Honourable senators, I’m surprised to be called so quickly and I’m delighted to be here to say a few things about Bill C-19. Rising to speak on a supply bill is a courageous act for anybody, but it is a subject on which I’ve had some experience over a number of years. As I stood, I was reflecting on the story of Elizabeth Taylor’s seventh husband who, on the night of the marriage, said, “I know what is expected of me. I just don’t know how to make it interesting.” So, colleagues, I know what is expected of me, but I will try to make it interesting.

Supply is normally, and rightly so, the role of the House of Commons to establish. Those of us who remember Anne Cools, in her parting weeks will know she offered her personal experience and she started with the Magna Carta, and she was a little younger at that point, in 1215, but she reminded how the bargain at Magna Carta is really the basis of our supply, and that’s true.

When I first came to Ottawa, supply was even more obtuse than it is now. The documentation for supply was literally just binders and binders of numbers by vote, and the supply process was highly complex in the House of Commons, particularly, and that led to a reform in the Mulroney government, chaired by Jim McGrath, later Lieutenant Governor McGrath, and it was an attempt to provide parliamentarians with a more understandable time frame for supply, so it dealt with the process but not really the content.

When I got to the Treasury Board 25 years ago, and went through my first supply process, I said to my staff, “This reminds me of Brezhnev’s Moscow.” “What do you mean by that?” “Well, workers pretended to work and managers pretended to pay them.” So we pretend to give information to Parliament and they pretend to hold us to account.

The level and complexity of the documentation was beguiling and incomprehensible, and there began a process called The Improved Reporting to Parliament Project, which started with listening to parliamentarians, including Anne Cools, and that’s when I first met her. It was based on the belief that if we had better information presented to parliamentarians on departmental plans we would have a better and a more engaged process on supply.

Now, I suspect we were more hopeful, as it turns out, than perhaps realistic, but the thought was that we could learn from some of the reforms being undertaken in various jurisdictions, in terms of how to improve the engagement with Parliament, or legislatures, on information that was relevant to an understanding of what departments were trying to achieve — not just the input of dollars but the outcome of resources being applied.

It would hurt my former seatmate’s feelings; Grant Mitchell, as you know, spent a good deal of time trying to become premier of Alberta. Surprising as it sounds, one of the surprising areas of innovation on supply was Ralph Klein’s Alberta, where they began some of the early experiments on how to package information on outcomes that could engage parliamentarians more helpfully. As Tony Dean was in a very senior role in Ontario, that same process began under, surprisingly, Mike Harris.

The feds played catch-up, but we actually accomplished a fair degree in terms of advancing the notion that it wasn’t inputs and numbers — although they are important — but trying to articulate, what are we trying to achieve, what are the outcomes and how do we become accountable for those outcomes? We have accountants to tell us about the numbers. Parliamentarians, I would argue, ought to be those who judge whether or not the outcomes or the results are achievable.

One of the innovations brought at that time was the recognition that the departmental results were fine with respect to the departments, but that so much of government is cross-departmental, and how do you aggregate the results that are government-wide?

There was a process called “reporting to Canadians on results,” which aggregated some of the departmental work and committed governments — and they were somewhat cautious in adopting this, I should add — to certain achievements government-wide, nationwide, for a period of time. But we began discussions with provinces: Could we actually have a document where we had cross-jurisdictional alignment of results?

That work was under way. The whole notion was that we needed to adapt what was called modern comptrollership within the public service, to go from just the verifying of the numbers to actually having our audit function, our control function within government, focusing on results and outcomes. The then-Auditor General was actually involved in this. Some of that work lives on today; you see the Departmental Results Reports and the Departmental Plans.

However, there were some challenges along the way. One is the development of parliamentary agencies, which, as I commented on when we interviewed the then-Auditor General designate — the notion of value for money being assessed by the Auditor General, which is not the way I would do it. I would have the Auditor General auditing, as auditors do, the verification of the integrity of the numbers; and Parliament should do the auditing with respect to whether value for money has been achieved.

That’s a rather subjective notion. Senator Patterson isn’t here, but I might have a different view than he does on the value for money of the CERB, for example.

Parliamentary Budget Officers were included. We’ve recently added the parliamentary budget office to this. I would encourage you to read the works of Donald Savoie, who has been a lone critic of the development of parliamentary agencies. Governments hate them when they’re in government and love them when they’re in opposition, and for very good reason. They’re the brains of the opposition — of course, excluding the opposition in the Senate — and are often the bane of existence of governments.

