Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. As I have said many times, as is well known to the chamber and to all Canadians, putting a price on pollution is a central component of any rational, efficient and effective plan to tackle climate change, and it is one of the elements in this government’s plan to do so.

As we know, and we’ve said many times in this chamber, the tax on pollution to those provinces that do not have a credible plan of their own results in money being returned, in large measure, to those families who have to pay it. Under the plan that’s in place, the majority of families in those jurisdictions where the federal price on pollution is present will actually receive more money than they pay.

The answer to your question is, no, the government does not have plans to cancel or freeze its price on pollution.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question and for underlining the real impact the increase in prices generally is having on all Canadians, especially those in more vulnerable situations, whether Indigenous or remote communities, those who rely upon the provision of basic necessities by boat or by long chains of supply.

The government has a suite of measures to help Canadians through this, including major investments with Indigenous communities and Indigenous partners. Included in these measures, of course, are measures that we’ll be debating later today and, indeed, which will also form part of a bill that we expect to receive later this month dealing with affordability issues.

The Canadian government is committed to, and engaged in, helping Canadians get through this difficult period.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: As I already said, I will do my best to try to get an answer and come back to the chamber with that information as soon as I have it.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government takes responsibility for the strong economic growth in this country. It takes responsibility for the fact that our gross domestic product, or GDP, growth remains strong. Recently, our AAA rating was affirmed by S&P Global Ratings with a stable outlook.

The government also takes responsibility and credit — to the extent that credit and blame are two sides of the coin; you’re looking for blame. The recent Parliamentary Budget Officer’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook states:

. . . For the current fiscal year 2022-23, PBO projects the deficit to decline to $25.8 billion (0.9 per cent of GDP) under status quo policy. . . . the budgetary deficit is projected to decline further . . .

Canada came into this crisis with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. In fact, Canada has increased its relative advantage through this pandemic.

I think Canadians should be pleased that the government has steered our economy through this, notwithstanding the very true and disturbing fact that the cost of living is imposing significant strains on households across this country. That’s why the government is responding with the targeted measures that I mentioned earlier and that we’ll be debating in this chamber.

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Government leader, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are facing unjust inflation rates in this country. More than ever before, we see cell bills, energy costs, rents and food costs climbing to an extent where middle-class Canadians are being devastated. We see the housing bubble. Recently, I read an article about how Vancouver and Toronto are among the five cities facing the biggest housing bubble in the world. Imagine housing costs higher than in New York, London or Tokyo. All of this because of a government that has been irresponsible in dealing with the economy. We have had as recently as a year ago the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance saying that the big problem facing Canadians is stagnation, not inflation. Boy, did they get this wrong.

I have been asking my question for a number of weeks. Who is going to be held responsible for this devastating result? Don’t tell me it’s a worldwide phenomenon, because France, Austria, Japan, Saudi Arabia and India are all nations who are performing better than Canada when it comes to inflation.

Who is responsible for this? Who will take responsibility for this catastrophe?

Senator Housakos: Government leader, the only reason Canada still has a half-decent debt-to-GDP ratio in the world is because your government inherited the best GDP-to-debt ratio in the world in 2015, which has been constantly going down over the last seven years.

Furthermore, the other things you are champions of are setting record-high debts and deficits in this country and, while doing all that, running up inflation that is devastating middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join it.

My other question for you is linked to this inflation problem we have. Energy costs are scheduled to skyrocket this winter. Again, you’re going to say I’m looking to hold somebody responsible. No, I am trying to figure out the reasons for this so maybe your government can change course.

The Chancellor of Germany was here in Canada recently. He called on Canada to provide more liquefied natural gas, or LNG, and more clean, Canadian energy to Europeans in this time of need. Canada doesn’t have the infrastructure or capacity to do that today.

The question is, in large part, because your government has been very irresponsible and lacking balance in dealing with our energy sector and the environment thanks to policies like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 that your government passed.

Will you acknowledge that your lack of balance in dealing with the energy sector and the environment has led to the catastrophe of higher energy prices that are around the corner, coupled with the inflation from this government?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. No, I do not acknowledge that. With all respect, Senator Housakos, that’s just a distortion of economic reality and a distortion of the facts.

