Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I give notice that, later this day, I will move:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 5, 2022, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate. It’s in reference to Minister Joly, who, before a committee in the other place, was responding to questions in regard to the government’s work in fighting back misinformation and propaganda. I quote what the minister said before that committee:

We’ve banned Russia Today and Sputnik on the broadcasting side. We’ve pushed digital platforms to also ban them, but we need to do more. . . .

Our mandate, and my mandate as foreign minister, is really to counter propaganda online. . . . They need to make sure that they recognize that states have jurisdiction over them, that they are not technological platforms but they’re content producers. It is our way, collectively, to make sure that we can really be able to have strong democracies in the future.

Government leader, in the letter to Minister Joly from Prime Minister Trudeau, where does it give her the mandate to push back on online propaganda in this country?

Senator Housakos: Government leader, there is absolutely no direct reference in Minister Joly’s letter from the Prime Minister that her mandate is to counter propaganda online. As I said in my speech on Bill S-237 the other day, the first job of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Canada is to defend the national interest and values we hold as Canadians, which include free speech. The answer to combatting foreign interference isn’t to censor our own citizens — not at all.

Leader, seeing as how Minister Joly thinks her mandate is to counter propaganda online, could you tell us this: How exactly does the minister in your government define propaganda? Does anyone in the NDP-Liberal government even know how Minister Joly defines it herself? How will we have assurances that there won’t be a line crossed here?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. This government — as all governments in Canada, I assume — is devoted to the principles of free speech as enshrined in our constitutional traditions and in our Charter. Any limitations on Canadians’ rights need to be prescribed by law, satisfy rigorous standards as applied by the courts and be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament as well when such laws come before us. If and when such laws come before us, I’m sure we will do our constitutional duty to make sure they respect our constitutional rights.

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, yesterday the government announced the closure of Atlantic mackerel and commercial bait fisheries without any consultation with the fishermen.

Weeks before the fishing season is about to begin, the government blindsided fishermen. As the Maritime Fishermen’s Union said, this announcement illustrates a lack of respect for the expertise of the inshore fishermen and a lack of interest in the economy of rural Atlantic communities. Senator Gold, why did the government not consult with the fishermen before making a major decision that will affect their livelihood?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the importance to the Atlantic fishery and the impact of this decision.

The conservation and protection of our fish stocks are a priority for this government, as it was for previous governments. I’m assured that all decisions taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are underpinned by sound science and the conclusions that can be drawn therefrom.

This was not an easy decision. The government recognizes the impact it will have on fish harvesters. As colleagues may know — and certainly, Senator Poirier, I’m sure you and your colleagues from the region do know — the mackerel and the Southern Gulf spring herring have been in a critical zone for more than a decade. This has implications for many species, such as tuna, salmon and cod, that depend on foraged fish as their food source.

Today’s decision aims to protect and regenerate these stocks to ensure a strong and healthy seafood sector for the generations to come.

Senator Poirier: Senator Gold, according to Martin Mallet, Director of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union, additional costs for fishermen could be as high as $10 million. Minister Joyce Murray also said there were no current plans for financial compensation — no consultation and no financial compensation weeks before they were set to hit the water. Senator Gold, why is the government not even considering financial compensation for potential loss to fishermen due to the government’s decision?

Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, currently in Canada, male blood donors who report having had sex with one or more other men in the past three months cannot donate blood.

This practice, which contributes to the stigma attached to HIV, is outdated, since it is clear that sexual behaviour, not a person’s sexual orientation, is what determines the level of risk of HIV transmission.

With that in mind, on December 15, 2021, Canadian Blood Services made a submission to Health Canada recommending a new approach to screen all donors for high-risk sexual behaviour that would replace the current practice of a three-month donor deferral period for all sexually active men who have sex with men.

The department’s target for the review of this submission was 90 days, so in theory, around March 15. However, we still have not received Health Canada’s decision.

Senator Gold, when can we expect Health Canada to announce its decision regarding this submission from Canadian Blood Services?

I understand that the actual review time may vary, depending on the completeness of the data provided and discussions with the organization, but please explain why the review of this submission is taking longer than the planned 90-day time frame.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for the question.

As I have mentioned several times, the Government of Canada continues to invest significant sums in improving defence capacity and resources, and it will continue to do so.

I have also mentioned several times that the agreement or deal — take your pick — between the Liberal Party and the NDP has nothing to do with the government’s commitment, which is clearly described in its 2017 document, to improving our military capacity in order to protect ourselves at home and defend our interests abroad.

As for the question, I do not have any information to suggest a link with military spending. We are awaiting the tabling of the budget to spell out exactly what the government has decided to do and clarify the issue of welcoming Ukrainian refugees.

