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. 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]

Hon. Jane Cordy: Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for an excellent detailed speech on Bill C-30 and the comments that you made. Your background as a banker certainly shone through during your speech, and that’s a positive thing. I’m also very pleased that you answered all the questions, so I’m sure there are no questions left to be asked.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak briefly to Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit).

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to double the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax, or GST/HST, credit for six months, effectively increasing the maximum annual GST/HST credit amounts by 50% for the 2022-23 benefit year.

The GST credit is targeted to Canadians who need it the most, and that came through in a lot of the questions that were asked earlier of Senator Loffreda. Those with family incomes of $39,821 or less in 2021 receive the full credit, and the GST credit is lowered as incomes rise. As we heard from the minister last week, single Canadians with no children would receive $234 more, and families with two children almost $500 more. As well, seniors will receive an additional $225. This would help almost 11 million Canadian households, in answer to your question, Senator Dupuis.

The world we are living in today is rife with uncertainty — uncertainty about how people will be able to afford their groceries, their rent, and things like transportation to get back and forth to work, whether that is travelling by public transportation or buying gas for their car.

The worldwide pandemic presented many challenges to the supply system for goods and services. Coming out of the pandemic meant the need for goods and services started to climb, which increased costs. The resulting inflationary pressures on Canada worsened — indeed, as it did right across the globe.

The continuing war in Ukraine has also taken its toll on world prices. This unprovoked action by Vladimir Putin has been devastating to the people of Ukraine and to their families around the world. We continue to stand with the people of Ukraine who are fighting for their country against the dictatorial actions of a despot.

Honourable senators, according to the Bank of Canada, inflation in Canada peaked at 8.1% in June 2022, and it has declined for both July and August. However, it is still expected to remain high, which will make life difficult for many Canadians. This bill is one way that the federal government is trying to help Canadians and their families weather the economic storm we are living in today.

According to the Department of Finance, the Affordability Plan is a suite of measures totalling $12.1 billion in new support in 2022 to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. They include such things as enhancing the Canada workers benefit, a 10% increase to Old Age Security, helping Canadians afford their rent and dental care for Canadian children under the age of 12. It also includes this bill, Bill C-30, which will double the GST tax credit for six months. Together, these measures will help a great many people in Canada by providing financial relief.

As the Governor of the Bank of Canada said last week in Halifax, “Plain and simple, high inflation feeds frustration and creates a sense of helplessness.”

Through the help provided in this bill and the other measures the government has taken and will take, we will get through this time of economic uncertainty and allay those feelings that so many Canadians are experiencing.

Inflation is painful. As the famed businessman Warren Buffett once said, inflation “swindles almost everybody.” But, honourable senators, we know that inflation hurts the vulnerable the most.

We have been through inflationary periods before. We have weathered this type of economic storm in the past. But, honourable senators, we must remember that inflation, as I said earlier, affects our most vulnerable the most. Therefore, bills like Bill C-30 are important.

Bill C-30 and other measures are part of the government’s affordability package that is designed to help the most vulnerable through this economic crisis.

We will get through this again. The strength of Canadians is boundless. I am hopeful that you will support this legislation. I am also looking forward to receiving more legislation that will provide additional support to low-income Canadians.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-30, which proposes to double the GST tax credit for six months to support those most affected by inflation.

The objective of the Bank of Canada, according to the Bank of Canada Act, is “to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada.” Last year, the Bank of Canada and the Government of Canada renewed their agreement on Canada’s monetary policy framework. The cornerstone of their agreement remains an inflation target of 2% inside a control range of 1% to 3%.

Inflation in Canada has been well above the 2% inflation target since April 2021. Inflation was 8.1% in June, 7.6% in July and 7% in August. The Bank of Canada has been raising its policy interest rate in an effort to bring inflation within the control range of 1% to 3%. It has raised interest rates five times this year to 3.25%.

Last month, in Halifax, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that more interest rate hikes are necessary to bring inflation down. A sixth rate hike is due on October 26.