This government has pursued a balanced policy, trying to steer a proper and sustainable course forward in terms of sustainable development of our energy sector and protection of our environment.

I will remind the honourable senator that some of the difficulties, especially with exporting natural gas to our European allies — a subject, by the way, which Minister Freeland addressed eloquently in her speech in Washington — were decisions made by our province in Quebec and other provinces who, rightly or wrongly, have felt it unacceptable for pipelines to be built in their jurisdictions.

That said, I am encouraged with developments in New Brunswick where there are discussions. The government is engaged with the proponents of a LNG receiving terminal in New Brunswick by the Spanish energy company Repsol. This government is committed to do what it can to help its allies. It is committed to doing what it can to provide a sustainable and dynamic energy sector.

I simply do not accept the basic premise of your question, as I have tried to explain.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, keeping on the subject of government failures, your government has recently faced questions over its failure to account for missing foreign criminals set for deportation. As of December of last year, leader, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, says the whereabouts are unknown for 29,719 people facing removal from Canada, including 469 who are facing deportation for criminality or criminal convictions in Canada.

Many planned deportations were put on hold in 2020 due to the pandemic. CBSA has not said how many offenders it has lost track of who were facing deportation for criminal activity during the pandemic. I have raised this question previously, leader, with Trudeau government ministers. Hopefully, enough time has passed that your government will finally be able to give us an answer today. So let’s see, leader.

Can you provide us with the number of foreign criminals set for deportation who went missing during the pandemic that still remain unaccounted for?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, thank you. Part of the answer to your question was actually provided by you. It does take time to make sure that the decision to terminate funding is done properly and legally.

The government agrees that there was a failure here, that the vetting process in the Department of Canadian Heritage failed in this case. When the government was alerted of this concern this summer by one of its members, member of Parliament Anthony Housefather, the government immediately investigated the matter and identified this failure in due course. It did its due diligence and acted quickly to ensure that this failure was addressed by terminating the funding and pausing the consideration of applications until a new vetting process could be in place.

The government is pleased that the Canadian Heritage Committee is looking at this issue. It’s important to have public accountability on this, and the government aims to ensure that it never happens again. That is why Minister Hussen will be appearing before the committee to publicly answer questions on this from MPs.

Senator Plett: Well, of course, my question was why it took as long to come out with a statement. So I don’t know where I partly provided that answer.

Senator Gold, according to an article in the National Post:

More than half a million dollars has been paid out by Trudeau-led Canadian governments between 2016 and 2021 to an organization fronted by Laith Marouf, a serial dispenser of hatred towards Jews and Israel, among others.

While I understand your government tasked itself with cutting off funding following the scandal of Mr. Marouf’s tweets, the fact is that department heads in your government were involved in approving the programs and funding in question.

Leader, this reflects serious shortcomings in your government’s vetting procedures. I’m sure you will agree that Canadians deserve better, Senator Gold.

What were the vetting processes, if any, that your government undertook before hiring Mr. Marouf? I’m sure you have to agree that it is truly concerning that your government missed something as serious as this multiple times.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 58, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding interprovincial trade — Intergovernmental Affairs.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 84, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 5, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, concerning police services.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 15, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Coyle, concerning the Summit of the Americas.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 15, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Wells, concerning Hans Island.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 20, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Duncan, concerning prompt payment of federal government construction work — Department of Finance Canada.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 20, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Duncan, concerning prompt payment of federal government construction work — Public Services and Procurement Canada.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on April 5, 2022)

The April 2020 mass casualty in Nova Scotia took the lives of 22 people, and forever impacted families and communities. Before the shooting, public alerting was only used for serious weather events, natural disasters and amber alerts, and had not been used by any police service in Canada for active shootings.

In addition, no policy for public alerting in policing situations existed, nor did the RCMP have direct access to the system. In December 2020, the Nova Scotia RCMP Serious Incident Alert Policy was implemented. A Memorandum of Understanding was developed with the Nova Scotia Emergency Management Office (EMO), giving the RCMP direct access to the EMO Alert Ready system.