Hon. René Cormier: Senator Gold, last week Reuters News Agency reported that bombing in Ukraine has led to the closure of many clinics specializing in the treatment of HIV/AIDS and that the distribution of antiretroviral drugs is at risk.

My question for you is the following. What kind of assistance for health care is the Government of Canada providing to the Ukrainian people at this time, and how is it helping to ensure that Ukrainians with HIV/AIDS can continue their treatment?

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, my question is about gene‑edited seeds — an important and controversial topic in the realm of crop farming.

For those who are not familiar with the concept, gene editing refers to a set of genetic engineering techniques that can be used to add, remove or alter genetic sequences at precise locations in an organism’s genetic code. In other words, gene editing can be used to alter the DNA of seeds used in crop production.

It’s a bit different from genetically modified organisms, typically the result of adding foreign DNA into an organism’s genome.

There are benefits associated with gene editing. For example, using gene-editing tools can allow plant developers to improve the existing qualities of a seed and shorten the growth cycle of a given plant or crop.

However, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have faced questions regarding a proposal to adjust how the use of gene-edited seeds is monitored and regulated. Many farmers and other organizations in the agricultural sector are concerned that the regulations should regard forward research and, in the absence of that research, may not go far enough to protect farmers or the natural environment.

For my part, I can certainly understand apprehension about unintended consequences and risk management where forward research may be warranted.

Senator Gold, this is a very complicated issue. Can you update this chamber on the status of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s plan to monitor the use of gene-edited seeds and if changes to these regulations to enhance transparency and accountability are forthcoming?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I’m advised that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has in fact nine sector science strategies, including one specific to agri-food, to set priorities for our science activities.

The agri-food specific strategy aims to focus research and innovation investments, bring value to Canadian producers, including the agri-food sector, by outlining the research, development and technology transfer needs related to the agri‑food sector. This will include food, beverage and food ingredients, processing, packaging, distribution and consumption.

One key aspect of this strategy is the contribution toward food innovation and food safety. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provides expertise, leadership and infrastructure research, development and technology transfer in the areas of food innovation and food safety in many ways. For example, developing greener, alternative agri-food processing and preservation techniques, including approaches to improve resource management, reduce waste and reduce losses due to spoilage during production, processing and distribution. The government is committed to continuing to support the agri-food sector through its sector science strategies.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the complexity of the issue, as you very well expressed.

The government is committed to science-based decision making and keeping food, feed and our environment in Canada safe, while at the same time supporting an innovative and sustainable agricultural sector. In that regard, all seeds, foods and feeds, whether developed using conventional methods or by technology, are regulated in Canada and must comply with all relevant standards and regulatory requirements for both safety and quality.

I’m advised that when it comes to gene editing, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, is proposing guidance updates to help explain which plants require authorization from the CFIA before being grown or planted in Canada. I further understand that CFIA has launched consultations last fall to bring changes to the regulations relating to genetically engineered seeds.

The government is notably consulting with stakeholders to keep pace with technology to improve transparency and is carefully considering relevant scientific information about the use of gene-editing technologies in agriculture.

Colleagues, updated guidance will make regulatory decisions clearer, while allowing Canadians and the agricultural sector to benefit from the advances offered by new technology.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, the NDP-Liberal government is committed to more taxes, more inflation and higher cost of living. That’s what this government is committed to.

Government leader, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association, just in the Montreal area alone, home prices have gone up over 20% in the last year and by almost 60% since 2019. Housing inflation is even worse in other parts of the country, yet I don’t get the sense that your government truly understands the housing affordability crisis that Canada is facing. After all, the NDP-Liberal government plans to make energy audits mandatory before Canadians can sell their homes. Last month, the Ontario Real Estate Association said:

. . . quite frankly, a crazy thing to do in the middle of a historic housing-affordability crisis. . . . We have historic lows in inventory listings on the market currently. Another piece of red tape on a home seller will depress listings even more, making it even more costly to go find a home.

Will Canadians looking for a home see more actions like this from the NDP-Liberal government next week in their budget? Is this going to be the strategy of fighting inflation and making middle class and poor Canadians poorer?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Again, the budget will speak for itself and we will see what measures are there to help Canadians, to help our economy and otherwise to move our country forward.

It is simply not the case that this government, and indeed no government, colleagues, if we are to be fair, ignores the impact of the economy, whether it be inflation or the cost of living, on the well-being of Canadians.

Our governments, regardless of the partisan stripes and orientations to the left, centre or right, are better than that. We can disagree about the policy tools that governments deploy. We can disagree about the priorities that governments choose to bring forward, whether it’s climate change, the economy, reconciliation or the like. Canadians will judge and have judged, and this government will continue to act in the best interests of Canadians.

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, in introducing my question about Rohingya people, I want to thank Senator Ataullahjan for her question and statement today on desperate Afghans.

