Hon. Brian Francis: This question is for Senator Gold.

Last week, the Canadian Red Cross announced that more than $11 million had been distributed to people impacted by Hurricane Fiona. However, serious questions and concerns about the rollout have been raised by Islanders who registered for assistance.

For example, seniors and others struggling had to wait in line for hours just to verify their identity and receive $250. Those with mobility issues were provided with no accommodation.

What is the Government of Canada doing to ensure that the Canadian Red Cross is distributing funds to Islanders in an inclusive, transparent and accountable way as soon as possible?

How will the Government of Canada ensure this demeaning, complicated and exclusionary situation is not repeated in future crises?

Senator Housakos: For starters, section 4 of the bill is very concerning to me, as it has been a concern to you.

Ultimately, when you have the chair of the CRTC coming before our committee and publicly stating that this bill doesn’t take away from him the right to force platform providers to push algorithms toward a particular direction, that in itself, as far as I’m concerned, controls what people see and what people get to post. At the end of the day, I think there are many witnesses who have come before the committee and are very concerned about how algorithms are being used, both in terms of platform providers and in the future. This bill hasn’t been clear when it comes to these particular issues.

If you’re telling me that these concerns have not been addressed at our committee, I disagree. I’ve heard a number of stakeholders and witnesses address those concerns. I will continue to fight those concerns. If we’re a regular member of the committee, a chair of the committee or if we’re a part of this chamber in a leadership position, nothing takes away our right to express ourselves on a particular issue, and I will continue to do so.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: My question is also for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. It is a bit more general than Senator Simons’ question, but it pertains to the same email signed by the Honourable Senator Housakos.

Where do you draw the line between your responsibility as the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which is currently examining Bill C-11, to ensure the smooth flow of debate in committee and the kind of messages that you sign as “the Honourable Senator Housakos” asking citizens to help you stop Bill C-11 in the Senate?

Can you enlighten us on where you draw the line?

Senator Dupuis: Thank you for enlightening us, but I already knew that. I am well aware that chairs can have an opinion of a bill. That is not what I was asking. As a member of a committee, I don’t have the same responsibilities as the chair of the committee.

As the person responsible for maintaining what I call the smooth flow of debate, you have to show openness and neutrality. You hear all sorts of opinions, those you agree with and those you might not. Where do you draw the line between those responsibilities, as chair, and keeping the debate flowing smoothly?

Senator Housakos: It’s not complicated. The work of the chair is by nature procedural and concerns the rules. As chair, I have a duty to enforce the rules and ensure that the committee operates fairly and justly. From day one, this committee has worked well, independently and transparently, and we will stay the course.

However, a chair cannot be prevented from taking a position on a bill. That has never been the case. Personally, the problem I see at the moment is that people are opposed to my point of view on the bill and not my work as chair of the committee. The work is about respecting procedure and the rules. Moreover, I have the right and the obligation to speak to a bill, as does the chair of any other committee of this institution.

[English]

Hon. Scott Tannas: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Today we welcomed Senator Osler to this chamber. She’s the nine hundred eighty-seventh person to be summoned to sit in the Senate of Canada since Confederation.

I think it’s an appropriate occasion to point out the 15 empty seats that remain in this chamber today; some have been vacant for a long time. In fact, one of British Columbia’s six seats in this chamber has been empty for over 1,000 days.

One of the six seats in my home province of Alberta has been unfilled for nearly two years. This is a big problem for a chamber that was created to guarantee regional representation in our Parliament.

It’s a different situation in the other place, as you would know, leader. A by-election must be called to fill a vacant seat within six months in the other place.

Would the government support a similar process for the Senate whereby the Prime Minister must recommend an appointment to this chamber when a seat is vacant for more than six months?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

We all look forward to having more Senate appointments announced so as to continue to receive senators, colleagues, of the quality that we need to do our work.

The process that this Prime Minister has introduced, a process whereby candidates are identified and vetted, is a different process. It is one that involves not simply an application process for those before it, but the constitution — in each and every region and province — of a committee jointly composed of two provincial or territorial representatives and three named by the government.

In some cases, though not all, the delay in appointments is a function of the failure of one of the jurisdictions to name their members to the committee. In other cases, frankly, it is just a function of the time that the process seems to take, and it’s longer than most of us would want.

I do not believe that your proposal is something that would find favour with the government, because it runs counter to the merit-based and participatory process not only of Canadians but of the committees that vet them.

However, it is always possible to improve processes. I will take your suggestion back to my colleagues in government so that they can reflect upon it further.

Hon. Tony Loffreda moved third 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 third reading to speak to Bill C-30, a government bill introduced in the other place by our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, on September 20.

The fact that this bill was introduced on the first day of regular business after the summer recess indicates to us how important this bill is for the government. In fact, it shows us how important it is for Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet during these extraordinary times of high inflationary pressure.

[Translation]

I spoke at length about this bill yesterday at second reading, and you can rest assured that I will not repeat everything I said.

[English]

I see some people smiling, which is nice.

[Translation]

I would simply remind all my colleagues that the objective of this bill is to give low- and moderate-income individuals and parents a little additional money under the GST/HST credit program.

The objective of this measure, a temporary six-month tax credit, is to help the most disadvantaged Canadians as we continue to fight above-average inflation.

I hope, and it is the government’s hope, that these additional amounts will help alleviate some of the financial difficulties of more than 11 million Canadian households that are striving to feed and clothe themselves.

I want to take a moment to make a small clarification about this matter as a follow-up to the question Senator Dupuis asked me yesterday. It is indeed 11 million households that are eligible for this supplementary benefit. According to the government, these 11 million households include about 9 million single people and almost 2 million couples.

[English]

Eleven million Canadians who already receive the tax credit will receive the top-up, but this represents approximately 11 million households. Let me explain that. It’s 9 million single people and 2 million couples. For the 2 million couples, the GST top-up is paid to the spouse or common-law partner whose return is assessed first. So as is the case in many tax policies and legislation, it gets a little complicated, but these are approximate numbers. The important point is that half of Canadian families and more than half of Canadian seniors will benefit from this top-up. That is the important point.

Yesterday I addressed the issue of inflation and highlighted some of the challenges with respect to working-age Canadians who don’t file their taxes. On the latter, I hope the government will take that issue seriously and seek a remedy. Minister Freeland acknowledged this is a problem and more needs to be done on the issue.

I wasn’t planning on addressing the issue of Canadians who don’t file their taxes again, but our National Finance Committee met this morning, and I have some additional information that might interest some senators.

The Canada Revenue Agency appeared before the committee and elaborated on some of the outreach efforts it deploys to assist citizens who might otherwise not file their taxes. The agency confirmed they have employees across the country working with various partners and community associations to increase knowledge and awareness of tax filing.

For instance, through the government’s Community Volunteer Income Tax Program, the agency hosts income tax clinics in numerous cities and communities. We were informed that — through this partnership program — approximately 600,000 returns were filed, and I’m told that it resulted in over $1.4 billion in tax returns and benefits being distributed.

In fact, just last week, the Minister of National Revenue announced enhanced funding for these volunteer organizations to better help Canadians with the costs involved in running such clinics. This funding will also benefit the northern CVITP clinics and clinics serving Indigenous populations. Additionally, the agency works with software developers to make sure that tax‑filing software is free of charge for low-income Canadians. The CRA also sends letters to Canadians who they believe could benefit from certain benefits, as well as encourages them to file.

With respect to the North — as a follow-up to Senator Patterson’s question yesterday — this morning, the CRA also addressed community outreach efforts in the territories. Witnesses reminded us of the opening of three centres — in the North — for in-person services. The CRA also introduced a dedicated telephone line for northern residents to compensate for some bandwidth challenges in the territories. According to the witnesses who appeared this morning, there had been 944 in‑person community visits in Indigenous communities, in the North, prior to the pandemic.