For those of us who renewed our mortgages at 22% in the 1980s, interest rates really aren’t that high yet. Having said that, high inflation is having a devastating effect on the majority of Canadians. One only has to speak with one’s neighbours to realize that many people are concerned, especially about the increasing cost of food, the heating of one’s home and the price of gasoline. The cost of groceries alone has increased over 10% in the past year, and the average family of four is spending over $1,200 more each year to put food on the table.

More Canadians are using food banks to help them feed their families, and there has been a significant increase in the number of people looking for meals at soup kitchens. There’s also concern that many people who are food insecure will not access food banks or soup kitchens, but will rather reduce the amount or quality of the food which they, their families and their children eat.

Given the increase in inflation, Bill C-30 attempts to provide some financial assistance to, as the minister said, “those who need it the most.”

I will support the bill, although I am disappointed that the bill was not referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for study. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did provide a legislative costing note on the proposed bill.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the estimated cost of this initiative is $2.6 billion, and 11.6 million beneficiaries will receive financial help under this initiative. Specifically, those with a family net income of less than $39,826 in 2021 will receive the maximum amount allowed, which is $467. Those with family net income above $39,826 in 2021 will see the amount of the benefit reduced as income increases. The full phasing out depends on family type. For example, it is fully phased out at $49,200 for a single person without children and at about $58,500 for a couple with two children.

It is important to note that the 11.6 million beneficiaries represent the number of families or households and not individuals, since the GST credit is a measure calculated at the nuclear family level.

Since there are 22,150,000 nuclear families in Canada, and 11.6 million of these will receive benefits under this program, approximately 53% of families in Canada will benefit from this program.

As discussed at the National Finance Committee two weeks ago, and as raised by several of my colleagues during Committee of the Whole with the minister, about 10% of Canadians do not file income tax returns and therefore may not receive the GST credit, although they would probably qualify. If this is correct, then more than 53% of households in Canada would benefit from this program.

I was surprised by the number of households benefiting from this program, as I thought it would be more around the 35% rate. In my opinion, our Finance Committee would have benefited from a study of this bill, especially me.

Once this bill is passed, inflation will continue into the future, raising the possibility of further financial assistance targeted to a specific group or groups. However, even the Minister of Finance said during Committee of the Whole that the government cannot compensate every single Canadian for increasing costs due to inflation.

While the government was able to help Canadians and businesses cope during the pandemic and are now helping some Canadians cope with high inflation, our next challenge is waiting around the corner. Many economists are now predicting a recession in Canada next year. In addition, last week, the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, said it expects a substantial further cooling of the Canadian economy, and advises the federal and provincial governments to refrain from spending windfall revenues as our country teeters on the edge of recession. Those are the IMF’s words, not mine.

In fact, government spending remains high and we have not reverted to pre-pandemic levels of spending.

The IMF is predicting that the Canadian economy will grow 1.5% in 2023, which is substantially lower than the 3.3% they predicted earlier this year. The IMF also said that the economic outlook for Canada could be substantially worse if inflation remains high and the Bank of Canada is forced to keep raising interest rates or if the country’s key trading partners, especially the U.S., fall into a deeper slump than anticipated.

There are already signs that inflation is now becoming embedded in the economy, and it is starting to show up in discussions in labour negotiations.

Of particular concern are rising interest rates intended to cool inflation. Canadians are the most highly indebted people in the world. If interest rates rise, so will the cost of their mortgages and other debts. Although the government intends to financially assist renters, it raises the question of financial assistance for homeowners whose homes are still mortgaged.

Homeowners who recently purchased their homes are likely to see the value of their homes decrease. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation expects national average housing prices to fall 15% by the second quarter of 2023 from the peak level of $770,000 earlier this year as the economy enters a recession by the end of the year. The 15% is a much bigger reduction than the 5% reduction they forecasted in July.