A few things came along to disrupt this, I would say, modernization of comptrollership. One was the HRDC scandal. The moral equivalent of the HRDC scandal, to help senators understand this, is the helpful way in which the Auditor General undertook the study of the Senate. It froze the system of innovation in the public service. What surprises me is that senators are affronted by the AG, and they want the AG to do the same thing in other departments. But I leave that for another day.

The financial crisis, of course, totally disrupted the work underway. There was a government change, and that government came in with what they called the Federal Accountability Act, which was about restoring rules and regulations and removing innovation — what I call developing a team of goalies.

Lo and behold, the Auditor General becomes the newsmaker of the year for the HRDC scandal. The Auditor General should have become perhaps the person of the year for the Senate.

So we develop the comptrollership, the whole concept of more rules will lead to this never happening again. How many governments have you heard, in the light of an issue in which there has been a clear abuse of funds, say, “We called in the Auditor General. We’ve had a review. We’re imposing new rules. This will never happen again” — until it happens again?

I would argue that we need to return to focusing more clearly on results and outcomes, and have an intelligent discussion on accountability that is certainly more appropriate to a chamber that views itself as sober second thought.

I ask the question: What does parliamentary oversight and accountability look like in the context of COVID-19? At least for consideration, I would give you five points that we should think about in terms of the implication of what I am saying for the supply cycle, the estimates and the work of the Senate.

The first point I would like to make is this: Get used to scenarios and not one plan. During questioning, Senator Massicotte has referenced a couple of times the excellent document from Bennett Jones, a law firm with which I was not associated, led by David Dodge and a couple of deputy ministers, including former deputy ministers of finance. The document provides two scenarios — because who knows how this will unfold — in terms of their analysis of Canada’s fiscal and economic well-being. A week after Dodge issued his report, the OECD — which is a highly reputable organization — in its report on Canada, came up with two scenarios, not dissimilar to Bennett Jones, because they couldn’t come up with one.

My admonition to parliamentarians is this: Don’t demand one plan; demand a more intelligent discussion on scenarios. If I can predict one thing for Minister Morneau’s statement next month, it’s that he should keep away from predicting one plan going forward. And if I could make one other prediction: Whatever he says, Senator Plett will denounce.

The second point I’d make is that we need to reward innovation, adaptation and quick adjustments to fill gaps. The innovation that has been used — even in the coming forth of the legislation we are dealing with today and that we have dealt with in emergency legislation earlier on — is quite formidable in terms of how it was handled differently than usual. Draft bills were shared confidentially with leaders in the other place. Amendments or concerns generated by those drafts were incorporated before governments tabled a bill.

One could argue that’s logical in a minority Parliament, but it is an innovation that we should reflect on because, obviously, if there has been that degree of consultation before, there will be less debate on the floor. That’s just the nature of deal-making. I regret, for example, when that fell apart in the other place, the disability benefits, which are so necessary for disadvantaged Canadians, fell by the wayside as well. So be careful what you wish for when you want old processes; they may not be appropriate in the circumstances in which we are. We should expect and reward agility and adjustments to deal with gaps.

Three, our toolkit of both policy and systems was inadequate in the face of COVID, and the government had to act quickly on the policy innovation but also on the system innovation.

Senator Harder, are you asking for five more minutes?

Five more minutes, please.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

New York City Mayor Mario Cuomo said, “Good public administration is a combination of poetry and plumbing.” Supply is a lot about plumbing. I think we need to spend some time appreciating the innovation around the systems in government as a result of this. Who would have thought ESDC could almost seamlessly deliver the degree of system changes required to deliver the policy innovation that was brought?

I want to say a few words on the balance of public accountability and transparency because I think the trade-off between policy innovation has been a greater degree of transparency. Again, I would dispute some of the comments made; daily calls, the Finance biweekly report, take a look at it. It is the most interesting document coming out of the Government of Canada in years, and it’s from the Department of Finance. I would argue that we are seeing more information and more real-time information than heretofore, and we should keep demanding it.

My fourth point is to learn and adapt our supply process. I would suggest that with the work being done by National Finance, it was easier for us to deal with the supply bill because we had weeks of review of the COVID measures, and there was overlap. It should continue at least until we are in a more normal process.

My fifth and last point, I didn’t think I was going to add, but I will. Belligerent and disrespectful questioning of witnesses, be they ministers or officials, is no substitute for substantial engagement. Thank you.