RCMP national policy on Police-Initiated Public Alerts was also published in March 2022. Moreover, the RCMP provides assistance where needed to the provinces and territories in developing policy, training and procedures related to the Alert Ready system and police-initiated public safety alerts. The RCMP also continually reviews best practices and analyzes the use of the Alert Ready system for the mitigation of future critical events and beyond.

Furthermore, the RCMP will continue to support the Mass Casualty Commission in its mandate and cooperate with the Inquiry.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Mary Coyle on June 15, 2022)

Insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is concerned:

On June 10, 2022, the Prime Minister announced over $145 million for initiatives to provide support to Latin American and Caribbean countries, by advancing gender equality; promoting and protecting democracy; fighting climate change; increasing digital access and countering disinformation; and improving health and pandemic response. These initiatives include $26.9 million in additional funding toward migration- and protection-related projects in the Americas, such as support for Venezuelan refugees and funding to combat human trafficking. The indicated funding is under the direction of Global Affairs Canada.

As for the complementary question regarding pathways to permanent residency, there are a number of pathways for agricultural workers, including:

•The Agri-Food Pilot for experienced non-seasonal, full‑time agricultural workers

•The Atlantic Immigration Program for workers at varying skill levels, including agricultural workers at skill levels NOC 0 to C in the Atlantic provinces; and

•The Provincial Nominee Program, through which all participating provinces/territories provide pathways for workers at all skill levels.

Furthermore, many agricultural workers applied through the Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident Pathway — a time-limited measure implemented from May to November 2021 in support of Canada’s economic recovery from the pandemic. The Government continues its work to expand pathways to permanent residence for experienced workers.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable David M. Wells on June 15, 2022)

The comprehensive Agreement signed in Ottawa on June 14, 2022, is the culmination of years of negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark (which includes Greenland) under a Joint Task Force established in May 2018. It resolves Canada’s 50-year-old disputes over the maritime boundary in Lincoln Sea and the sovereignty of Hans Island while also establishing a boundary on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in Labrador Sea.

This historic Agreement is an equitable resolution to our outstanding boundary issues, achieved in accordance with international law, and a win-win solution for both our countries, including through the fair division of Hans Island and the Labrador Sea continental shelf overlap. The Inuit of Nunavut, as well as Nunavut and Newfoundland and Labrador, were consulted during the negotiations for this agreement.

Once ratified, the Agreement will expand and replace the 1973 boundary Agreement and result in the longest maritime boundary in world at 3,962 km.

The Agreement deals with transboundary hydrocarbon and other mineral resources on the continental shelf similar to Article V of the 1973 Agreement. There are no additional new agreements on natural resources.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pat Duncan on June 20, 2022)

In a July 14, 2022, news release (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2022/07/government-announces-details-about-the-implementation-of-luxury-tax.html), the Government of Canada announced clarifications to the implementation of the Luxury Tax, which was included in Bill C-19 and received Royal Assent on June 23, 2022. Bill C-19 authorizes the Governor in Council to set the coming into force date of the Luxury Tax as it applies to aircraft. To this end, on July 14, 2022, on the recommendation of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Governor General in Council made an order in council that fixes September 1, 2022 as the day on which the luxury tax on all subject items, including aircraft, comes into force.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pat Duncan on June 20, 2022)

The Prompt Payment Act is expected to come into force in the Spring of 2023.

The proclamation of the Act is dependent on the enactment of supporting Ministerial regulations and Orders in Council which are currently being finalized by Justice Canada.

PSPC expects to award a contract for adjudication services as an enabling feature of the Act in the fall of 2022. While this time frame will provide the successful bidder with six months to prepare for the Act’s coming into force, it is possible that the adjudicator may require more time than the six months anticipated to be ready to launch its service.

Hon. Tony Loffreda moved second reading of Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading to speak to Bill C-30, the government’s proposed cost of living relief act, No. 1. I appreciate this opportunity to sponsor this bill in the Senate.

[Translation]

Bill C-30 is part of the government’s attempt to make life more affordable for low- and moderate-income Canadians who are grappling with inflation.

We all know that inflation is a big problem, both in Canada and around the world. It is a problem that I, like many senators, raised here and in committee time and again for over a year now.

Like Bill C-31, which seeks to establish a dental benefit and a one-time payment for rental housing, Bill C-30 is part of the government’s affordability plan. This plan consists of a series of measures that will cost $12.1 billion.