The cost of the government’s debt — now about $1.6 trillion — will also increase. While the Minister of Finance did say we have maintained our AAA credit rating, our high debt and rising interest rates elevate the uncertainty over our economy. In any event, we should be prepared for a shock-prone world.

In responding to the affordability of this initiative, the minister said that Canada has the lowest deficit and lowest net debt‑to‑GDP ratio in the G7. However, in the budget earlier this year, the government did announce some cost-saving or cost‑cutting measures which would help pay for this initiative.

There was a commitment to save $9 billion through a review of government programs, and the implementation — by next year — of a publicly available beneficial ownership registry intended to help the government track money laundering and tax evasion. Both of these initiatives would help fund the GST enhancement. An update on these initiatives would be appreciated.

In addition, many people are convinced that the government is not targeting tax evasion and offshore accounts as aggressively as it should, and that the tax gap is in the multi-billions of dollars. If the government were to focus more diligently on the tax gap and collect the revenues it is entitled to, the government’s bottom line would improve.

I hope that the government has the firepower to cope with the recession that awaits us around the corner.

My last comment is on the national child care strategy and how I see it relating to Bill C-30. The majority of people want to earn their own living and not be dependent on government handouts. In his legislative costing note, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identifies two groups with children that will benefit from Bill C-30 — one adult with children and two adults with children.

The lack of child care spaces, along with the shortage of child care workers, is affecting workers, especially women, who cannot find child care for their children. The national child care strategy is supposed to reduce fees, create 250,000 new child care spaces and recruit additional child care workers.

In speaking with parents of preschool children across the country — and I have spoken with parents in four different provinces — they have told me that some costs have been reduced, but the availability of spaces has actually deteriorated over the past year. There are simply not enough child care spaces or child care workers to meet the demand, and parents are unable to commit to full-time work. This problem deserves attention now as the successful implementation of the $30 billion child care strategy is at risk.

Honourable senators, these conclude my comments on Bill C-30.

[Translation]

Senator Dupuis: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading of Bill C-30, which provides for the temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax and Harmonized Sales Tax credit.

Senators will recall that, during the Committee of the Whole held by the Senate on October 6 with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, I asked the minister a question about Gender-based Analysis Plus. As you know, every bill must undergo an analysis that compares its positive and negative impacts on men, women and gender-diverse people. The results of this analysis are included in the memorandum to cabinet for its study of the bill. Since this document is confidential, the government won’t agree to give Senate committees the GBA+ analysis that is done on all government bills. That’s a problem, in my opinion.

At the request of senators such as myself, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee developed a practice: The Minister of Justice agreed to table a written summary of the elements of the Gender-based Analysis Plus that were applied to bills that are his department’s responsibility. This practice should be extended to all bills, and the summary of this analysis should be tabled before all Senate committees. This practice should be routine, not left to the whim of individual ministers.

At Committee of the Whole on Bill C-30, the minister gave a preliminary response. The sponsor of the bill repeated the terms. She said that this bill has a positive impact on women, who are more frequently represented among Canada’s most vulnerable citizens, particularly women who are heads of single-parent families and seniors. The minister then said she would contact me to supplement her response.

On October 14, in response to my question to the minister in Committee of the Whole, I received from her office a summary of Bill C-30’s Gender-based Analysis Plus. As my question was of general interest, I’m sharing this supplemental response with you, and I’d like it to be included in the official record of the Senate’s debates on this bill. The minister’s response reads as follows:

Individuals and low-income families would be the primary beneficiaries of the proposal to double the GST credit for six months. Overall, nearly 90% of the temporary increase in the GST credit would go to families with net incomes below $40,000.

The department estimates that nearly 78% of the additional support provided by the proposal to double the GST credit for six months would go to individuals living alone and single parents, while 22% would go to couples. This result is predictable given that single individuals and single-parent families are more likely to have lower incomes than couples and are therefore more likely to qualify for the GST credit.