Does Senator Harder have time for a question?

He has two minutes.

As you know, I had to laugh when you talked about the big binders from years ago. Well, guess what? We still have them.

One of the issues that I see is the quantity of information. In order for parliamentarians to keep on top of what’s happening, it’s an all-consuming job. I can’t say it’s a 24-hour job, but it’s a very demanding job. You have all this information out there, and parliamentarians really do need to access both the numbers and things like the departmental results reports. In addition to bringing this all together, there are still holes that need to be plugged.

Do you have any foresight, commentary or suggestions? I would like to hear your views on that. I was cleaning out my office last night, and I picked up an old report of the Auditor General. Leave it to me to open it up to see what was in it. It was one of Mike Ferguson’s reports, and he was talking about all this information that’s not put together; it’s all over the place. And it’s an issue.

I would really appreciate your comments on that because you might be able to shorten the time I spend working.

I was trying to get at that in my questioning of Minister Duclos the other day, when I talk about lots of transparency, but it’s windows of transparency, and how do you get a panoramic view? It seems to me that one of the things we need to consider is what would a dashboard of what we really need to know look like? Could we engage with Treasury Board, from a parliamentarian point of view, on a dashboard giving up-to-date and regular information on these sets of issues, which would help on parliamentary oversight and accountability? That might be a different set of issues than Treasury Board is using with its departments, but that would at least be a start.

I’m with you; I think that real information gets lost simply in its overwhelming presence.

You were saying the biweekly report is interesting, but there are still holes in it. So where do you go to find the information to plug the holes? Do I have time to ask one more question?

Sorry, Senator Marshall —

I would like your views on the departmental reports.

Senator Marshall, the time has expired.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-19 and to add my voice of concern over what’s been going on with our country and in this Parliament over the last few weeks and months. It’s a pattern that has developed not only due to the last few months and the crisis we’re facing, but it’s a pattern that has developed before that, even before COVID.

I know COVID is the justification for why we’ve added a quarter of a trillion dollars to our debt in just a few weeks. But the truth of the matter is, the fiscal irresponsibility of the current state of affairs has been evident and pronounced since 2015.

Senator Harder points out that whatever plan the government would put forward, he’s certain Senator Plett would be opposed to it. But I’m equally certain, even in the absence of a plan, Senator Harder will get up and compliment and start the wave of, “What a great job this government is doing.”

I don’t think that necessarily is an answer, in terms of the troubling concerns that I have currently. No doubt, we’ve gone through a pandemic and we’re still going through that pandemic. We’re learning every day if we could have managed it better or what we did well and what we didn’t do so well. In due time, we will get the final report card. That will come in. One thing is certain. If the pandemic doesn’t kill us, there’s no doubt, if you look at the state of economic affairs right now, that certainly will over the next few years.

The government has to show the same degree of urgency in dealing with the fiscal state of affairs of the country as they have shown over the last few weeks in dealing with COVID.

We, colleagues in this place, have a fundamental responsibility to be the voice of people in this country. This is the chamber of Parliament and this is a chamber that represents our citizens. We’re also the custodians of the taxpayers’ rights and privileges that they have. We have to be the ones that are the last line of defence in questioning the government, and calling them out whenever we think they need to be called out, and holding them to account.

I ask each and every one of you to look in the mirror and say to yourself: We just spent $250 billion over the last few weeks. In the course of the next few weeks, we will have added a quarter of a trillion dollars to the debt of the country — a country that’s 153 years old. Then ask yourself, as you look in that mirror: Did we do the scrutiny that was needed on behalf of taxpayers? Or were we cajoled, as is so often the case in Parliament, by a government using the urgency of circumstance to say, “Don’t worry. We’ve got to get it out the door. We need to do this in a hurry or else.”

Of course, it’s a strong argument. They put our backs to the wall. Who will dare to stand up and say, wait a second, we don’t want to get it out the door in half an hour; we might want to get it out the door in three hours or in three days or in four days. Let’s call a spade a spade. Certain programs went out the door in a hurry back in March and April. Other programs were promised and committed to by the government, but we are still waiting for them.

At the end of the day, politicians always make choices based on politics. Governments always make choices based on politics. It’s incumbent on parliaments to make choices based on the interests of Canadians.