The CRA also mentioned that they have personnel who speak various Indigenous languages, including Inuktitut. They also have various products, including fact sheets, on the importance of filing taxes and how to file in various Indigenous languages. Witnesses confirmed that the CRA is currently working on products in 11 new languages, and these should be ready by the next tax-filing season.

I hope this new information is useful to those who are interested in community outreach by the CRA and some of its efforts in the North. It’s important knowledge to share and great work that’s done in our committees. That was the case this morning.

Honourable senators, it has been clear to me during our debate on Bill C-30 that many colleagues are concerned about broader economic questions, as well as about the overall health and stability of our economy. I, too, share these concerns, and I believe the government needs to re-evaluate some of its spending programs. I know the minister takes fiscal restraint seriously, too.

I was most pleased during Committee of the Whole when she said:

We recognize that all Canadians are cutting back on costs right now, and we recognize that our government needs to do that, too.

As she acknowledged on October 6:

. . . it’s been difficult for our government to strike a balance between compassionate support for those who need it the most and remaining fiscally responsible.

I totally appreciate that difficulty, and I have no doubt many of us in this chamber will keep a very close eye on future government spending. It’s a job I take seriously and enjoy greatly as a member of the National Finance Committee.

[Translation]

I would be remiss if I did not mention the degree of cooperation demonstrated in both houses of Parliament in examining this much-needed legislation. The fact that all parties in the other place support this bill speaks volumes about the need to put money in the pockets of low-income Canadians.

[English]

Some senators may be disappointed that this bill did not make its way to committee. Senator Marshall voiced her disappointment yesterday, and I can certainly appreciate that. However, this bill is straightforward, and there is an urgency for it to receive Royal Assent.

I appreciate that Minister Freeland made time for us, out of her busy schedule, to appear before the Senate for 90 minutes on October 6. Personally, I think that was sufficient for all of us — not just members of the National Finance Committee — to challenge the government and seek answers to our questions. In fact, I would suggest that some issues that were raised during Committee of the Whole may not have been addressed in committee.

We know we have been under pressure by the government to pass this bill today in order for the Canada Revenue Agency to get the ball rolling on this new rebate, with the expectation that the first top-up payment will be received before the holidays. If getting this bill adopted today means that families across this country may enjoy a better meal at Christmas, or some child might receive a new winter snowsuit, or parents can turn the heat up a bit higher during our cold winter months, I am certainly willing to vote in favour of this bill and ensure that it receive Royal Assent today.

Honourable senators, Bill C-30 is timely, temporary and necessary. If passed, the money that is going to be distributed for the GST top-up is, indeed, as the minister stated, “a significant sum of money.” As she said, in response to a question from Senator Plett, the measure in Bill C-30:

. . . is carefully targeted relief that is supporting the people who need it the most. It is absolutely within a fiscally responsible approach . . . .

I tend to agree with her, which is why I am honoured — as an independent senator from Quebec — to sponsor this government bill in the Senate. I hope all senators will join me in voting in favour of Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, No. 1. Let’s get this done now and send a clear message to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet that we have their backs.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: Indeed, Senator Woo, I agree with you completely that the distributional impact would be different in each case. I can’t to tell you in advance what that impact would be. What we do know is that the GST credit will be distributed via the tax system. However, as we heard in the speeches yesterday, a significant portion of our most vulnerable citizens don’t file income tax returns and therefore won’t benefit from it. This is a very short-term temporary measure.

Lowering the GST would have cost more, obviously, but it would have taken pressure off the Bank of Canada to stop raising interest rates so quickly. Lowering the GST would have benefited consumers, who wouldn’t have to spend so much, and it would also have reduced the macroeconomic costs of an anti-inflation strategy that is clearly not designed to address supply problems, and may even exacerbate them. That is specifically where the problem lies, and it needs to be addressed.

In the short term, we have to reduce demand to avoid worsening inflation and, in the medium term, we need to have a plan to improve supply chains.

[English]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I’m not using this podium because of the length of my speech but rather because, as we get on, we all have different issues, and I may need something to lean on.

Colleagues, I rise this afternoon as well to speak to Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act. To be honest, colleagues, it’s difficult to know where to begin. I’ve seen a lot of bills introduced in this chamber since I was appointed as a senator, but I do not think any of them were as misleading as what this bill is.

The word “duplicitous” comes to mind, and if you Google the definition, you will find that Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “marked by duplicity: deceptive in words or action.” These are strong words, but allow me to explain and then judge for yourself if that description does not indeed fit this bill.

On the surface, the purpose of this legislation makes sense. It will put money back in the pockets of Canadians. It basically amounts to a tax refund, and for that reason, our Conservative caucus supported it unanimously in the House. I expect that it will be passed with the same support here in this chamber, and this is something I assured the Minister of Finance of when she was in this chamber. But as soon as you scratch the surface of this bill, you find that this bill is not at all what the government says it is.

While it is claiming to be a “Cost of Living Relief Act,” it is little more than a Band-Aid being applied to a gaping wound that the government insists on repeatedly poking. It does nothing to address the root of the problem and, in fact, will make it worse.

COVID-19 caused supply chain issues, and Vladimir Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine has driven up energy prices. Both of these have been significant factors in the increased cost of living we are currently experiencing. But even prior to these developments, colleagues, the government was on a collision course with reality, as it opened the floodgates on spending with no regard for the longer-term impact on our economic health. Much of the spending during COVID was necessary — it helped sustain individuals and our economy while we were trying to navigate uncertain waters with a novel coronavirus — but much of it was not.

The Fraser Institute last week released a study which documented what has already been observed by others when they wrote:

. . . a significant percentage of Ottawa’s huge spending increases during COVID, which produced large deficits and much more debt, had nothing to do with the pandemic . . . .

They went on to say:

. . . approximately 60 per cent of the federal budget deficit during the pandemic . . . related directly to COVID-19 . . . while the remaining 40 per cent was not related to the pandemic.

This is a government which believes it can spend its way out of any problem with no regard for the negative consequences. Even now, in the midst of an inflationary environment, they continue to pour fuel on this fire. You may recall that at the beginning of COVID, the Liberal government did not even think inflation would be a problem, even though Pierre Poilievre warned repeatedly that runaway government spending would undoubtedly result in inflation by increasing the money supply. An article in the Financial Post echoed these same concerns back in May of 2020, stating:

Theory states that a big increase in the money supply will result in runaway prices, and there are those who are adamant that the hundreds of billions of dollars the Bank of Canada intends to create over the next year can only end in a rerun of the 1970s.

Government debt has a long association with inflation, so the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s April 30 forecast that debt will spike to about 50% of gross domestic product in 2021 from about 30% in the previous year is making some people nervous. Apparently, some people did not include the federal government. Rather than being nervous about inflation, they dismissed the threat and mocked those who dared mention it. Instead, they lined up with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who captured this Liberal mindset the best when he said the bigger threat to the Canadian economy was deflation, not inflation.

Even when we began to move out of pandemic restrictions, and the inflation rate could be seen to be notching up, it was still not a priority for this government. Instead, their only concern was to not turn off the firehose of cash too quickly, even though businesses were struggling to find workers and begged the government to make benefits contingent on the recipients being prepared to return to work. The government refused. They assured us that inflation would only be transitory. But by January 19 of this year, Statistics Canada was reporting that the annual rate of inflation had already hit a 30-year high, and economists were warning that rates would climb further yet.

The very same day the Parliamentary Budget Officer released his Economic and Fiscal Update 2021, which warned that the government’s planned stimulus of $100 billion was threatening to overstimulate the economy and contribute to inflation. The government, again, ignored these warnings.