With respect to Indigenous communities, the tax data do not contain information on the Indigenous identity of people who file their taxes, but it is to be expected that Indigenous families living on reserve would be significant beneficiaries of the proposed temporary GST credit increase given the high levels of poverty among children in those families.

I very much appreciate the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance taking this matter seriously, and I invite her to table at least a summary of the GBA+ for each of the bills in her purview going forward.

Colleagues, I encourage you to make sure that ministers who introduce bills table at least a summary of the key elements of their GBA+ when they appear before you during Senate committee meetings. This is an accountability measure we must continue to demand of the government given that it doesn’t seem to be standard practice yet.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you very much, Your Honour, for this opportunity to conclude my thoughts on Bill S-248.

Throughout our lives, we deal with death in many forms — the death of a relationship or a career, the death of a loved one, even a beloved pet and, of course, we will face our own death as well. Death and dying are a part of life. We are — for better or worse — the only species actually aware of the inevitability of death. That motivates us, helps us find purpose and may also frighten us; either way, it makes moments meaningful and precious.

We live in a time where we can reasonably foresee death. We can diagnose terminal illness or spot signs of physical and cognitive decline scientifically and with great accuracy. While more people may be living longer, what becomes more important is: Are we actually living a good life? In the pursuit of longevity, we must always consider quality of life.

I have come to my views watching both of my parents die in two very different but equally tragic ways — my father to painful cancers, my mother to Alzheimer’s. Their suffering was unnecessary and preventable. These encounters with death can help ready us for an end to our own life. We all want to be spared pain and indignity, but we need choices.

I believe it is our right, and perhaps even our responsibility, to make our own end-of-life decisions. Every single day, Canadians with an incurable or irreversible medical condition suffer needlessly in hospital beds and care homes. They suffer, sometimes with loved ones close at hand, but too often alone or in fear or — the worst of all fates — without knowing who they are or once were.

For many Canadians, the right to choose medical assistance in dying has been a blessing. I have seen it first-hand. The ability to choose is empowering. MAID affords a person not just relief from pain and suffering, but a sense of control and predictability, a chance to plan and a chance to say goodbye.

For those recently diagnosed with an incurable illness, death is a ruthless dictator. Research shows that over 20% have prolonged and intense feelings of fear of dying a painful death. We are able, so why would we not offer some certainty at the end when so much of life has become uncertain? That’s what this bill is about: peace of mind and a dignified departure.

Bill S-248 gives Canadians, once they have been diagnosed with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition,” the ability to make an advance request for MAID, before they lose the capacity to give final consent. It’s a common sense answer to a gap in the current law, and it’s something an overwhelming majority of Canadians want. It will allow those diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimer’s the freedom from this possible Catch-22: You can’t ask in advance of a diagnosis, and once diagnosed it’s too late to ask for some time in the future.

This bill will allow a person to apply long before they actually wish to die and long before they have lost capacity to ask for MAID. This offers peace of mind and a better quality of life for the time they have left with much less stress and anxiety as they live out their final days.

In 2019, a survey by The Canadian Press found that over 86% of Canadians agree that people with a serious, degenerative and incurable disease should be able to request and obtain medical assistance in dying, and 74% said MAID should be accessible to all people with incurable diseases, even if their death is not imminent. Just last year an Ipsos poll conducted by Dying with Dignity found that Canadians feel the same way about advance requests: 83% of Canadians support them for those with a grievous and irremediable condition.

This is a powerful insight into the minds of Canadians, their values, their empathy and concern for their fellow citizens, not just their loved ones. It is all clear. Even with so much public support, we still, sadly, have that unfair gap in our current MAID laws, and it is our responsibility as lawmakers to right this inequity.

I won’t review the entire history of MAID, but, as you will remember, in 2016 the government introduced Bill C-14, in response to the Supreme Court Carter decision, which afforded individuals the right to make their own end-of-life decisions. In the bill, a series of safeguards were put in place to guard against fears of a slippery slope of access. But the government decided that access for mature minors or those with mental disorders as an underlying sole condition and the right to an advance request were all to be excluded from the final draft of the bill. The government said it wanted more time to figure out how the public and the medical world would deal with the ethical complexity.