Senator Harder said earlier in his compelling speech that, in the House of Commons, all parties are consulted and all negotiations are done in a matter-of-fact basis, a business-as-usual basis, and nothing is done in a vacuum and that, of course, there’s ample opportunity on that side for them to scrutinize the bills.

The opposition on that side doesn’t necessarily feel they had adequate time to scrutinize things, but that’s neither here nor there. I’ll speak for this place. Have we had adequate time? Are one or two committee meetings adequate time to put forward a supply bill of $18 billion or $53 billion? Clearly not. We have been cajoled to get things out the door on an urgent basis. The truth of the matter is, we haven’t been the custodians on behalf of taxpayers, that they pay us quite handsomely to come here and be.

I’m concerned. I came here in 2009. I have seen, year after year — it’s not exclusive to one political party or another — the eradication of the influence and the responsibility of Parliament, because the truth of the matter is, the upper chamber, the other place, politicians who get elected on the executive branch of government, consider us to be an impediment. We all know, at the end of the day, they have their plans; they feel that they have an obligation to the electorate and they have to respond now. But we also have an obligation.

When we came here, we were sworn in, summoned to this place to be the custodians of the taxpayers and the citizens of this country. And to ask ourselves where every dollar is going. They take the final decision but we have to ask the hard questions.

The truth of the matter is, in 2015, when this government was elected, they received a balanced budget. They will argue that it was $2 billion over, $2 billion less. For all intents and purposes, if we look at the financial balance sheet of 2015, it looked pretty good. By today’s standards, it looked pretty good even by pre‑COVID standards in 2019.

We have the current Prime Minister who got elected in 2015 touting in debate after debate how Canada is the best-situated country in the world in terms of debt-to-GDP ratio. He was right. We were the best-situated debt-to-GDP ratio country in the world in 2015. No doubt.

The reason we were is that there were two decades of successive efforts — not just by the former Harper government, but by the Chrétien government before that — to balance the books.

Of course, the previous government also inherited a crisis. Crises aren’t new. They come and go all the time. Governments in those good periods of economic times prepare themselves for the bust that invariably comes at one point or another.

The truth of the matter is — again, Senator Harder says that this government — it’s not one plan, they must have a bunch of plans. Well, the truth of the matter is when it comes to planning and when it comes to numbers, they are not as good as they are on rhetoric.

They are excellent at navel gazing and excellent at rhetoric. I had the minister earlier in the Committee of the Whole say here, “Thank God for their Senate reform because if it wasn’t for Senate reform, the ministers wouldn’t be before us today.” Come on. Colleagues, we all know how Parliament works. There was no Senate reform.

The Senate as a whole has always had the power to invite a minister of the Crown to the Committee of the Whole and they always have done so in the past when required. That’s a right and obligation we have as parliamentarians. There was no change made by any government, this one or any one before.

But where they do have the ability, I think, to be accountable is on numbers. They got elected in 2015 saying they will increase the budget — that’s the commitment they made to the public when they got elected — and the deficit will not be any higher than $10 billion. It will be manageable. They made a commitment that it will be balanced by 2019. Well, 2019 rolled around, and the truth of the matter is that balanced budget never came. The controlled deficit of $10 billion — moderate, reasonable — became $30 billion dollars, which was $30 billion less you were able to use in this particular COVID crisis.

We had a situation where they didn’t take care of the financial fiscal situation of the house. Our foreign investment went from a record $41 billion or $43 billion in 2014-15, down now by 50%.

Our dollar took a pummeling from where it was between 2008 to 2015. Our natural resources sector got pummeled and beaten to death. The truth of the matter is that was a cash cow during good times in order to give us the opportunity to deal with crises, and we did in 2008 and 2009.

Now we have a situation where the Parliamentary Budget Officer on the other side, he’s trying to make heads or tails of what the fiscal state of the country is, and he’s projecting a $280 billion deficit for this year. The government is saying, “No, we see $240 billion.” They’re not off by a few billion dollars, colleagues. They’re off by $20 billion.

You know why they’re off by $20 billion, and they might even be off by $30 billion? Because we currently have a government that has no fiscal responsibility as a reflex. They have no plan. Colleagues, when is the last time we saw a budget from this government? The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance admitted over and over and said for weeks they can’t even provide a financial statement because they don’t know what the figures are. They can’t really calculate what the numbers are.