It also includes other measures, such as a new universal early learning and child care program, an increase to Old Age Security and climate action incentive payments.

[English]

As stipulated by the government, this piece of legislation proposes to double the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit, which I will refer to as the GST credit, for six months and deliver targeted support to Canadians who need it most. By way of background, the GST credit is a tax-free quarterly payment that helps people and families with low and modest income to offset the GST that they pay. Not all Canadians are eligible for this rebate. It is really targeted for those in greater need.

Indeed, there is a maximum income to be eligible for this benefit. I’ll run through some of the numbers to give you an idea: For example, for single individuals, the maximum income to be eligible is $49,166. For a couple without children, it’s $52,066. For a couple with two kids, it’s $58,506. A single parent or a couple, either married or common law, with four children is eligible for the rebate provided they do not make more than $64,946 a year. These income levels are for the 2021 base year.

In terms of how much money individuals and families will receive, this obviously depends on family size and income. For instance, from July 2022 to June 2023, eligible people, per quarter, can receive up to $467 for singles without children, $612 for married or common-law partners, and $612 for single parents, plus $161 for each child under the age of 19.

I ran through a lot of numbers there, but, just to give you an idea, the bulk of those who will benefit from this GST credit top‑up have family incomes between $20,000 to $40,000. In other words, a couple with two children and $35,000 net income could receive $1,401 between July 2022 and June 2023. This could certainly help families who are struggling with the higher costs of groceries, rent and energy.

Approximately 11 million Canadians who already receive the tax credit will benefit from this six-month top-up. This includes half of Canadian families and more than half of Canadian seniors. That’s very important — more than half of Canadian seniors will benefit.

According to the government, the price tag associated with Bill C-30 to double the GST credit is $2.5 billion. As the finance minister told us during our Committee of the Whole on October 6, the government was very careful and thoughtful in choosing this measure, striking a balance between compassionate support for those who need it most and remaining fiscally responsible.

Our Deputy Prime Minister recognizes that, at a time of elevated inflation, it’s really important for fiscal policy not to be at odds with monetary policy.

[Translation]

This brings me to my next point, namely inflation.

Some have argued that the government’s plan to make life more affordable, including this GST rebate, will contribute to the current inflationary pressure. Let’s be clear, any money injected into the economy can have an impact on inflation.

This rebate will probably not ease inflation, but I also don’t think it will put significant pressure on the economy.

[English]

Of course, I think the current rate of inflation is seriously problematic and needs to be brought under control. We are already seeing early and positive results from the Bank of Canada’s recent interest rate hikes. The effects of interest rate hikes usually lag between 6 to 12 months. The economists in this chamber know that, but we’re seeing some encouraging signs. Inflation was at 8.6% in June; it dropped to 7.6% in July; and, again, in August, it reached 7%.

There is still some work to be done for to us reach our target of 1% to 3%, but we are slowly getting there. In fact, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before our Banking Committee a couple of weeks ago, I asked him if he thought the measures contained in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 would put additional pressure on inflation. He explained to us that, in a $2.5-trillion economy, it’s not a significant amount of money. He said:

It will, of course, have an impact on inflation the moment the government injects money into the economy, be it through tax cuts or increases in spending, such as these measures. . . . but I don’t think it will be a measurable or significant impact on the economy . . . .

The six-month doubling of the GST credit in Bill C-30, along with the measures being debated in Bill C-31, amount to 0.1% of Canada’s GDP in additional costs. This amount is not insignificant, but it is a fraction of the country’s GDP. The material effects in terms of further fuelling inflation are microscopic.

Instead, there are other factors that have been contributing to the higher-than-usual inflation we are seeing. In my opinion, and that of many experts, inflation is mostly driven by supply-side challenges.

Of course, the war in Ukraine is also a contributing factor at the moment. Economists from the University of Calgary published a paper recently suggesting that supply-side forces are responsible for about 75% of driving costs.

Furthermore, I have always believed that inflation is driven by expectations, which can have a considerable effect on people’s behaviour. I cannot put it any more simply than this recent article in Forbes:

Rising inflation makes people believe that prices will rise again in the future, causing them to demand wage increases and not delay purchases. Meanwhile, businesses boost their prices to accommodate higher wages and demand, which drive up inflation.