By March, the so-called transitory inflation had risen to 6.7%, on its way to 8.1%. And yet, even as the government saw the numbers rising, they refused to consider holding their spending to pre-COVID levels. This year’s Main Estimates showed that the federal government has, in fact, expanded its fiscal policy by over $120 billion this fiscal year when compared to 2018-19. COVID spending is a bare sliver of what it was during the height of the pandemic, yet this government refuses to do the responsible thing and show a little restraint.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. They claim to care about skyrocketing prices, but they refuse to take any action on the things that are within their direct control. Grocery prices, for example, are up by 10.8%, rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. I’ll just name a few: Fish is up 10.4%; butter, 16.9%; eggs, 10.9%; margarine, 37.5%; bread, rolls and buns, 17.6%; dry or fresh pasta, up over 32%; fresh fruit, 13.2%; oranges, 18.5%; apples are up by almost 12%; coffee, up by 14.2%; soup, 19%; lettuce, 12.4%; and potatoes are up by almost 11%.

The average family of four is now spending $1,200 more each year just to put food on the table, not to mention the rising cost of heat, gasoline and rent.

And in the midst of soaring food costs and people struggling to feed their families, the Liberal government decided it was a great time to target an arbitrary 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions by 2030. This was in spite of warnings from the ag sector that:

. . . reaching 30% is not realistically achievable without imposing significant costs on Canada’s crop producers and potentially damaging the financial health of Canada’s crop production sector.

Furthermore, while family budgets are being crushed by rising energy prices, the response of this government was to raise prices further by increasing taxes. We are the only country in the G7 that has raised fuel taxes during this period of record inflation, and the government is steadfast in its plan to move ahead with a tripling of the carbon tax.

A report by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation last week noted that while more than half the G7 and G20 countries, and two thirds of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development are cutting taxes, “. . . the federal government has recently increased the carbon tax, alcohol taxes, and payroll taxes” instead of providing tax relief.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation noted:

Australia cut its gas tax in half. The United Kingdom announced billions in fuel tax relief. The Netherlands cut its gas tax by 17 cents per litre. South Korea cut its taxes at the pumps by 30 per cent. India cut gas taxes to “keep inflation low, thus helping the poor and middle classes.”

But what did our NDP-Liberal government do? Instead of adopting policies to help reduce inflation, this government keeps inventing new ideas to make life even more unaffordable for Canadians.

Colleagues, if the government really wanted to reduce inflation, they could do it simply and easily. They could reduce the GST. In fact, 18 countries, including Belgium, Germany and Norway, have reduced consumption taxes to make life more affordable.

As noted by Senator Bellemare when the Minister of Finance was here, GST revenues have increased by almost 50% in one year. Part of that is linked to inflation, because the one thing that inflation helps is government revenue. Higher inflation means higher tax revenue without even having to increase the tax rate — a Liberal’s dream.

Last week, in his Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that inflation will add an additional $83 billion to the federal government’s coffers over the next five years.

A reduction in the GST tax rate would automatically lower inflation. And as noted by Senator Bellemare at the Committee of the Whole, this is not a novel idea. She pointed out that:

France has experimented with similar kinds of measures and, according to its National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, they have had a meaningful and significant impact. France’s current inflation rate is 5%, not 8%.

But rather than taking meaningful action, this government decided to do the only thing it knows how to do: try to spend its way out of the problem.

The government’s response to a crisis, which they helped to create through unrestrained government spending, is to spend even more money. After starting the inflationary fire that we find ourselves in today, they cannot resist pouring fuel onto it.

Minister Freeland admitted that increasing government spending can make the problem worse when she said:

. . . We cannot compensate every single Canadian for the rising costs that are driven by the global pandemic and by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. To do so would only make inflation worse and make the Bank of Canada’s job harder.

For what was perhaps the first and only time that I have found myself agreeing with Minister Freeland, blasting inflation with more spending is like a fire department that sprays gasoline on a fire in an attempt to put it out. What the finance minister failed to acknowledge, however, is that whether you put a little gasoline on a fire or a lot, it has the same result.

Economists around the world have been warning about this.

On September 22, the headline of a Financial Post article was very clear when it said, “. . . Government aid to help with rising prices risks fuelling ‘inflationary fire,’ economists warn.”

The CIBC, Bank of Montreal and Bank of Nova Scotia have all released reports expressing concern over using revenue windfalls for additional spending.

CIBC’s Avery Shenfeld said, “While there are times when fiscal largesse is just what the economy needs, these aren’t such times.”

Andrey Pavlov, at Simon Fraser University’s Beedie School of Business said:

. . . while the Bank of Canada is doing quite a bit to bring inflation down . . . the government hasn’t really done much of anything.

Derek Holt from Scotiabank said:

. . . it seems sensible to assume that this will add to pressures on measures of core inflation . . . . Any belief that it will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.

I have no idea which economics textbooks our finance minister studied or, indeed, if she studied any, but one thing is certain: She is misleading Canadians by making them think that this bill is a cost of living relief act. In the end, it will do nothing to relieve the cost of living and only pretends to do so.

You may have noticed that when the finance minister was here for the Committee of the Whole, I asked her a point-blank question:

Did your department conduct any analysis of the impact that this spending measure will have on the inflation rate in Canada?

It’s a fair question, I thought. If economists are warning that measures such as this could make things worse, then Canadians have a right to know if the government bothered to take the time to determine what that impact would be. Maybe it’s a little or maybe it’s a lot. The problem is that we will never know because the finance minister refused to answer even the most basic of questions — although we shouldn’t think that is a surprise, the way we get questions answered.

In fact, the finance minister refused to answer every question I asked her, and instead used the opportunity to regurgitate her unhelpful talking points like she was attending Question Period in the other place.

I asked if her department conducted an analysis of the impact that this spending will have on the inflation rate in Canada, and all I got was reassurances that she takes spending very seriously.

That we already knew, colleagues. About the only thing this NDP-Liberal government takes seriously is spending, which is why they are still spending $120 billion more than before COVID. They are very serious about spending as much money as they can because they are convinced that the budget will balance itself, and the Prime Minister cannot be bothered to think about monetary policy.

However, colleagues, we did not invite the minister here to parade her talking points in front of us and promote her government’s agenda. Committee of the Whole is to take the place of a committee meeting. At committee meetings we call witnesses to give us answers, not to spout government rhetoric and political talking points. Yet we did not receive a single answer to a question on Bill C-30. For 95 minutes, colleagues, we heard the finance minister talk about everything from fossil fuel subsidies, to mandatory reporting on climate-related financial risk, to dental care and housing benefits.

Yet, when I asked how Bill C-30 would help slow spending in the economy — as the Governor of the Bank of Canada noted is necessary — I was told that we have the lowest budget in the G7. When I asked whether the Prime Minister was beginning to think about monetary policy, I was schooled about the independence of the Bank of Canada.

When I posted the video of my questions along with the minister’s non-responses to social media, people were outraged. I will read a few quotes.

Brian said, “A grade 3 student would give more concise answers than the liberal government of Canada would.”

Melody said:

. . . thank you for your questions . . . and your amazing patience when it is obvious that she will never offer more than tiptoeing through the tulips. I’d be livid!

Roger wrote:

She likes to start with “let me be clear” but every answer is word salad. Her patronizing arrogance is sickening. She talks like she’s reading a 5-year-old a bed time story.

Bill wrote, “Asking a Liberal, any Liberal, a question, any question, is a complete waste of time.”

Sandy said, “So triple the carbon tax, that’s how compassionate they are.”