Can you imagine the CEO of your former bank, Senator Loffreda, saying, “I can’t give you a financial statement or a budget for this year because I can’t tell you what the numbers are going to be?” How far would that go with the shareholders? If the shareholders of the Royal Bank wouldn’t tolerate that, if the shareholders of any medium- or large-size corporation wouldn’t tolerate that, why would the taxpayers of this country tolerate it? Why would we in the upper chamber allow this to be tolerable? Why do we tolerate this?

I will allow all of you to contemplate that and think about that for a while, and when we look at ourselves in the mirror when we go home when we rise in a few days, ask ourselves those questions. I think we all know what the answers are. It’s just not acceptable.

We just recently, of course, found out that our country got downgraded in terms of our credit rating from AAA to AA+. Again, it took two decades of work to get that AAA rating. It’s not an easy thing.

Colleagues, it’s not enough to say it’s because of COVID. No, it’s not just because of COVID. It’s because we didn’t have the fiscal plan in place during the good times, while our economy was going relatively well, to be in a position to deal with the storm that we’re dealing with right now.

Colleagues, Australia, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Singapore — these are countries with a AAA credit rating. They’ve gone through COVID. It’s not unique to Canada. They’ve gone through it. They have managed, some better, some worse. That’s a whole other debate for another time.

But in a country like Canada, with the economic capacity that we have, with the world’s largest middle class market to the south of us, with the strength in human resources that we have in this country, to be in a situation where we’re slipping, our debt-to-GDP ratio — trust me — in a few months will be a catastrophe — from the best in the world to a catastrophe.

We have colleagues that are saying, “What’s the rush, why are we criticizing the government and why are we hard on ministers?” Ministers parading through the Committee of the Whole here for an hour or two and a half hours to spew their political lines while we get five minutes to ask critical questions isn’t sufficient — not about racism, certainly not about the fiscal state of affairs.

When we’re passing a bill that is going to be expending $53 billion in a very short period of time, and we do that over one or two meetings of the Finance Committee, and we’re doing second and third reading debates here, like it’s Formula 1 — let me tell you. I just replaced the air conditioning system in my house. I replaced the compressor. Trust me, I was more diligent in doing that than we are here today spending billions of dollars.

So why are we treating the fiscal pocket of our taxpayers and the people we represent with such neglect when we take care of our own personal finances with such diligence and interest?

Colleagues, I understand how this place has evolved through the years, and I understand how Parliament is starting to erode and it has eroded. I’ve seen it since 2009 when I came here and we had a Prime Minister back then who was very belligerent toward this institution. I’m a Conservative. I admit it. I’ve had arguments with him many times.

At the end of the day, I’ve seen it time and time again, from Prime Minister after Prime Minister. When they’re in opposition, they have all the time for the House of Commons, all the time in the world for the Senate, and they think we have to do our due diligence and ask the tough questions. As soon as they become Prime Ministers, they want to get their agenda through. They want to do what’s politically expedient. They’re in a hurry for the next election. I’m not. You’re not. We shouldn’t be because of our tenure, not because of anything else, not our political stripes. We have our opinions. At the end of the day, we owe it to the people who have summoned us here to be diligent with taxpayers’ dollars.

So colleagues, I reluctantly will pass this bill because, like the rest of you who are doing it with a gun to our head, that’s what we’ve done here over the last three months. That’s the truth. But once the dust settles, we are just as responsible for what will be by the end of this year a deficit that’s going to be a quarter of a trillion dollars or more. We are also directly responsible now — I think as we stand today, Canada surpassed that magic mark and we’re at over a trillion dollars in terms of a debt.

I don’t have all the solutions — and I don’t profess to have all the solutions— but I am raising some red flags about some of the issues that should concern each and every one of us today and going forward. The hole that we have dug for ourselves right now is a hole that will take at least three decades to get ourselves out of. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Housakos’ time has expired. If he wants to answer the question, he will have to ask for five more minutes.

If the chamber would grant me five more minutes, I’d be happy.

You agree to five more minutes? Agreed.

Senator Housakos, I listened closely to your speech. It’s true that, even before this crisis, the Liberal government was spending a lot, and it’s also true that we spent a lot. That said, I think it’s always easier to lecture after a crisis than during.

I’d like to ask you more specifically about one of your statements. You said that when the government started announcing the programs, we could’ve taken two or three days to debate them seriously in the chamber. I’d like to remind you of the state and the mindset this country was in when we adopted the first program, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. People were losing their jobs left and right. Not everyone has a healthy bank account. Some people live day to day, week to week. There was a sense of urgency. I must say that I, as a senator, didn’t feel comfortable telling these people, “Hold on, we’re going to study this. We’re going to talk about it for three days and we’ll get back to you later.”

