Honourable senators, I will be very brief, but I wanted to highlight some of the issues that I raised yesterday — just to make them clear — of the challenges that we faced when we were reviewing Supplementary Estimates (B), which supports Bill C-6, the supply bill. As I mentioned yesterday, the Supplementary Estimates (B) document is a very difficult document to read, especially if you want to look at the relationship to the budget and the public accounts. We go from the Main Estimates to the budget to the Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C). Then after the fiscal year, we look at the public accounts and try to match it all up.

We are just trying to trace the money from one document to the next, and we’re often relating information in each of these documents even to another fiscal year. Therefore, it would be very helpful if Treasury Board would undertake an initiative to make the estimates document easier to review and understand, especially as it relates to the budget and the public accounts. They started a project about three or four years ago, and then they stopped. However, it was a worthwhile project, so I think they should initiate that project again.

Yesterday, Senator Gagné mentioned the chart that was included in Supplementary Estimates (B). Treasury Board should really try to improve that chart, because it looks like there is some information missing. If the information there isn’t logical, then certain parts of the Supplementary Estimates (B) document is suspect. Treasury Board really needs to go back and take a look at that reconciliation.

Also, I think the Treasury Board Secretariat should consider — if they are not going to initiate a project or even if they do — speaking with parliamentarians who use the estimates documents to obtain their views as to what’s helpful and what they have problems with. I can think of a couple of suggestions that would be very easy to implement and would be very helpful to parliamentarians when they do their review of the supplementary estimates.

The second issue that we had a problem with was the public accounts. The government didn’t release the public accounts for last year until yesterday, so we waited almost nine months for the public accounts. We didn’t have the benefit of that document when we reviewed Supplementary Estimates (B) and Bill C-6. The tabling of the document was really late. I think that was the latest time the document has been tabled since, I think, 1994. The government needs to do something to speed up the tabling of the public accounts.

The other document we were waiting for was the Departmental Results Reports. We didn’t have the benefit of those reports when we reviewed Supplementary Estimates (B). Also, last year Minister Duclos sent us those reports around — I think — December 7. This year, we have to wait until January 30 to receive them.

The government needs to look at all those documents and make sure they get them out on a timely basis. These are accountability documents, and they should be tabled in a timely manner so parliamentarians can do their jobs.

The final issue that we had problems with was that the time to review the Supplementary Estimates (B) was too short. We had a short sitting of three or four weeks, but the process to review the Supplementary Estimates (B) document was too rushed. We had to rush our witnesses to get follow-up information to us. Some information we haven’t received yet. The process we used this year is what I call “how not to review Supplementary Estimates (B) and the appropriation bill.”

Senator Dupuis asked a question about my speech yesterday, and I don’t know if she wants to ask about it today. I was able to obtain what I think is the question, and I want to talk about it briefly. This was regarding a comment I made about there being no standing parliamentary review mechanism in place for statutory expenditures. She wanted to know what I would suggest.

The best response I can give Senator Dupuis is I haven’t reached a definitive recommendation yet, but I do have a few suggestions. This was an issue that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had identified in his report on Supplementary Estimates (B), and I briefly discussed it with him. I’m still thinking about it, but I think that in the interim we should look at the mandate of the Finance Committee to consider whether we should include a review of statutory expenditures, or maybe the Senate could give the Finance Committee an order of reference to study statutory expenditures. That would be an option.

When I spoke about statutory expenditures, I was speaking about them in relation to each supplementary supply bill, but the issue is broader than that. Some of these statutory expenditures are approved by statutes that were passed decades ago. I think the legislation around Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement are dated. I think it would be worthwhile if those expenditures were looked at in the context of the old legislation.

The Canada Child Benefit is a more recent benefit, but there have been changes even to that benefit over the past number of years. That is a payment under the Income Tax Act. So we would benefit from going back and looking at the legislation and seeing if those programs now fit with society as a whole.

With regard to looking at the statutory expenditures, I don’t know what’s in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I wouldn’t dare tread on the Standing Orders of the other place, but that is also an area that we could look at and discuss with our colleagues in the other place.

Senator Dupuis, do you wish to speak or ask a question?

I would like to ask Senator Marshall a question if she doesn’t mind.

Senator Marshall, will you take a question?

Yes.

Senator Marshall, thank you for answering the question I asked yesterday, which didn’t make it through the Senate interpretation systems.

With respect to the answer you provided today, do you think not only that the mandate of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance should be revised to address the specific issue of statutory expenditures, but also that a Committee of the Whole could delve into the whole question you raised yesterday, which is an extremely important question about government accountability? Do you think a Committee of the Whole could be one way to achieve that?

I sometimes find the Committee of the Whole beneficial, but I find it is not a replacement for the work that’s done by individual committees. I don’t know if that answers your question.

When we’re in the Finance Committee, we can drill down and ask the officials to provide additional information. When you’re in Committee of the Whole — I shouldn’t say it’s a one-night stand — that’s your chance. If you don’t get what you’re looking for, you’re out of luck. When you’re in a standing Senate committee, you have the opportunity to ask several questions and ask for additional information.

If I’ve understood the spirit of your proposal correctly, Senator Marshall, are you saying that a Committee of the Whole would not replace the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, for example? It could even study the matter after the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance does the groundwork. If I’ve understood correctly, are you saying that there could be two parallel ways of getting the answers to the questions you’re asking?

To be honest with you, I don’t see Committee of the Whole addressing any of the issues or concerns that I’ve raised or expressed.

Honourable senators, I respectfully address you from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council.