Charlie wrote, “She’s obviously not taking this seriously, just making a mockery of this and having zero respect for the inquiry.”

Colleagues, I could go on and on, but I have made my point. The Minister of Finance was not the least bit interested in answering questions, and that is unacceptable. If this is the way that ministers of the Crown treat Committee of the Whole, then our caucus is going to start opposing Committees of the Whole.

If we had held regular committee meetings on this bill, we would have had the opportunity to call other witnesses in order to get some answers. I am certain that one of those witnesses would have been the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who confirmed last week in his Economic and Fiscal Outlook that the government’s spending to alleviate the rising cost of living will actually increase the cost of living.

Some will argue that the impact will be minimal, but I would argue that it is inexcusable and irresponsible for the federal government to be working against the Bank of Canada’s efforts to bring inflation down. This, colleagues, is shameful. It’s no wonder the finance minister did not want to answer the question.

Colleagues, if Committee of the Whole is just a way for the government to dodge a proper examination of their legislation, then we will begin to insist that every bill go to full committee hearings regardless of the government’s time frame.

The fact is that this bill did not need to be rushed. The government had ample time to put this legislation together and table it. It is not complicated. Yet, as Senator Martin noted in Committee of the Whole, they appear to have just woken up to the fact that Canadian families are being pummelled by inflation.

We know this because the bill is accompanied by a Royal Recommendation. A Royal Recommendation is required when a bill authorizes new charges that were not anticipated in the estimates.

But consider that the Main Estimates were tabled on March 1 — the same month that inflation hit 6.7%. Supplementary Estimates (A) were tabled on June 7 — the same month that inflation hit 8.1%. Yet neither contained any mention of this spending.

Inflation did not just show up on our doorstep one morning, colleagues. There was ample time for the government to anticipate the need for this bill and include the allocation in the estimates. But apparently, even as inflation was ramping up, the government was asleep at the wheel.

Senators, why is it that this government cannot get legislation to us within a decent time frame even when the bill has unanimous support in the House of Commons? It was tabled in the other place on September 20, and then it took them the next three sitting weeks to get an uncontested bill over here. Let me repeat that, colleagues: An uncontested bill took three weeks to get over here. If there was ever a government that is unable to walk and chew gum at the same time, it is this NDP-Liberal government.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Former Governor of the Bank of Canada Stephen Poloz noted at the recent Global Business Forum in Banff that Canada is a chronic underachiever — a condition caused by poor political decisions and the failure to address unresolved issues.

The problems that he listed were the following: “a political quagmire that requires a crisis to make decisions,” “layers of regulation,” “permit and consultation that take ages to complete,” and the fact that “Canada is one of the most highly taxed economies on earth . . . .”

That is why we find ourselves here tonight, forced to fly back early to deal with this bill. It once again comes down to this government’s never-ending incompetence.

Colleagues, the other thing you need to realize about this bill is that it doesn’t help people as much as the government makes it sound like it does. It’s not that people won’t appreciate receiving the help — they will. But the way the government likes to strut and gloat like they are being the hero by introducing this bill is misleading.

For starters, you need to understand that this money is only going to go to these who would normally receive the GST credit benefit. Numerous senators noted during Committee of the Whole that this doesn’t include anyone who does not file an income tax return.

Secondly, the government likes to give the impression that this money is largely going to help single moms with small children. In reality, out of the 11.6 million cheques that will be sent out, only 1.3 million will go to households with children, and less than half of that will go to single-parent homes. The other 10.3 million cheques will go to households with no children.

Thirdly, as Statistics Canada has pointed out in the past:

Since the economic well-being of an individual also depends on family income rather than just personal income, those who qualify for the GST credit are not necessarily disadvantaged. An example would be a young adult living with parents and working part time at a low-paying job. . . . the majority of recipients . . . are from multiple-earner families or those with more than one recipient (for instance, a child and another relative of the major income recipient living in the same family).

In other words, senators, there is no surgical precision in the deployment of this $2.5 billion.

The fourth thing I would point out is that this program was designed to be a tax rebate of GST expenses, not an inflation-fighting tool. This means that the lowest earners will not necessarily receive the higher amounts.

The way the program is designed, an eligible adult will receive a tax credit of $306 plus $161 for every qualified child under 19. If you’re married, you and your spouse each receive $306 plus the $161 for your child. This comes to $773, half of which is $386.50, which is the benefit they will be eligible for under Bill C-30.

If you’re a single parent, the calculation is the same because there is an “equivalent to spouse” amount for single parents where they receive two times the base credit. However, if you are among the 9 million recipients who are single with no children, then you receive the base amount of $306, but if you earn more than $9,900 a year, you will receive 2% of every dollar earned over and above that amount, up to a maximum of an additional $161.

What this means in practice is that a single person earning just under $10,000 a year will receive $154 under this bill, whereas a single person earning twice that amount will receive $234, which is 52% more.

Colleagues, my point is not only that these payments are small but that they are inequitable. Although this bill is supposed to help those most in need, in many cases those with the greatest need will actually receive less than those who earn twice as much as they do.

For a GST rebate, the program makes sense because if you have more money, then you spend more on GST in a year, but for a measure which is supposed to provide targeted tax relief to those who need it the most, it is a joke.

To make it practical, consider this: A single mother with a $30,000 net income will receive an additional $2.10 per day for six months, for a total of $386.50. However, over the same period, the purchasing power of this single mother’s income will have been reduced by more than $1,000 due to “JustinFlation,” or about $5.43 per day. While the NDP-Liberal government is presiding over the highest inflation hike in 40 years which takes more than $5 a day from a single mom, their solution is to offer $2 a day and pretend to be heroes.

Colleagues, let me be clear that no one is suggesting the government should “compensate every single Canadian” for the rising cost of living, to use the finance minister’s words. We cannot spend our way out of this mess as the Liberals always like to do. We are asking the government to stop raising taxes on Canadian families and use their inflation tax windfall to reduce taxes rather than blowing it out the door in new spending. If we want to avoid a full-blown recession, we need to be fiscally prudent, not careless.

We do not have to look far to see what will happen if the Trudeau government is not careful. The United Kingdom is learning the hard way that the markets will punish a government that does not pay attention to its balance sheet. This could have lasting effects.

As Mr. Torsten Bell from the U.K.’s Resolution Foundation told Politico:

The big picture in a world where interest rates are rising and inflation is high, is that you don’t want to be seen as the one country that everyone decides is a bad bet.

Showing how serious you are is important. If we are really arguing that our growth strategy is to borrow lots more and then that will pay for itself then they [the markets] don’t believe that.

And as Royce Mendes, head of macro strategy at Desjardins Group, told Global News in October:

It’s more important than it has been in many, many years for the federal government to reassure (investors) that it is nowhere close to following the U.K.’s path.

Let’s hope our government is paying attention, colleagues, and will not repeat the British mistakes.

In closing, let me say this: When the Minister of Finance was here in this chamber to give non-answers to questions about this bill, she said, “Canadians are smart . . . .”

On that point, I am in full agreement with the minister as well. Canadians are smart. I believe they will see through this nonsense of ratcheting up costs for consumers and then swooping in, pretending to be the hero by tossing back a morsel here and there. Canadians are smarter than this. And, colleagues, they are going to show this government just how smart they are in the next general election.

Thank you.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Plett. I have the same question for you that I asked Senator Bellemare, but whereas I asked Senator Bellemare a question out of genuine interest in the economic model she was proposing, I am befuddled by your explanation of how the economics work in the model you have put forward. Your starting point is that federal government spending is out of control and therefore unsustainable, and that it is this same spending that has added “fuel,” to use your words, to inflationary pressure essentially through what they call expansionary fiscal policy. Your solution, then, is to reduce the GST by a few percentage points, but that is expansionary fiscal policy.