Of course, all agreed that an assisted death ought not replace essential support and services for the under-represented, the unwilling or those who could have been treated or cared for but were failed by an unjust or overburdened system. This applies to anyone, for that matter. MAID is always a matter of choice. MAID is not an alternative to poverty or treatment or support or family. It should and must always be a choice. And I believe, as it stands, our MAID regime is moving toward the right balance between access and safeguards. We know a little more with MAID having now been available for more than six years.

The third annual report on MAID, which was released in July, indicated that in 2021, 80% of all MAID recipients first had access to and received palliative care, a number that has remained constant since 2019.

Of the MAID recipients who did not receive palliative care, 88% had access to those services but chose not to avail themselves of that option.

So the typical MAID recipient, then, is a cancer patient in their seventies who died in their home after receiving palliative care in advance of MAID. We must continue to work to ensure equal access as well, so those in rural or underserviced areas are not denied access.

There have been some suggestions — undocumented — of people being offered MAID as a first resort rather than a last. Any evidence of any such cases should be investigated, of course, but it does not mean the entire system should be replaced.

There are safeguards in MAID law to make sure that those requesting MAID must state, literally in the moment before their medically assisted death, that they are certain. It ensures the patient, their doctor, family and loved ones would all be absolutely certain that a MAID recipient had made the choice. It also ensures that medical practitioners administering MAID are legally protected.

But colleagues, instead of making things easier, some safeguards have actually created more ambiguity. In a case where people have been deemed eligible for a medically assisted death — say, they had an advanced form of cancer that might physically prevent them from uttering that final verbal consent, or they feared that they might fall unconscious from their illness — then their only option would be to end their life prematurely — sooner than necessary — because they would have to end their lives while fully competent and verbal. It was a legal trap that needlessly creates more suffering.

That is exactly what happened to Audrey Parker, a 57-year-old Nova Scotia woman with stage 4 breast cancer, who had to end her life two months before Christmas, due only to a poorly conceived “safeguard” in the law.

Countless others likely had to make a similar decision — we have heard many of those stories — before the law was finally changed in March of 2021 thanks to the tireless advocacy of Audrey’s family and friends.

It was an important change and it has paved the way for this bill. Because, as I noted, some people who are eligible for MAID are at risk of losing capacity before their chosen date. And now, thanks to “Audrey’s Amendment,” in a way we now have a very limited version of advance requests in the current law. Limited because it is only for those who have already been assessed and approved for MAID, and only when you’re right at the end, and when a doctor agrees that you might be robbed of that ability to say “yes” or nod your head as final consent in your last moments.

Colleagues, this was the context in which I introduced an amendment last year to Bill C-7 to fully allow for advance requests. My hope was to extend the right to an advance request to those whose death was not imminent but who would inevitably lose their right to consent. This is, of course, the case for those with dementia or Alzheimer’s, which is why the right to make their views known in advance is so key.

I wish to thank so many of you for helping me pass that amendment here in this chamber. It was a powerful moment. Sadly, though, it was later rejected by the government of the day. I genuinely do not understand why the government said “no” to the wishes of this chamber and to the stated wishes of so many Canadians. Instead, the issue was handed over to a special joint parliamentary committee for more study.

As we see so often, the people — Canadians — are more compassionate and open-minded than the government, as was the Supreme Court of Canada, who led the way.

We also see provinces moving forward on this. The Quebec National Assembly Select Committee on Dying with Dignity recommended an advance directive for medical aid in dying in 2012. The Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying: Final Report sought clarity from the government to include advance requests in any upcoming legislation.

Even the Council of Canadian Academies’ reports on advance requests, mature minors and mental disorders — though prohibited from making any actual recommendations — proposed possible levels of accessibility for legislators to consider when amending future legislation.