If we’re talking about coming up with an amendment or a solution to ensure that there might be fewer errors or perhaps prevent any fraud associated with the CERB, if we’re talking about finding the perfect solution to be able to issue cheques quickly, while controlling whom they’re sent to, then, quite frankly, that is not a question of legislation, but rather one of bureaucracy. The Senate has very little influence over that aspect.

Regarding that part of your argument, I must admit that I’m not sure the Senate has the right reputation or the standing needed to put the country on pause for three days and say, “Just wait; we’re going to discuss it and we’ll get back to you in a bit.” What are your thoughts on that?

Senator, I appreciate the question. First and foremost, the beauty of government is those of us who have been in Ottawa long enough, we all appreciate politicians coming to the forefront and they ask for money quickly because they have to get it out the door quickly. As we saw, they got supply bills through quickly. But programs didn’t get out the door nearly as quickly as they are promising. The oil sector, for example, is still waiting for promises this government made.

Having said all of that, we also have to recognize that the Canadian public went through a transitionary state. The government didn’t have — let me just rephrase the answer here.

My criticism is that in the first four years of power before COVID, we spent $30 billion of debt where that money could have been very useful out the door right at the outset.

Since the crisis began in March, three months later, we still haven’t got a grasp on spending. It seems to be accelerating while we still don’t know where to draw the line and for what purpose.

Three months is a long time for a government to operate and to react and so on and so forth. That’s my criticism. My criticism simply is if we as parliamentarians would have taken a few days more, a week longer, 10 days longer, three weeks longer, I really don’t believe that would have been a question of life and death.

Furthermore, we’ve seen now how this government is not in a hurry to recall Parliament. Grocery stores have been working full throttle. People are going back to business full throttle. The first thing that was suspended in this country by government was Parliament. The last thing right now that will be brought back in full operation is Parliament. That is what doesn’t make any sense to me.

We all understand the urgency. I was prepared to sit here during that emergency and work. I know most of you were as well. Again, you notice how this chamber is sitting much more intensely than the other chamber. Could it be that on the other side of the chamber they have minority standing as a government there and they’re less likely to have that place operate as much as this place should be?

I’ll take it a step further. I think all parliamentarians had an obligation not to be the first to pack up our tents and go home during the crisis. During a crisis, leaders lead. That’s where I think we should have been.

Question, Senator McPhedran?

Would Senator Housakos take a question?

Absolutely.

Senator Housakos, I don’t recall — I may have missed you being on the briefing calls that have been made available on pretty much a daily basis now for three months where department officials come on to the call and parliamentarians can ask questions. Have you been on any calls?

I haven’t.

One of the most interesting things, to me, as someone who has fairly regularly been on those calls, is that every party, every partisan group is represented on those calls. A number of senators are regularly on the calls as well. What’s happening on every single call is that parliamentarians are talking to senior officials about people who are suffering. They are asking very specific questions, and they’re giving very detailed, factual cases of people who are not getting help.

The overwhelming theme, call after call after call, is “we need more help.” So here’s my question to you: What would you have done instead?

Senator, I’ve also reached out. I’ve been in constant communication with Minister Morneau’s office, with Minister Champagne’s office. I have constituents with issues as well, and I’ve been addressing them directly through ministers’ offices. These briefing calls are great but they’re after the fact. What they do is you have bureaucrats going before parliamentarians to tell us what’s available to us. Decisions were already made on those calls. By and large, what they’re doing is briefing us on the programs, senator. When they’re briefing on the programs, they have already left the train station.

And adjusting the programs —

As they’re going along, no doubt. But what I would have done is had parliamentary committees intensely sitting. I would have had stakeholders brought to the table to be able to talk directly to stakeholders and find out what their needs were. I think that’s the best way Parliament could have addressed this issue. All these stakeholders have a right to come before their parliamentarians. We have how many standing committees in the Senate? How many standing committees in the House of Commons? All of them should have been in action and should have been responsive.

More importantly, the government should have been using those mechanisms as a consulting apparatus to get an understanding of where the people are, what their concerns and needs are. I can tell you one thing in this country; the first program this government did was CERB for —

Sorry, Senator Housakos, your time has expired.

Resuming debate.