While I haven’t done the detailed numbers, the back-of-the-envelope calculation in my head suggests to me that a reduction in GST of a few percentage points for everyone will be much larger than the cost of Bill C-30. Therefore, that policy would be an even more expansionary fiscal policy than what we are considering in this bill. It would also, by the way, exacerbate what you claim to be a problem of fiscal unsustainability.

Then there is the magical thinking that by reducing the GST — and increasing expansionary fiscal policy and adding to inflationary pressure — that reduction will allow the Bank of Canada to be less strict and harsh on increasing interest rates. That’s what we call fiscal dominance, where the fiscal policy of being irresponsible by cutting GST puts more pressure on the Bank of Canada to increase interest rates. Since you brought up the U.K. example, that is exactly what is happening in the U.K.

You are proposing, essentially, a policy of increasing expansionary policy, which will push up interest rates and inflation more than it does currently. You are creating pressures for the Bank of Canada, to the extent that this is an unsustainable fiscal policy, to increase interest rates more. I would add that reducing GST is a very difficult policy to unwind. You know that very well because it was under a previous Conservative government that reduced GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, which is where we are today.

My question to you, Senator Plett, is: What economics textbooks are you consulting?

Hon. Clément Gignac: Senator Plett, I wanted to mention to you that I share your frustration regarding the conduct of monetary policy in Canada. I think the Bank of Canada slept on the switch before removing liquidity, and we have a significant problem. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada recognized that.

I also share your concern — and I expressed that yesterday — that a lot of poor people who are on social assistance do not file income tax. This morning at the National Finance Committee, chaired by our friend and colleague Senator Percy Mockler, we gave a hard time and some suggestions to the Canada Revenue Agency to do that.

My question is this: Regarding your proposal to reduce the goods and services tax, or GST, Canada leads the G7 in terms of economic growth this year with 3.2%, and next year, it expects to lead the G7 at 1.7%. To continue on the angle of Senator Woo’s, the GST reduction will help stimulate the economy and will help the people who are rich compared to the poor. Personally, I would call that the kick-the-can inflation policy because in the short-term, yes, you are reducing the inflation rate — no doubt about that — but everyone knows that the government will restore the GST to the previous level after that. For me, it just postpones the problem.

I listened to your answer to Senator Woo and I know you’re not here to — we talked about the bill — but nonetheless, this GST reduction is not exactly the best idea at the current stage of the economy because we have a significant risk to increase the GST at the time that the economy cools significantly as the global economic slowdown confirms.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, I support Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. I thank all who have spoken on this bill’s goals and complexities, which have come to the fore, in this chamber, as well as through the hundreds — no, thousands — of emails we have received.

Bill C-10 — not completed before we rose in the summer — has become Bill C-11. As Senator Dawson said, Bill C-11 reflects the issues raised, especially those around user-generated content. It now strengthens protections on free speech. Bill C-11 represents the first and long-overdue Canadian Broadcasting Act overhaul since 1991. The world of broadcasting has been through a sea change since then, and modernization is absolutely necessary in today’s world, dominated by the internet and digital technology.

Canadians now access digital platforms for much of their entertainment, with Netflix being accessed by 62% of Canadian households. In 2019, that platform alone generated some $1 billion. That success story is well-earned, but this digital shift created a significant imbalance. Online broadcasters are not required to support Canadian content like traditional broadcasters are. This is a major concern for Canada’s arts and culture community. Bill C-11 seeks to redress this situation.

The changes we’re discussing today, for the most part, have come from the 97 recommendations outlined in the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review panel’s 2020 report. Tasked to review the current situation, the panel’s objective was to provide the government with recommendations to best modernize the Broadcasting Act in the digital age — in the Canadian context.

The purpose of this bill is to boost creative protection, support arts and culture in Canada and benefit millions of audiences. May we remember this goal as we study it. The three key desired — needed — outcomes are artist payments, production monies and discoverability.

Simply put, Bill C-11 clarifies that online broadcasting is within the scope of the Broadcasting Act. The changes better reflect Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and Canada’s diversity. It underlines fair and equitable treatment between online and traditional broadcasters, introduces an administrative monetary penalties regime and adds more explicit information sharing and confidentiality provisions. We must determine if these objectives are met.

Key for me is that internet platforms will be regulated like broadcasters. This is very much supported by Canada’s creators, for whom support for creation and presentation is essential. The early internet was described as the information highway, and highways have rules and realities. Now, our living culture, the internet, presents the unique talents of Canadians.

[Translation]

Let me again remind you of the reality in this country. The arts and culture industries are the third-largest employer in Canada. They contribute significantly to our GDP, yet the startling anomaly is that our artists make up the largest percentage of the working poor living below the poverty line. This must be corrected. They, like any other professional, should be compensated fairly for their work and the development of new projects. This bill takes that step.

[English]

During COVID, artists created and shared their work using means they had at their disposal, including cellphones and internet platforms. Musicians, writers, storytellers and more gave us solace, inspiration, connections and hope through the pandemic and other recent tragedies. They did so earning nothing, as internet platforms don’t pay. Indeed, a recent study showed that musicians who put their work on internet platforms during COVID earned an average of $67 per year. Who in this chamber could live on $67 per year — or even $67 per week?

Canada’s artists have supported and do support this country. Now Canada needs to support its creators fairly. This bill takes important steps for compensation to creators, producers and arts communities.

Colleagues, the arts are not a societal frill. As I frequently say, they are at the core of society — an anchor in myriad dimensions. They are not unimportant. They are essential.

[Translation]

During the debate on Bill C-10 last spring, I took you back through a bit of history. I underscored the consistency of the guiding principles that have been maintained nationally, for decades, even as new technologies have successively been developed. The broadcasting chapter in the 1951 Massey report, chaired by future Governor General Vincent Massey, shows some equivalencies to today.

[English]

Back then, the general feeling was that television was becoming an important and dangerous rival to other mass media and the cinema. The Massey report debunked that perception, saying:

There is television broadcasting today in a number of countries . . . . Each of these countries follows in television the same policies as in radio broadcasting.

Colleagues, each update of the broadcasting regulations saw an increase in Canadian content — in the 1950s, the 1980s, the 1990s — and will again now. Protecting, encouraging and developing Canadian content, the goal of Bill C-11, is a goal supported by artists across Canada.

Piers Henwood, an esteemed musician and music manager working nationally and globally, underlined for me that support for Bill C-11 a few months ago. In his summer 2022 Rifflandia Magazine article “Creative Courage,” he talks of creative courage as:

. . . the courage to create art, but also the courage to enter a creative industry, the courage to support a creative economy, and the courage to face social judgment for taking creative risks.

He described music professionals’ livelihoods as “the ability to create and then monetize art.” He noted that a melody, “a uniquely mysterious and magical foundation for building a creative economy,” starts it all. The melody:

. . . cascades outwards to create an economic engine, moving from one head to millions . . . . Agents, managers, record labels, recording engineers, publishers, touring crew, and concert and festival promoters . . .

 — and all media industries.

My experience corroborates his. It is the creators who generate content and, in turn, open doors for myriad professions, together making up a vital economic and social engine through anglophones, francophones, Indigenous artists and those of all diversities. Without artists, there would be no platforms. This bill updates regulations to ensure that, as with traditional broadcasters, the whole sector is fairly treated, with artists being paid.

As Piers emphasized to me, and as our Senate report Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy pointed out, the benefit and impact of this sector are global. Production and digital presentation on air and online by Canadian artists enrich Canada’s perception at home and around the world. That, senators, should be compensated just as every industry compensates its innovators.