Honourable senators, you may also have seen a paper in Policy Options last month that looked at the expansion of the GST credit proposed in Bill C-30. It’s a great article with lots of data, and I invite everybody to read it. Its conclusion is that the rebate is unlikely to fuel inflation.

As the authors point out, the GST credit top-up will be received by low- and modest-income households. These same households have less in savings to cover price increases from the same goods and services, unlike higher-income households which have reserves on which to draw. As they conclude, such spending would not represent new demand or increased inflationary pressures. Recipients of the top-up would simply be purchasing the same goods and services that have recently become more expensive. Because of that, I don’t believe this additional rebate will drive up further demand and exacerbate inflation. The top-up strikes a balance between providing help to those who need it most while not undermining efforts to bring inflation down.

Now, don’t get me wrong; I continue to believe that we need to address inflation, and I think it should be a priority, but I also feel this $2.5 billion measure is timely and necessary. I’m sure all honourable senators will agree with me that prosperous societies must let market mechanisms work themselves out, but they cannot let the more vulnerable be submerged by a tide of rising costs. Targeted and interim measures are smart, long-term economics.

We were reminded during our Committee of the Whole that the objective is for the top-up to be issued before the end of the year to current GST credit recipients through the existing GST credit system administered by the Canada Revenue Agency. As such, Canadians need to file their taxes in order to receive both the current GST credit and the additional payment proposed in Bill C-30. There is no need to apply for the additional benefit. It will be automatic.

For some Canadians, this method of payment may be more problematic because not every working-age Canadian files his or her taxes. Estimates vary, but in 2017 the Canada Revenue Agency estimated that the number of people who did not file tax returns was in excess of 10%. That number is way too high.

When the Auditor General appeared before our National Finance Committee on October 4, I explored with her the content of one of her most recent audits on hard-to-reach populations. Many of these individuals would likely benefit from the GST credit, but won’t receive it if they don’t file their taxes.

Myself and many senators brought this issue up during Committee of the Whole, and the minister recognized that more needs to be done to reach the most vulnerable. I was particularly struck by Senator Patterson’s comments about the non-filing rate in Nunavut. Clearly, the government needs to do a bit more work to have a clear understanding of the demographics and barriers impacting hard-to-reach populations so it can then tailor its outreach approaches in a responsive and effective manner.

It’s most unfortunate that many Canadians living in poverty may not receive this benefit because they have not filed their taxes.

[Translation]

If I may, I would like to say a few words about the government’s Gender-based Analysis Plus. I thank Senator Dupuis for raising the issue with the minister.

I believe that it is worth repeating what Minister Freeland told us in Committee of the Whole. She confirmed that this analysis was conducted on Bill C-30 and that its conclusions show that women, especially single mothers, will truly benefit from this tax credit and enhancement. She highlighted the fact that among seniors, there are more women than men. Statistics show that senior women are more likely to end up living in poverty.

[English]

In conclusion, in my view, Bill C-30 is an appropriate answer to the current period of unusual and extraordinary economic challenges that many Canadians are facing. Like many of my honourable colleagues, I am concerned with the current state of our economy, our deficit, lack of productivity and slow growth.

The government, like most governments around the world, is looking to strike a balance between delivering support where and when it is needed most and maintaining the discipline that has given Canada a strong financial position in the G7.

Some may argue that the government isn’t going far enough, that some people are falling through the cracks or that these measures do nothing to address poverty. Others might argue that it’s too much and will have a negative impact on inflation. However, I recognize that governments need to make difficult decisions in difficult times, and I am satisfied with the content of this bill.

Personally, what I like about Bill C-30 is that it’s clear, simple and targeted. Throughout the pandemic, I often argued that we needed to have more targeted measures that addressed specific needs for specific segments of the population. We needed to be more agile, nimble and adaptive. This is a good example.

I also appreciate that this measure is temporary: It’s for six months only. The government can re-evaluate the situation later next year. I’m comfortable supporting this time-stamped transfer that is seriously needed right now.

I think the more than 11 million Canadians who will benefit from this six-month top-up will feel some relief, and hopefully it will make life a bit more affordable for them. Combined with other measures in the Affordability Plan, I think the government is on the right track.