Senator Gold, following the theme of Canada stepping up and leading on human rights, when will Canada follow the United States in its declaration last week that the murder, rapes, torture and destruction of entire Rohingya communities amount to genocide and crimes against humanity?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, I move that the message be considered later this day.

Hon. Larry W. Smith: Honourable senators, I rise in my capacity as critic to speak to Bill C-15, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

Bill C-15 puts into legislation $13.2 billion for the federal public administration as sought out through the Supplementary Estimates (C) 2021-22. This funding is requested by federal departments and agencies due, in part, to changes in budgetary needs not covered in any other supply bills.

I would first like to commend the work of our colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, who had the near-impossible task of reviewing the estimates documents, sifting through a 200-page document — line item after line item — and questioning departments and agencies concerning the additional authorities being requested. It is, indeed, nearly an impossible task, as the committee held just two meetings and heard from 26 witnesses as part of their revision process for the Supplementary Estimates (C) 2021-22.

Colleagues, while this sort of exercise seems to have become a common occurrence in this place over the last few years, it is nonetheless extremely concerning. We, as parliamentarians, are not being given enough time to provide effective oversight of government spending on behalf of Canadians. We are being asked, in a very narrow window of time, to approve over $13 billion in funding for federal departments, many of which continue to fail to meet their departmental planned targets. Other departments simply fail to report results with respect to various performance indicators.

All estimates documents include a section on the Departmental Plans, DPs, and the Departmental Results Reports, DRRs. The DPs lay out plans for the year for each department and agency, while the DRRs report on the performance of the plans. On paper, this is both useful for us parliamentarians in our oversight work but also for Canadians who are funding the administration of the federal public service.

The problem, however, is that Parliament does not set mandatory deadlines for the tabling of these plans and reports. That means parliamentarians could be asked to approve new funding before reviewing the DRRs, the results for the previous year. This is exactly the case for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. The DRRs for the 2020-21 fiscal year were submitted in February 2022, a full 10 months after March 31, 2021. This meant that all new government spending, beginning with the Main Estimates 2021-22, had to be considered without any information regarding the performance of each organization in the previous fiscal year.

To reiterate the importance of having the DRRs, here is the scenario before us right now: Later today, we will be asked to approve $75 billion in appropriations for the federal public administration as part of Bill C-16 for the 2022-23 fiscal year. However, we have absolutely no information on how departments performed in 2021-22 since the DRRs for the 2021-22 fiscal year are not yet submitted and likely will not be until well after the additional appropriations have been approved by Parliament.

If that doesn’t confuse you, what will?

In addition to this critical misalignment of priorities, federal departments are failing to meet their targets or are not reporting on them altogether. According to data published by the federal government, departments failed to meet 31% of the government’s performance indicators, while 16% did not report results for the most recent fiscal year.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, for example, failed to meet 46 targets, accounting for just over 37% of overall performance indicators, in the 2020-21 fiscal year. Moreover, the department did not provide results on 16 targets. Some of the performance indicators where the department failed to execute include the percentage of aerospace fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements and the percentage of projects that meet the approved project development and approval timelines — low‑risk, low-complexity projects. Other performance indicators where the department failed to report results included joint force effectiveness in providing near real-time support to operations and senior decision makers.

While we are entering into an important era of global insecurity, one where countries are re-evaluating their defence policies and bolstering their military capabilities, it is imperative we have up-to-date, complete and relevant information from departments like National Defence so we, as parliamentarians, can effectively carry out our roles in reviewing spending decisions.

Honourable senators, furthermore, I would like to highlight an issue of poor planning within the federal administration, a recent trend we need to monitor more closely. As reported by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, spending lapses — that is, money approved by Parliament but is unspent and for which legal authority expires at the end of a fiscal year — reached record levels in 2021. The PBO suggests that spending lapses as a share of voted budgetary authorities were close to 7%, or roughly $13 billion, in 2020-21, increasing over time since 2017-18.

The bulk of the increased spending lapses over the last few years has been attributed to the extraordinary federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The argument is that Parliament was asked to approve unprecedented amounts of funding at record speeds to respond to a quickly changing environment. Even the government acknowledged at the start of the pandemic that the priority was to get money to households and businesses as quickly as possible.

Speaking of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, former Minister of Finance Bill Morneau told senators in April 2020:

. . . we’re trying to get money to people as fast as we can and in the most practical ways we can. We think we have found the best way.

It is important to emphasize the difficult task the government faced at the start of the pandemic, which was having to ensure the health and safety of Canadians while providing financial supports for those impacted, and doing it in a manner that was quickest.

However, three years into the pandemic, when jurisdictions are cautiously beginning to loosen restrictions and reopen their economies on the advice of public health officials, we continue to see mismanagement of federal spending. To highlight this, Bill C-15 would grant Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada $4 billion to procure rapid tests. Yet, this funding request has been duplicated in two other bills already before Parliament, Bill C-8 and Bill C-10.