Colleagues, I truly believe Bill C-11 needs to be passed as quickly as possible. It is only right and fair that the same principles hold for today’s new technological platforms as they have with earlier ones. We saw in the early stages of CBC the early commissioning of thousands of commissioned and performed scripts and music scores. Some are in the archives, some not. But even George Woodcock in his book Strange Bedfellows: The State and the Arts in Canada noted:

Even the employment provided by the CBC to actors, musicians and writers assured in most cases only part of the money needed to survive.

In June of 2021, National Post voiced the question of protecting domestic cultural industries as more Canadians turned to internet companies for music and video programming. They were concerned about stunting the influence of U.S. culture, a core principle of modern Canadian media law. They noted that for decades the government has required radio and television broadcasters to produce and distribute local content.

Hundreds of people I have spoken with, including Robin Sokoloski, Director of Organizational Development at Mass Culture, expressed unwavering support for this bill, for the monies that should be paid for and to the arts and for the discoverability of art. Ms. Sokoloski told me the bill includes policy objectives needed to ensure the works of our creators are discoverable, and in this algorithm-driven online world, accountability isn’t just a consideration. We need to build in measures that both protect our artists and provide access to their work.

Many people also told me of the urgent need for the internet platforms to be within the purview of the CRTC. Without the due financial contributions that should be coming, our stories cannot and will not be told. I contend, colleagues, that their telling has never been more important. We must be able to see and hear the Indigenous, Black and immigrant histories that have never been part of the traditional Canadian histories. Further, it stands to reason that if we don’t have content creators, we won’t have internet platforms, and if that content is not created by and about Canadians, we won’t know our country, stories, places or ideas.

Senator Dawson said in this chamber:

The policy objectives . . . will ensure that our broadcasting system reflects Canadian society and that diverse and inclusive programming is available to everyone. That is essential to ensuring that the Canadian broadcasting system can help broaden people’s perspectives, spur empathy and compassion for others and celebrate our differences, while strengthening the common bonds that unite our unique Canadian society.

Now is not the first nor the last time new technologies have challenged broadcasters. Broadcasting legislation and regulation was addressed by the 1929 Aird Commission, the 1949-51 Massey Commission, the 1981 Applebaum-Hébert Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, not to mention the Mulroney government’s well-handled concerns of Canadian periodicals when negotiating the first Canada-U.S. trade agreement. Today, in 2022, the issue is just as simple and just as complex as in former times.

[Translation]

This first modernization of our Broadcasting Act since 1991 would add three new requirements for digital media companies. They must provide information about their revenue sources, give a portion of their profits to a fund to support Canadian content and increase the visibility or discoverability of Canadian content.

[English]

Canada is not alone. The government has assessed and drawn from policies and actions of other countries, including Britain, Australia and the European Union. EU local content rules, for instance, require platforms to promote European cultural productions. At least 30% of their catalogues must be made in the bloc, and the EU requires video-on-demand services to prioritize local content.

As to freedom of speech, it is not curtailed by this bill. In fact, history has demonstrated many times that no members of society fight more for free speech than artists. Indeed, the foresight and courage of artists and scientists, as I have said in this chamber before, puts lights on issues our society must deal with, including those not always popular or heard, like raising the issues of residential schools and murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls long before the commissions for either were established, and long before the concerns were heard by society.

[Translation]

Colleagues, it is important to know what this bill actually contains. We must update the 1991 legislation to recognize and use modern technologies. The need to respect and compensate Canadian artists is key, as is the production and presentation of Canadian content, our stories, our issues and our perspectives.

[English]

We must do it so Canadian stories are told, celebrated and heard, so their creators and producers are recompensed and so there are budgets for more stories for the engagement and enjoyment of Canadians. Heaven knows we are in dire need of Canadian truths, insights and inspirations. Only then will we be able to fully understand who we are and what we need to do to honour our past and envision our futures. This bill provides for that. Without it, I fear we will lose so much about who we are. Without that content, we won’t have platforms. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Senate of Canada call on the federal government to adopt anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act, prohibiting discrimination based on race and affording everyone the equal right to the protection and benefit of the law.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Dean. I ask for leave of the Senate that, following my intervention, the balance of his time to speak to this item be reserved.

Tansi. As a senator from Manitoba, I have previously made my land acknowledgement, as in speaking today, so I would like to proceed with my remarks on Motion No. 11.

Allow me to begin by emphasizing our responsibility as senators to represent the voices of minorities in this country. Minorities can mean many different things, depending on the context, but, in the context of this motion, I want to suggest that “minority” pertains specifically to members of BIPOC populations: Black, Indigenous and people of colour living in Canada.

Senator McCallum’s Motion No. 11 asks us to recommend the adoption of anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act, to strengthen the intersectionality of the existing pillars of universality, comprehensiveness, portability, accessibility and public administration.

What an indictment it is that such an amendment is even necessary. I support this motion because it is a crucial step in recognizing and responding more effectively to the indisputable fact that there is systemic racism in our health care system in this country.

People living in Canada should not have to fear racial discrimination when trying to access health care services, whether that be at a doctor’s office or in a hospital. Although we understand this basic right and we recognize it in the equality clauses of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the Canada Health Act, we continue to ignore aspects of systemic racism that seep into Canada’s health care system at the cost of people’s well-being and dignity, sometimes taking their lives.

As a White woman raised with privilege, my chances of receiving the health care that I need, without being challenged about my honesty or my needs based on my skin colour or socio‑economic status, are better than average. I do not have to wonder whether I will be unknowingly sterilized when I’m in surgery. It is highly unlikely that I will be ignored or that health care providers will give up on finding a diagnosis that I need. It is unlikely that it will be implied that my health problem is my fault. I do not need to wonder at or fear these things, but others do. We cannot deny that. It is our job to establish a higher standard of care that is consistent and is available everywhere in Canada so that every person in Canada can access health care without discrimination.

Indigenous people experience a high level of racism across Canada. Depending on the geographic location, between 39% and 78% of Indigenous people have reported experiencing unfair treatment as a result of racism. In particular, one study highlighted that Indigenous patients strategize how to manage racism before going to the emergency room. Can you imagine that? To have to weigh whether seeking medical aid is worth it, even when you are in great pain or sick enough that you know you need to go to a hospital?

One of the most obvious examples of racism in Canada is the deplorable treatment of Indigenous women who were sterilized without their knowledge, without their consent.

With credit to Senator Yvonne Boyer for her leadership, the harrowing report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights on forced sterilization is compelling in honouring witnesses who bravely shared the violence of their experience of health care.

These patients — women — were vulnerable, laid open following birth and entrusted into the care of doctors, nurses and other health care providers who essentially coerced them into permanent procedures that robbed them of their agency, robbed them of their liberty and denied them the choice of their fertility.

In addition, this assault on their bodies was compounded by the added humiliation they reported because they were subjected to medical staff making irrelevant, inappropriate comments about their lives and their culture.

Across the country — not just in Manitoba — people were horrified when Indigenous patient Brian Sinclair died after waiting over 34 hours in a Winnipeg emergency room in 2008 while medical staff took care of others who came much later than he did to care.

Recently, in 2020, we have been made well aware in this chamber of Inuit Indigenous woman Joyce Echaquan who managed to record the vicious treatment that preceded her death in a Quebec hospital while strapped to her bed suffering in agony. She recorded the staff insulting her, ignoring her pleas for help.

Again, we were shocked. But have we been shocked enough to act? How many of these well-documented cases of racism-driven health emergencies do we need to know about before we start to analyze this as systemic, before we start to address these individual cases as inextricably connected to each other and connected to failures in our health care system because of racism?