I urge all honourable senators to support the swift passage of this bill so we can help make life affordable for those Canadians who need this support the most. They are counting on us. Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for your speech. I listened quite attentively, and it sounded pretty dire when we’re talking about essentially giving aid to 11 million Canadians because of rising costs. It is indeed a dire situation, despite what the government leader said earlier in an answer to a question about how the economy is so wonderful and how the government has done an outstanding job.

The reality is that we are in a country where we have the second-largest land mass in the world — yet rents are off the charts. Housing affordability is off the charts. We have agricultural capacity that is among the best in the world, yet our food costs — milk, bread — are exponentially growing. We have a need for energy, of course, to produce food at a decent cost, and energy prices are off the charts because we’re keeping our energy in the ground thanks to legislation like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48.

My question to you is the following: Nobody discredits the fact that we need to act urgently to help Canadians who are suffering. But what happens in six months if Royal Bank of Canada, or RBC, for example, is right in their prediction of a recession being around the corner? What happens if the Governor of the Bank of Canada finally wakes up and says inflation is the biggest challenge facing Canadians? What is going to happen six months from now when we face these dire realities? Are we going to come back with more aid or will we turn to quantitative economics, which clearly this government needs a lesson in? I know you understand it well.

How do we address the problem at its core? Six months from now, would you be willing to go back to the well to give maybe 15 million Canadians more help?

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for your question, Senator Housakos. It’s always interesting to hear your perspective.

I’ve said from the beginning that agility is so important. This is agile, targeted and necessary at this point in time. What we’ve seen so far during this pandemic is that it’s very hard to forecast and predict what’s going to happen in six months or what’s going to happen in a year. We have a war in Ukraine. We have so many issues going on. You discussed inflation, and I think it’s a debate that needs to be had. Inflation is always caused by excess liquidity, scarce resources and expectations.

I want to say “kudos” to Loblaws, who announced today that they are freezing prices on No Name products until January. I say that because you’re asking what happens in six months if this is still the situation. If more Canadian companies were to take action like Loblaws and freeze prices and lower expectations for increasing prices, I think we would come to easier solutions to this crisis, and it would be quicker to resolve inflation.

I’m looking at a great paper here from Professor Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary, who attended one of our committee meetings. He appeared at a meeting of the Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy on September 29, 2022, and he confirmed that 75% of rising inflation is supply driven, 15% is demand driven and the rest is miscellaneous. He confirmed in his paper, which I read thoroughly a few times:

We find that a clear majority of Canada’s high inflation is due to a small handful of items: energy, food, and home-ownership costs.

The home ownership affordability crisis is a major issue, and we’re seeing that increasing interest rates will help with home affordability. If you look at the numbers lately, that will help. We hope more companies will do like Loblaws and freeze prices. Kudos to Loblaws; I think they deserve a hand. Hopefully, within six months, we’ll have a better economy.

Yes, RBC was the first to predict a recession. But I’ll tell you one thing — I said then and I’ll say it again — economists are always right: There will be a recession. I’ve had economists tell me that there’s going to be a recession. Two years later, they call me and say, “I told you so.” And I say, “Yeah, but you told me that two years ago.” So there will be a recession. When will it be? Your guess is as good as mine.

With the situation we’re in now, with the pandemic behind us but the war in Ukraine, the scarce supply and the scarce resources, I think we need to find solutions. Again, kudos to Loblaws, who own Maxi and Provigo in my cherished province of Quebec. More businesses should do like Loblaws. Let’s cut the expectations for inflation. Let’s create policies. Let’s find solutions for scarce resources. If we do all that within six months, we won’t need additional aid. I hope it will be the case that we, in this chamber, look for solutions. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Another question for Senator Loffreda. Thank you very much for acknowledging the significant number of Canadians who don’t file tax returns. My concern is about the 28.5% of Nunavut residents who — research has shown — don’t file tax returns and therefore will miss out on this important benefit, as well as the child tax credit.