And remember that our first Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, leading up to Bill C-14, stated, in its seventh recommendation:

That the permission to use advance requests for medical assistance in dying be allowed any time after one is diagnosed with a condition that is reasonably likely to cause loss of competence or after a diagnosis of a grievous or irremediable condition but before the suffering becomes intolerable.

All those hearings, expert testimonies and recommendations — a decade of work. Colleagues, that is why I introduced my amendment to Bill C-7 and why I believe it passed here in this chamber.

Not everyone will choose this option for themselves, but they believe others should have the choice. Yet, somehow it still wasn’t enough, and still the people of Canada continue to seek the right to advance requests in 2022.

So that is exactly what this bill now aims to do. There are signs that the political climate is changing. Earlier this year, in Quebec, an all-party committee put forward 11 recommendations, 10 of which propose a workable model for advance requests. That provided significant direction on the scope of this bill and was also the inspiration for the Quebec government’s Bill 38, in limbo at this moment due to the recent election.

It was a reasoned bill and set out what I believe to be an appropriate level of safeguards. I urge colleagues to look at the bill to see what a provincial framework for advance requests would look like.

But there are concerns that, if passed, any provincial advance request regime will still be vulnerable — as would the medical practitioners — if the federal law does not change. So even if Bill 38 is passed, Quebec doctors could go to jail for honouring an advance request, even if it’s legally permitted in their province but not by Ottawa.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already given the federal government all the room it needs to allow the right to an advance request, so these delays are unjust.

I believe this bill is a remedy. It amends the federal Criminal Code to allow for advance requests. It is not overly prescriptive in its approach, as that is actually the purview of the provinces.

You see, our MAID laws exist as an amendment to the Criminal Code, essentially as an exclusion, and all health-related issues are regulated by the provinces per the Constitution. So this bill merely excludes an advance request — or the use of an advance request — from being considered a criminal act.

The legislation is quite simple. It amends subsection 241.2(3.1), (3.2) and (3.4) of the Criminal Code relating to a medically assisted death. This section is the final consent waiver safeguard, which can now be waived thanks to subsection (3.21) or, as I described earlier, “Audrey’s Amendment.”

The bill also adds another section — (3.22) — which allows a person and their doctor to prepare a written set of specified conditions and state that when these medically assessed behaviours or conditions are present, that would help define the time when the person would want MAID to be performed. It is the crux of this bill.

Of course, they would have to have been diagnosed with a serious or incurable illness, disease or disability to be eligible for MAID in the future. Spelling out the conditions would exist on paper, even before they are assessed and approved for MAID.

Section (3.22)(a) states that a person may be able to make a declaration in writing that a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner can perform MAID without final consent as long as the conditions of suffering are clearly identified in the advance request, and that those conditions can be easily observed by the medical or nurse practitioner.

This is an important distinction from what we currently have in the law. Subsection 3.21, the so-called “Audrey’s Amendment,” allows final consent to be waived if there was agreement between a MAID recipient and their doctor to have MAID performed on a specific day, and if that person’s suffering and physical state have prevented them from being able to make that final verbal confirmation.

Subsection 3.22 affords the same right to Canadians diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability, and who don’t yet have a date set for a medically assisted death but have established a clear set of criteria for when they want their suffering to end.

Paragraph 3.22(b) of the bill requires an advance request to be no more than five years old. This means it would need to be updated regularly to make sure it remains a person’s wish and intent and that is what they really want when they have lost control of their circumstances.

That timeline was decided after consultations with various stakeholders and groups such as the Alzheimer Society of Canada and the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers, known as CAMAP.

But if the Social Affairs Committee of this place were to advise that a three-year update is appropriate, I would absolutely concur. Whatever gives the most people the most peace of mind is what we should do.

Paragraph 3.22(c) in the bill requires an advance request to include the consent to have MAID performed by the person requesting it, and paragraph (d) requires two independent witnesses to be present during the signing of the advance request.

