracting information made public by departments.

Mr. Jeglic also talked about the special reviews he conducted last year. The first addressed the procurement practices that led to contracts being awarded to McKinsey & Company. The Ombud reviewed 32 contracts awarded to McKinsey, representing a total value of $112 million. He identified numerous problems, and they are posted on his office’s website.

The second special review concerned ArriveCAN, during which the Ombud reviewed 41 contracts associated with this app. Details of the review have also been published on the Ombud’s website. They raised concerns about contract awarding practices that were not in line with government policy, threatening the fairness, openness and transparency of public procurement. Mr. Jeglic also commented on the House of Commons study on defence procurement and the readiness of Canada’s defence industries. He shared his comments and concerns in the procurement practice review document, released in May 2022.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is another important witness who contributed to this study — I already pointed that out when I addressed the current and projected deficits. He published his report on the Supplementary Estimates (B) on November 20 and testified before our Committee on National Finance on November 26. On that occasion, we discussed the many questions and concerns raised by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. As I mentioned, one of those concerns had to do with the delay in presenting the Public Accounts of Canada for 2023-24. Let’s not forget that eight months have gone by since the end of the last fiscal year.

Mr. Giroux stated that we, as parliamentarians, were being asked to authorize additional spending of $21.6 billion without knowing whether the departments and agencies had enough money last year, whether they spent all the funding or whether they were very close to their spending limit. In other words, we do not know if they truly need this $21.6 billion. It is incredible.

During his testimony, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said the following:

It is an issue that we have flagged for several years that you, as parliamentarians, have been asked to approve dozens of billions of dollars in spending while still having no clue as to how the government achieved its results and how much it spent and how much it lapsed for the year that ended now more than eight months ago. So it is an issue.

He also said the following:

The delayed publication of the public accounts prevents parliamentarians from having more time to conduct ex-post financial scrutiny . . . .

I should point out here, colleagues, that an ex-post or after-the-fact review is one that assesses an organization’s past performance based on historical data. The Parliamentary Budget Officer continued, and again, I quote:

[It] prevents parliamentarians from having more time to conduct ex-post financial scrutiny, and obtain better information to assess the government’s budget plans and estimates, including these supplementary estimates.

Honourable senators, to clarify the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s remarks, note that without the public accounts, a complete review cannot be carried out, since we do not have the necessary information.

Mr. Giroux went on to point out the following:

In the absence of that information, departments are asking you for yet more money, but you don’t know if it is really necessary.

What’s more, the government has yet to publish the departmental results reports for 2023-24, so we also do not know how the departments are performing. If the government is asking us to approve increased funding for departments or agencies, then we should know their results for the previous year.

Also, since we did not have the public accounts, we still did not know what last year’s deficit actually was. Now we know that it was $62 billion.

With the finance minister’s resignation yesterday, it became clear that there was dissension between that minister and the Prime Minister over the tabling of the public accounts. That helps explain a contradiction we heard at the Finance Committee between what was said by the Auditor General of Canada and what was said by Treasury Board. On November 27, a Treasury Board official, Antoine Brunelle-Côté, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, stated the following in response to a question concerning the submission of financial statements to the Auditor General:

My understanding is that the Auditor General has received a report and we’re waiting for her final word. The government is promising to table the report under the legislation by December 31.

I will check. I think it’s the final version, but I will have to check that.

However, during her testimony before the public accounts committee in the other place on December 2, the Auditor General of Canada stated the following:

We don’t have the final statements. Our audit is ongoing. Obviously, we work with different versions, but we don’t have the final ones.

This situation is truly exceptional, because public accounts were typically presented in October of each year. Since 2014, public accounts have been presented at the beginning of December only in 2015, 2019 and 2021. I would note that those were all election years, which might explain the delay.

What exceptional circumstances explain the delay this year? I believe that the finance minister’s resignation yesterday is an indication that there may have been sand in the gears.

Increased spending on the Indigenous portfolio, which rose from $10.7 billion in 2015-16 to $31.7 billion in 2022-23, also attracted my attention and that of our National Finance Committee colleagues.

Actual spending for last year is not yet available because, as I mentioned earlier, we don’t have the public accounts, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates expenses related to current Indigenous claims and litigation at $74 billion in 2023-24 and $45.7 billion in 2024-25.

Mr. Giroux pointed out that higher spending on Indigenous programs and claims is attributable to various factors, including the growing Indigenous population, more services provided to the Indigenous population and the higher number of claims and settlements.

Expenditures of $74 billion in 2023-24 included $23 billion for the settlement under the First Nations Child and Family Services program. This agreement was negotiated over several years, and the final settlement was determined in 2023-24.

Finally, the dramatic growth of the public service within the federal government was also scrutinized, since the jump in size was so striking. However, the level of service to the public is clearly not keeping pace, which has been evident for several months now. The size of the federal public service has increased considerably in recent years.

Based on his analysis and in light of this observation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer wondered whether personnel costs might become unsustainable in the absence of structural changes.

Mr. Giroux responded to that line of questioning with the following:

Are there mechanisms in place to control the growth? Yes, there have been announcements regarding expenditure restraints, numerous exercises over the last couple of years. Most of them have not been finalized or have been put on hold or cancelled in one case. There is also the Treasury Board of Canada, the group of ministers, that is in charge of reviewing spending and approving the cheques being made to departments even though they have been approved in budgets or in supplementary estimates, there is a group of ministers that is tasked with scrutinizing government expenditures, including personnel expenditures.

Do I think that things will take a turn? That’s not what history suggests. We have seen multiple times over the last several years that the government intends to reduce the size of the public service next year, regardless of the year in which you ask that question. It’s always next year. This time will it be different? Compared to the same point last year, there is an increase of 8% in personnel spending. Will this year be different? I don’t think so, even though we’re hearing anecdotes that some casual and term contracts have not been renewed, but we haven’t seen an across-the-board stabilization or reduction in the size of the public service, certainly not when it comes to permanent employees or, in Ottawa language, indeterminate. . . .

The size of the public service, I personally think, is not a problem in and of itself. It can become a problem when we increase the size of the public service and we don’t see a corresponding improvement in services.

Colleagues, in light of these many deficiencies, we obviously can’t throw our support behind this bill, as the government has not proven to be accountable, diligent or the least bit transparent, as we saw yesterday afternoon. Even the finance minister and deputy prime minister, the number two in government, no longer has confidence in this Prime Minister and in this government. She even describes the government’s measures as “costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford.”

Colleagues, those are the few observations I wanted to bring to your attention. The study of the supplementary estimates is still an onerous exercise, but it is fundamental to government transparency.

The members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance carried out their mandate diligently and professionally. I sincerely thank them. Fortunately, we can count on the extraordinary support staff, from our clerk to our analysts to all the other people who work to make our jobs easier.

Unfortunately, with so much inaccuracy and uncertainty, Bill C-79 is hard to justify and accept.

To close on a more positive note, I’m grateful to all of you. Happy holidays to you. I wish you much joy and a well deserved rest.

Thank you.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.

I see two senators rising. Is there agreement on the bell? Thirty minutes? Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The bells will ring for 30 minutes and the vote will take place at 2:36 p.m. Call in the senators.