It’s quite clear to me that one of the barriers to tax filing in Nunavut is the fact that the 85% Inuit population’s first language is neither French nor English, and tax forms are therefore unreadable and inaccessible. In the past, CRA — and you spoke of them today — has set up a capability within their department of Inuktitut-speaking personnel who not only did community outreach but were available for consultation in Inuktitut for residents who had tax filing questions. I’m wondering if you would use your good offices as sponsor of the bill to encourage CRA to once again address this issue. Thank you.

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the question. I think it’s such an important issue, and this is why I quoted it in my speech and I thank you for raising that issue with the minister. Yes, I will gladly do so and will put pressure that it is done on a timely basis. It’s such an important issue, very important. As I said, 10% is way too high. If we look at Nunavut and those who don’t file taxes, it’s even higher.

It’s of concern to all of us, and I will use my office to put pressure on the minister and CRA to ascertain that problem is resolved on a timely basis. Thank you for the question.

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Thank you for this initiative and your explanation, Senator Loffreda. I would like to go into a little more detail, building on the question from Senator Patterson.

I think we all very much appreciate and believe your concern on the timeliness, but we saw with the series of payments during COVID that it was indeed the most vulnerable people who often waited the longest, and some never received what was supposed to be coming to them at all because of logistical challenges, shall we say.

It’s one thing for us to express concern. It’s another thing for a piece of legislation to demonstrate that there’s been learning from the problems in the very recent past. I haven’t heard any assurances to that regard. Can you speak to that, please?

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the question. It’s a very important question. I raised the question in the Committee of the Whole and I raised it in the committee, and as a matter of fact, I don’t know of any progress that’s been made lately. CRA, like Minister Freeland, did express on numerous occasions that it was a question of timeliness, of simplicity — that vehicle was used because the data was there — to use CRA and to use the tax returns and filing. But I think it’s an issue that has to be tackled. If we have the problem today, it’s because the work — I always say, manage activities, you’ll get activities; manage results, you’ll get results. I was never strong on managing activities. I was always strong and wanted to manage results. The result today is that 10% of Canadians will not benefit from this tax credit. These are the Canadians who need it the most. Let’s manage the results going forward.

I also suggested in our National Finance Committee, in our Banking Committee that maybe it’s a study that has to be undertaken in the future as to what we could do better to ascertain that all Canadians can be identified. What has to be done? It’s not an answer I can give you in 30 seconds, but what I do promise is that I will put the necessary pressure that this situation be resolved in the future and a study hopefully be undertaken by one of our committees to see what else can be done to ascertain and identify that all Canadians in the future will benefit, and not as was the case, like you expressed, in the past. Thank you for your question.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Loffreda agree to answer a clarifying question?

Senator Loffreda: Yes.

Hon. Clément Gignac: Would Senator Loffreda take a question? Thank you for your insight on this issue. It’s always interesting to hear what you have to say.

There’s no doubt that we’re not all equal when it comes to inflation. It hits the poorest people the most, relatively speaking, compared to wealthier people. I agree with the comments made by the two senators who spoke before me. I’m a little surprised, despite the lessons we’ve learned from this pandemic, that the government was agile enough to respond in such a timely and effective way when it came time to bring in CERB. One could criticize the government, given that some people may have received it who perhaps shouldn’t have, but at least we were able to reach those who needed it the most, I think.

Statistics say, and you are right to mention it, that 11% of people don’t file tax returns, and our colleague, Senator Patterson, says it is about 28% in Nunavut. That troubles me. Yes, I will support this bill. I commend you for sponsoring it, but I just want to encourage you to pressure the government to find a solution.

When CERB was being delivered and time was of the essence, the government was certainly capable of doing things quickly. We are here on a Monday evening because time is of the essence and we need to move fast. We are taking a different route, and we may reach only a portion of the population in need. Thank you for your involvement, but I encourage you to use the necessary pressure.

Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Senator Gignac. It is always a pleasure to hear your perspective and answer your questions. As I have said several times, it is a very important aspect. One of our committees should carry out this study to determine how to identify the 11% who currently do not file tax returns.

I can say that tax returns are the best vehicle at present for reaching most of the Canadians who need this support. We must see what more we could do in future, and a study would be very much appreciated by everyone. I am looking at the chair of our Finance Committee, who says he agrees. It is a study that we should undertake with great seriousness in the future. Thank you for your question.

[English]