These are not all isolated cases but, rather, it is that racism is built into many aspects of our health care system. And racism can kill. How are Indigenous and other BIPOC people expected to trust the health care system when it continues to fail them in this way?

It is not only Indigenous people that experience the consequences of systemic racism. According to research published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Black people experience risk factors that purely biological disparities cannot explain. In large measure, these risk factors can be attributed to systemic racism.

Specifically, experiences of anti-Black racism in Canada’s health care system can be found in stereotyping and provider bias. Provider bias is when a health care provider embodies a particular attitude and restricts client access and choice. As a result, health care providers can rely on assumptions and stereotypes when making decisions about that patient’s health.

Time does not allow for many more examples.

However, I do want to speak very personally now about one of my very dearest friends, a Black woman — I will not name her — who is highly educated in the medical profession. A Black woman who is almost never ill, is physically fit and lives in a high-income household.

Last summer, she overdid it moving bricks in her garden and ended up in a paralyzing, crippling pain that forced her to go to the emergency. We almost lost her. Although she is among the most highly qualified people I know, she is a Black woman. It was that Black woman that triggered decisions by the doctor who ignored her initially, repeatedly in terms of even asking for certain aspects of her condition to be attended to.

That doctor prescribed completely inappropriate medicine that almost killed her — I am not exaggerating — to the point where the medical doctors who then treated her and saved her life have joined in a complaint to the medical association. It was so obvious that this was based on her skin colour. There was no other rational explanation for what happened to her.

In 2021, The Commonwealth Fund ranked the health care systems from 11 different countries on a variety of factors, including equity. Canada ranked second last in equity. Although Canada ranked significantly higher than the United States, it was far below the average. Australia, Germany and Switzerland placed in the top three. Canada was also in the bottom three in 2017. It is important to note that The Commonwealth Fund’s 2017 report only included income-related inequities.

However, in recognizing intersectionality, BIPOC groups are more likely to earn a lower income. The accumulation of advantage among primarily White people due to our society’s cultural and political framework creates and perpetuates structural racism.

Issues of structural racism have been linked with negative health outcomes in BIPOC populations, such as higher infant mortality and myocardial infarctions — which are a lack of blood flow to the heart.

While Canada has made improvements, we clearly have much further to go.

Adding anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act would be influential in a number of ways. First, it would shine a light on systemic racism at the forefront of health care by explicitly showing that they are intertwined. Acknowledgement of its existence is the first step in addressing this.

I am reminded of the appalling, ignoring, head-in-the-sand refusal to acknowledge what happened to Joyce Echaquan as exemplified by the top political leader in Quebec, who condemned Ms. Echaquan’s death but denied the existence of systemic racism as a contributing factor. This was despite the damning fact that a comprehensive 488-page study of the issue in Quebec, released only a year before, found pervasive evidence of systemic racist practices throughout provincial public services.

We know that systemic racism has many forms. There are fewer BIPOC health care providers in management. There is less knowledge regarding conditions or diseases that are more prevalent among members of a particular racial group.

BIPOC patients receive a lower quality of health care based on stereotypes, as I have demonstrated with the story of what happened to my friend last year.

BIPOC people know that health care in its current form is tied to racism. It is time that Canada acknowledge this truth and change the Canada Health Act. Adopting anti-racism as a pillar will not only shine a light, but it will force health care providers and institutions to evaluate the ways in which they make decisions regarding a patient’s health.

Currently, Canadian provinces generally apply a more Eurocentric perspective when making decisions regarding priorities for hiring in health care. Applying a one-size-fits-all approach contributes further to the discrimination faced by marginalized groups. Historically, this has created better health outcomes among White communities compared to Black or Indigenous communities.

An anti-racism pillar can open the door to new perspectives and create better outcomes for all. It can make accountability measures clearer and more targeted. We know well that what is measured gets done.

I also support this motion because it would give a voice to BIPOC members, both patients and health care workers alike. BIPOC people are those who will benefit most from this motion, and they should have the opportunity to share their experiences and recommendations. It is obvious that Band-Aid solutions like anti-racism training or diversity training are not going far enough to facilitate real, structural change, and BIPOC people have to be part of this process.

Fourth, anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act would also address equality rights promised in the Charter. If everyone has the right to equal protection, then why do we continue to see the deaths of Brian and Joyce and others as isolated incidents? Why do BIPOC individuals feel that they must strategize to get the health care they deserve? Why are Indigenous women the targets of forced sterilization? Failing to adequately take steps to reduce and eliminate systemic racism in health care is unconstitutional. I will conclude by indicating my support. Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the inquiry I gave notice of last November to call the attention of the Senate to the role of leaders’ debates in enhancing democracy by engaging and informing voters.

As citizens and parliamentarians, we must always be vigilant about our democratic institutions, especially in today’s world where democracy is threatened in so many places. But why talk about leaders’ debates? My inquiry was prompted by my profound dissatisfaction in watching the leaders’ debates in last year’s 2021 federal election and the outpouring of criticism that was directed toward those debates — criticism of just about everything about them, particularly the English-language debate.

Personally, I have always loved watching leaders’ debates, and I still remember some of the great debates of our history. “You had an option, sir,” said Brian Mulroney to his overwhelmed opponent John Turner in a memorable exchange in 1984. But debates are not just a form of entertainment. They play an essential role in our democracy. Leaders’ debates may be the single most important opportunity for voters to learn about the choices before them, the character and temperament of leaders, the party policies and the approaches to national issues.

Today, in Canada, leaders’ debates are also a matter of public policy. In 2018, an order-in-council created the Leaders’ Debates Commission to ensure that at least one leaders’ debate would be held in each official language during each federal election campaign. Prior to the order-in-council, consultations were undertaken by the government, and a House of Commons committee deliberated and investigated. At no point, however, did the Senate participate in this debate before the order‑in‑council came forward. It all happened without us. But, colleagues, it’s not too late. Given the very mixed results of the debates undertaken by the commission in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, in my view, it is time for sober second thought.

Now, some esteemed colleagues may think that the Senate should take no role in deliberations about elections. I profoundly disagree with this view. Free and fair elections are an integral part of all democracies, and we in this chamber have not only the right to participate and deliberate on these topics by virtue of our constitutional role, but we also have the responsibility to engage. And thus I hope that we can make a contribution to this inquiry.

American scholars have studied political leaders’ debates for many decades, and there is widespread agreement that these debates inform the electorate. Canadian researchers have reached similar conclusions about the importance of debates in this country. In testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 2017, Professor Vincent Raynauld of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières concluded that leaders’ debates in Canada have had an important impact on public attitudes, levels of mobilization, voting intentions and information, describing them as a one-stop shop. In a series of round table consultations held with experts in five cities in 2018, the IRPP reported as follows:

Participants unanimously agreed that leaders’ debates are an essential feature of any federal election and that their distinct qualities separate them from other campaign events.

Of particular importance is that, “Over time, leaders’ debates became the campaign experience that would be shared by the highest number of voters . . . .”

The first televised leaders’ debate in Canada was held in conjunction with the 1968 federal election. This historic debate was jointly broadcast on CBC/Radio-Canada and other media. Although the actual number of viewers is uncertain, reports prior to the debate estimated a significant audience of between 14 and 15 million people.

Following this first televised leaders’ debate, no such debates were held during either the 1972, 1974 or 1980 elections. From 1984 to 2011, the main debates were organized by a so-called broadcast consortium of major English- and French-language television networks including CBC, CTV, Global, Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec and TVA, who worked together to negotiate with the parties and to broadcast the debates.

The vast majority of debate production up to 2011 included two debates in each election, one English and one French. The debate situation changed significantly in the 2015 election, setting the stage for new developments. Only one debate, a French-language debate, was organized by the broadcast consortium in 2015. Conservative leader and Prime Minister Harper declined to participate in an English-language debate organized by the consortium. Instead, smaller debates were hosted by other media organizations.