We should all be discussing end-of-life choices with family, friends, doctors and even lawyers long before the end is nigh. We should all have advance care planning documents and directives, and they are readily available online. They should be updated regularly so that your records and your intentions, over time, are clear. Clarity and understanding are key to having your wishes honoured.

I believe the scope of this bill finds the right balance. It requires an advance request to be regularly updated. It also requires someone seeking an advance request to discuss that request with their doctor and others — many others — in detail, to ensure they understand what they are doing and agree on what criteria they and their doctor believe to be appropriate.

And you would have to be approved for MAID. It will not circumvent the parameters already established in our current laws, or the scope recommended by any of our federal reports. It will not compel anyone to choose MAID, nor can it be used as a coercive tactic. It simply gives Canadians the assurance that, in the event their disease, illness or disability worsens to the point where they can no longer consent to MAID, their wishes will be respected.

Of course, the bill will benefit from study by our Social Affairs Committee. Health Canada and the provinces need to create regulatory frameworks to allow for advance requests, and no doubt they would benefit from our advice here.

There is also the issue of how an advance request would be stored. Will an online registry be needed or be created? What happens if someone travels between provinces? What if they wish to change the set of specified conditions or opt out of the advance request entirely?

I personally believe that anyone should have the right to an advance request in a living will. No one who loses capacity unexpectedly — through accident or stroke, for example — should be forced to live the rest of their life incapacitated until their death. That is why we have “do not resuscitate” laws. I see an advance request as exercising that same right. Our well-stated, well-documented decisions on our own lives should be respected even after losing our conscious ability to confirm that decision in the moment.

But these are all important and very complicated issues that I know our committee would study and consider. Again, if our MAID laws were not tied to the Criminal Code, then we could simply address many of these issues and concerns legislatively. But, sadly, that is not the case.

Finally, colleagues, allow me one last comment on why this bill is before the Senate now rather than after the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying has finished its final report.

As I noted earlier, the committee is spending valuable time relitigating the concept of MAID. We have, indeed, heard from many witnesses representing the full spectrum of views on this issue, and I do hope this eventually leads to the crafting of actual recommendations that would be specific and useful for future legislation. But I think Senate committees are better able to report on matters in a timely way, and time is of the essence.

The government’s action or inaction is often frustrating for the thousands of Canadians awaiting decisions. Their lives and their deaths are too often trapped in our legislative limbo.

In The Meditations, Marcus Aurelius wrote:

. . . every day more of our life is used up and less and less of it is left, but this too: if we live longer, can we be sure our mind will still be up to understanding the world . . . .

So we need to hurry.

Not just because we move daily closer to death but also because our understanding—our grasp of the world—may be gone before we get there.

Colleagues, we do need to hurry. This bill will help those whose grasp of the world is fading. This bill is needed and wanted by so many.

Thank you for listening and know that I am grateful for your support if you can offer it. Thank you.

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Will Senator Wallin take a question?

Senator Wallin: Yes.

Senator Wallin: You’ve raised a series of questions there because, of course, the Criminal Code is the federal purview and all matters health are the provincial purview.

This is why groups have been working on this issue for more than 10 years to try to find frameworks that reflect the needs and desires of a particular province or territory — because views will be different across this country — and that we find a federal framework that will accept that and has enough flexibility in it so that if one province is different from another, it can be in the embrace of the MAID laws — a new, revised set of MAID laws.

Advanced medical directives or care directives — when you go into a hospital and you’re about to have surgery, they may ask you if you want to sign a do not resuscitate order. That’s the individual that’s there. But I think it all starts to form part of your views and your history. If you have that — if you have engaged in this process of preparing for end-of-life decisions — then that is going to be further reassurance to people that your views have been similar, not just in the short-term but over the long-term.

I would see it as part of a larger piece where your beliefs and feelings have been monitored over time. If they are the same, if there’s a consistency or if there’s a change, all that can be assessed by the medical professionals at the end of the day.