Honourable senators, today we have in front of you Bill C-18, the government’s second interim supply bill, and then Bill C-19 for the supplementary estimates and so on. My remarks will be very brief and general.

Here we are. Canada’s debt, thanks to Trudeau’s government, could probably exceed $1 trillion. Colleagues, that will only be worth an economic snapshot. No budget, no economic update, no details, no projections, no economic plan to officially reopen our economy and, of course, what this government has done so far since it has been in power, no accountability, no transparency.

The first interim bill, Bill C-11, passed through the Senate at the speed of light, for the amount of $44 billion, without any debate. Now we have the second bill, Bill C-18, for the amount of $55 billion. No detailed and thorough study has been done except what has been done in the Senate.

Then there is a Supplementary Estimates (A) that was only studied at the committee level for four hours — four hours to study $87 billion in budgetary authority, with $6 billion in votable authority and $80.9 billion in statutory authority that have already been approved. As for the anticipated extension of the eight weeks to the CERB program, yesterday the PBO announced it will cost Ottawa another $17.9 billion.

Colleagues, we learned during the Committee of the Whole that there will be a third supply bill that will come this fall. Let’s hope at least we will be able to study that one properly.

It’s true we are faced with unprecedented and extremely challenging times, but that is simply not an excuse not to provide a real economic update. Now, more than ever, Canadians need to know how the economy is doing and where we are at. What will the impact of the pandemic be on our economy? What will the government plan be moving forward once the pandemic recedes — the revenue, the expenditures, the borrowing, the deficit, et cetera? Canadians have the right to know how public funds are being spent, and they have the right to hold the government to account. This is happening all while our government and democracy has been shut down and replaced with the Prime Minister’s daily morning sideshow, where he teases us by finishing his press conferences with the usual “stay tuned; we will announce other measures tomorrow and this week,” as if Canadians and Canadian businesses that struggle to stay afloat, and those who are contemplating suicide, actually have the luxury of staying tuned and waiting.

Now that the Prime Minister is using his morning press conferences to make his way into every home, there is no need for him to knock on doors to prepare for an election. At least this time he won’t be needing two planes, or even one.

He does so comfortably from the steps of his cottage where he announces help and makes people wait weeks, even months, before that help is provided. Unfortunately, in some cases, help is announced, but that help never comes, like the aid promised to the energy sector within hours, probably potentially days, on March 25. That was three months ago, and still they have seen nothing.

Another heartbreaking example is our seniors. Also at the end of March, the Prime Minister said that aid was coming for seniors. After building up the excitement that significant aid was coming for seniors for nearly a month and a half, the aid was announced on May 12: a one-time, tax-free payment of $300 for those who qualify for Old Age Security. To top off this truly exceptional, amazing offer, they offer an extra $200 for those who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which amounts to a total of $2.5 billion. That is $2.5 billion for our seniors compared to $9 billion for students.

Let’s put it into perspective. This government has miserably failed our brave Canadians — Canadians who helped build this country, put their lives at risk to defend this country and have contributed decades in taxes to federal coffers. What does the government do? It implicitly tells them that they are not as important as students and are not contributing enough to this country for the government to think they are worthy of substantial financial aid. What a shame.

I think the majority of Canadians have been taken aback by the never-ending lack of respect from the government towards them. Last week, during one of his daily briefings, the Prime Minister said:

There are so many things we simply don’t know . . . making projections about what our economy would look like in six months from now or a year from now is simply an exercise in invention and imagination. . .

You have this government, which has the financial and human resources available to put forward a real and detailed economic update, yet it intentionally refuses to do so while provinces have done it. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Giroux, is constantly working hard to update his findings on a regular basis and trying his best to put forward details for parliamentarians and Canadians so they can get a sense of how the economy is doing, and he is doing so with less human and financial resources. On top of it all, Mr. Giroux doesn’t even have access to all of the information the government does. Honourable senators, he has been doing a truly incredible job so far. He said at the beginning of June, “It’s not rocket science,” for the feds to provide a fiscal forecast.

Colleagues, to be honest, I am puzzled and even distraught. When you have a former auditor general like Senator Marshall telling us that she has a hard time figuring out the numbers after doing research, looking at all the websites and looking at the Bank of Canada’s graphs, that’s quite worrisome. Senator Marshall, I want to thank you for the exceptional and amazing work you do.

In closing, I guess the only thing left to do is to wait for that economic snapshot. What will be will be. Que sera sera. Thank you.