The unprecedented situation prompted a vigorous debate, and the drop in viewers of the English debates from 2011 to 2015 was a particular concern. There were more debates in 2015, but they were watched by fewer citizens. And, thus, following the election in December 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau charged former minister of democratic institutions Karina Gould to “Bring forward options to create an independent commissioner to organize political party leaders’ debates during future federal election campaigns . . . .”

Consultations were undertaken. A House of Commons committee investigated and recommended the creation of a debates commission, which was created in October 2018 through order-in-council. For better or worse, federal election leaders’ debates came under the purview of government. Former governor general David Johnston was tapped to be the new leaders’ debates commissioner, and the commission set to work to fulfill its mandate. In each of the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, the commission opted to contract out the promotion, production and distribution of the debates through a competitive process. The selected group therefore carried out these processes without commission involvement in the themes or questions or in editorial decisions. The commission undoubtedly did not want to be involved in or be seen to be involved in a political process on behalf of any government. However, the results from the commission debates have turned out to be extremely problematic in the view of many experts.

At the risk of oversimplifying, the 2019 debates revealed important issues which were not resolved but, in fact, were exacerbated in 2021. These issues affected the English debates more so than the French-language debates, although the latter still received notable criticism.

Let me focus on 2021. Here is a sampling of reaction, taken from the Leaders’ Debates Commission’s 2021 report and social media, to the main English-language debate held on September 9: “ghastly,” “an insult to the intelligence,” “the worst debate I have ever seen,” “a train wreck,” “a dumpster fire,” “absolutely disgraceful,” “an epic fail,” “a nadir on the history of debating.”

And here are some headlines: “The farce of Canada’s televised federal leaders’ debate is an insult to viewers and voters.”

[Translation]

“Quebec nation ‘attacked’ in English-language leaders’ debate.”

[English]

“Canadians deserved better than just one lousy debate.”

The French-language debate on September 8 was also criticized:

[Translation]

“Debates nothing but a sad farce.”

[English]

There are many other examples.

Colleagues, responses like this raise serious questions about whether this country has taken a wrong turn and how we can proceed on a better path.

Let’s examine which elements of debate enhance our democracy, as is the subject of this inquiry. We can look at the goal or purpose of leaders’ debates and how the format and other aspects can work to achieve these goals.

There is an inherent conflict of interest among the three participants — political parties, the media and citizens — when it comes to the goals of leaders’ debates. The parties naturally view the debates as opportunities or threats depending on their electoral situation, and will try to structure the timing, topics and format to maximize partisan advantage.

The media has other goals. As journalists, they strive to hold politicians to account and present information with a critical perspective. But according to former journalists Elly Alboim and Paul Adams, media apply their own news values, such as novelty and conflict, which they learn in journalism schools. Debates are produced like TV shows, imposing news and production values to generate sparks.

Then there are the voters and citizens. Just about every expert in this area says that the needs of the voters should be the focus of debates given their importance for providing vital information to voters. But if debates belong to the citizens, who is representing them in this process? Well, it’s hard to say. According to former journalist Elly Alboim, the debates have gone from bad to worse as the interests of the journalists have taken over the process. He believes the fundamental error in 2019 and 2021 was to view the debates as a journalistic exercise, allowing a destructive format and abandoning responsibility to voters.

Essentially, the best format for debates to achieve democratic goals is one that maximizes an unmediated environment, where voters and viewers can have direct access to leaders and parties. According to journalism professor Chris Waddell, former director of the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University, moderators should stimulate discussion by posing open-ended questions, strive for invisibility and not act as a challenger or fact checker. Further, rigid time limits should not be imposed.

Professor Waddell believes that both the English and French debates in 2021 were utter failures in achieving goals. The format allowed almost no time for debate among leaders, but posed complicated questions to a single leader and imposed rigid time limits on answers. The many questioners, Waddell asserts, were antagonistic, disrespectful and were acting themselves as if they were the participants in the debate.

On the topic of antagonistic questions, I would be remiss if I did not mention the most antagonistic question of all, which is the one posed by the moderator to Bloc Québécois leader Yves‑François Blanchet in the English debate. The question uses the word “racism,” and the moderator asks Mr. Blanchet why he defends Bills 96 and 21 and why he supports these discriminatory laws. The question generated a strong response in the debate, generated outrage across Quebec in the following days and even a change in party support in Quebec in the election. How ironic it is that the English debate would have such an impact in Quebec.

The debates have problems. Still, the Leaders’ Debates Commission in its report on the 2021 debates points to some positive outcomes. In both 2019 and 2021, more people consumed the debates than was found for those problematic 2015 debates, and they generated very significant social media activity and comment. These debates can be considered the most important single events for the public in those campaigns outside of election day itself.

The post-debate research in 2021 does point to some positive impacts as well, but it also reveals that viewers did not learn about party platforms and promises from that debate — which is exactly what Canadians said they wanted to learn from those debates in the first place. They didn’t learn what they wanted to learn.

In light of this, the commission itself has concluded that the public interest has not necessarily been well served, and it concedes that it has not fully achieved the goal of what it calls overall debate integrity. So the many critics of those debates are not wrong.

Colleagues, there are many other topics to explore in the analysis of leaders’ debates, but I will end my comments today with a question about whether government should continue to play a role in election debates.

Is government involvement necessary to keep leaders’ debates as a major feature of our election campaigns? Can the commission make the changes that are clearly required to benefit citizens, or should debates be set up under another arrangement? Or should they return to the private sector entirely as is the case in most other countries of the world and was the case here before the Leaders’ Debates Commission was created?

Colleagues, I want to thank the experts who met with me and sent me research sources for this inquiry, including Leaders’ Debates Commissioner David Johnston and his team. Now, colleagues, I look forward to your comments and to your participation.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, for Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

October 18, 2022

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 18^th day of October 2022, at 4:56 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Bills Assented to Tuesday, October 18, 2022:

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors) (Bill S-206, Chapter 12, 2022)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit) (Bill C-30, Chapter 13, 2022)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, calling the attention of the Senate to parliamentary privilege, the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators and options for increasing accountability, transparency and fairness in the context of the Senate’s unique self-governance, including guidelines on public disclosure.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Pate, and I ask that — with leave of the Senate — following my intervention, the balance of her time to speak to this item be reserved.

Hon. Leo Housakos: I have a question for Senator Plett.

Senator Plett, you talked about the good old days of the Senate, and I remember some of those good old days. I remember when I first came here, it was a very simple place — you had the government and the opposition. What this place did back then was very simple: They had people for and people against bills and motions at the end of the day.

But there was also another principle that seems to have faded away in this new Senate, and that is the principle of consensus. I remember being on the Internal Economy steering committee with Senator Cordy — when we had only representatives from government and the opposition — and we understood that the principle of consensus meant that nothing would move on major decisions without us consulting then Senator Cools and Senator McCoy. We made sure that, even though they might not have had representation at Rules or Internal Economy, that we had sign‑off.

Of course, at the time, we also understood, because those independents were a little more aggressive than today’s independents, that the Rules served their purposes. They decided when we adjourned and when we sat, and they exercised the power because in this place the Rules are designed for minority voices.

In the spirit of cooperation, and you having a lot of weight in this place as leader, I suggest — and this would be a good suggestion — that you sit down with the other leaders and find a compromise where the true independents — those who are not affiliated with any group — have a place and feel they have a place in terms of questions during Question Period, committees and so forth.

Would you undertake to take that leadership, in conjunction with the other leadership groups, and come to a consensus so that these minority voices feel that they have a place in this institution?