I want to thank the Senate staff who support the National Finance Committee, our own parliamentary staff who assist in our efforts and our colleagues working with our able chair, Senator Mockler. I appreciate the wisdom, skills and talents each of you bring to our discussions.

There is a great deal to discuss in these Supplementary Estimates (B) 2021-22. My learned and valued colleague Senator Marshall has spoken to many of them. I would like to join with her particularly in expressing my deep concern that, unlike several provinces and the Yukon, according to their financial administration acts, these entities must table their public accounts by October 31 each year.

We have yet to see the Government of Canada’s public accounts. As Senator Marshall has said, we saw them yesterday. Having previously been the Yukon’s finance minister, I can recall this legislated provision very specifically and this time frame for the requirement to provide this information. We have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to why the Government of Canada took so long to provide this information.

Honourable senators, Senator Pate addressed the lack of progress, initiative or response to a guaranteed livable income. Opportunity has presented itself more than once over this past year for Canada to work with Prince Edward Island and perhaps the Yukon to implement a basic income guarantee. I and many others are disappointed the government has not seized this opportunity to address poverty in Canada and make real, visionary change in the circumstances of Canadians.

My learned colleagues in the Senate remind us that we are here to represent our regions, minorities and to serve Canada. I noted some of the items in Bill C-6 that my colleagues have addressed that affect my region and Canadians. I noted that there is a great deal that could be discussed.

One of the items that has not been mentioned in speeches on these supplementary estimates includes additional funding for tourism in Canada. This funding is welcomed throughout our vast country, particularly in rural Canada, since every community in our country has a tourism element.

I would like to commend the government on the additional $25 million in the supplementary estimates for tourism in Canada. One of the wisest pieces of advice I’ve heard, and I have passed on to my own children, is to see your own country first. I’m pleased that Canada is supporting one of our hardest-hit sectors and encouraging Canadians to explore this vast, beautiful land.

I could go on at length about tourism funding and the benefits to this industry, however, I would like to leave further details on the value and importance of tourism to other learned colleagues, notably one of our newer colleagues, Senator Sorensen, from Banff. I look forward to hearing from her in the future.

The National Finance Committee has as its guiding principles, transparency, accountability, predictability and reliability. I would like to focus my remaining time in this short address on an accountability of sorts — the line items in the Supplementary Estimates (B) 2021-22 that focus on climate change and the North, the Yukon specifically.

Honourable senators are aware that the North and the Arctic are experiencing the effects of climate change more than anywhere else. The Yukon is not spared. The Yukon government, in its Our Clean Future: A Yukon strategy for climate change, energy, and a green economy, outlines the territory’s climate action plan. Some of the main commitments are to reduce Yukon’s greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, heating, electricity generation and other areas by 45% by 2030; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Yukon’s mines per unit of material produced; to generate 97% of the electricity on the Yukon’s main grid from renewable resources by 2030 on average; to ensure the Yukon is highly resilient to the impacts of climate change by 2030; and to build a sustainable green economy.

I’m pleased to see and welcome the inclusion of $25 million of federal funding toward these initiatives in these supplementary estimates.

In addition, the government is providing $13 million toward hydroelectricity and grid interconnection projects in the North in these supplementary estimates. This is a much-needed step to ensure that northern communities have access to reliable and clean energy supplies. These supplementary estimates also include funds for a line item to transition diesel-reliant Indigenous communities to clean energy.

Canadians and senators might be familiar with the CBC’s “The National” that showcased the solar project in Old Crow, Yukon. This is an initiative of the Vuntut Gwitchin, a self-governing Yukon First Nation, the Government of Yukon and the Yukon Development Corporation. This is just one initiative.

The White River First Nation in Beaver Creek, Canada’s most westerly community, on the border with Alaska, plans to build a solar farm with battery energy storage. Currently, this community is entirely reliant on diesel energy. Other solar-generating systems have been installed by working with Champagne and Aishihik First Nation and the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation near Dawson City. Transitioning to renewable energy sources is particularly important for small communities which are currently reliant on expensive and environmentally not-so-friendly sources of energy, such as diesel. These renewable energy projects are not only good for the environment and help reduce Yukon’s carbon footprint, they provide Yukon communities self-determination when it comes to their energy needs and are a potential source of revenue when they are able to sell excess energy back to the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Yukon’s First Nations — those with self-government agreements and those without — municipalities, the Yukon government and Yukoners, with Canada’s financial assistance, including the money in these supplementary estimates, are taking real, concrete steps to develop local, renewable and clean energy technologies to reduce our carbon footprint and to address climate change.

By sharing this information with colleagues addressing the supplementary estimates, I hope to have provided you with a sense of accountability for these funds. This positive co-operative fiscal relationship is just one small snapshot of the government-to-government working relationships between Canada, the Yukon and Yukon First Nations.

Colleagues, while I briefly addressed only a few elements of the supplementary appropriations bill, Bill C-6, I do recognize there is more to discuss, and I look forward to an opportunity to do so in the future. However, in this very short time, I do want to express my gratitude for having had the opportunity to share these few points with you.

As a former finance minister and a former leader of the official opposition in a legislature, I recognize the importance of the supplementary estimates, and I would particularly like to commend Bill C-6 to my colleagues to ensure we pass this important piece of legislation as soon as possible to ensure the timely release of these funds that are so important to Canadians.

Thank you again for the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the National Finance Committee and to work with all of you in the Senate.

Mahsi’cho. Gùnáłchîsh. Thank you so much for your time today.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

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