The federal government has claimed the reason for this duplication is to ensure speedy procurement of rapid tests using the first authority available to them, whereby remaining requests would simply lapse. Colleagues, this is simply an unacceptable way of managing public finances. This type of exercise should not be allowed to become the norm. Federal departments should undertake serious diligence to ensure the best use of public resources the first time.

I share this sentiment of the Senate Finance Committee, which found this approach to be unclear and unacceptable. In my view, this illustrates poor planning on the part of the government and, once more, impedes our ability to carry out our directives as senators.

While spending lapses are expected in any budget, as authorities sought out by the departments are the estimations of their expenditure needs, the steady increase in spending lapses over the last several years could become problematic. We, as parliamentarians, should continue to monitor closely.

I welcome and echo the remarks of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance in their review of the Supplementary Estimates (C), 2021-22, urging the government to end the practice of duplicating funding requests, as well as demanding clear explanations from the Treasury Board Secretariat in this regard.

Honourable senators, to conclude, I would urge the government to set mandatory dates for the tabling of departmental plans and departmental results reports. In doing so, this exercise would better align funding requests with past performance records. Moreover, the continued increases in spending lapses and frozen allotments suggest the government has made little progress in its spending plans and reporting guidelines. Therefore, I would urge the government to better prioritize funding requests to ensure effective and efficient uses of resources. Thank you so much.

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, a substantial amount of the spending in Bill C-15 and the Supplementary Estimates (C) concerns Canada’s ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet again, we must reckon with the significantly worse health outcomes faced by low-income Canadians both prior to and during the pandemic.

Data from the Public Health Agency of Canada underscores that those with the least have been twice as likely as those most well off to die of COVID-19. The Public Health Agency links this horrific disparity to social and economic inequalities faced by people below the poverty line — from greater risk of underlying and disabling health conditions and lack of safe housing, to unsafe working conditions and not being able to afford to stay home from front-line gig work or minimum wage jobs.

In human, social and health terms, these unequal health outcomes are unconscionable. They also carry significant financial consequences. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer reminded the National Finance Committee during his testimony on the Supplementary Estimates (C), the financial burden includes:

. . . first, the costs on the individuals themselves by being prevented from working due to poorer health outcomes. . . . it reduces income and employment gains, and it also reduces attachment to the workforce. . . . individuals with poorer health outcomes tend to have weaker social networks, which can lead to further isolation . . . They often have to incur additional expenses: medication, drugs, supports, at-home supports and others.

There are also costs that have to be borne by society. . . . If people with poorer health outcomes have to withdraw from the labour force, that imposes costs on each and every one of us when jobs go unfilled.

There are also the costs of treating people. Those costs would be lower if they had better health outcomes in the first place. It is much more expensive to treat diseases and illnesses than it is to prevent them, generally speaking.

The most significant spending measure in Bill C-15 arises from the need to treat the results of health inequalities that we have neglectfully failed to prevent. Thirty per cent of the spending proposed by the bill — $4 billion — earmarked for procurement and distribution of additional COVID-19 rapid tests is linked specifically to trying to address COVID-19 risk among so-called vulnerable groups.

At the National Finance Committee, the Public Health Agency of Canada identified these populations as including groups such as Indigenous peoples, those of African descent, other racialized populations, those with disabilities, front-line service providers and essential workers. The committee had the opportunity to ask government officials whether these latest proposed measures are projected to close the gap in COVID-19 mortality for Canadians who have the least. Particularly, we asked how they would compare to income support measures that might have addressed underlying inequalities and allowed people to afford measures, from PPE to physical distancing, necessary to better protect themselves, their families and communities during the pandemic.

We also asked about the portion of pandemic spending, from the cost of PPE to vaccinations to mental health supports and so many other measures, related to the need to respond to emergency health situations created by social and economic inequalities that predated and were exacerbated by COVID-19.

In response, the Public Health Agency acknowledged its own previous research revealed “robust associations between income and health in Canada” and that “the direct economic burden of health inequities on health care costs is substantial.”

In 2016 alone, socio-economic inequalities cost at least $6.2 billion annually, or over 14% of total expenditures on acute care in-patient hospitalizations, prescription medication and physician consultations.

The Public Health Agency also indicated, however, that it had not conducted health policy modelling studies to determine the effects on pandemic spending and health outcomes if measures such as robust income supports had been in place to try and redress pre-existing inequalities for those most at risk of COVID.

We could find no department that has conducted such analyses. The failure of the government to provide this type of assessment results in a massive gap and wholly inadequate ability to plan, much less prepare for, future challenges. It thus significantly erodes confidence in the foundation upon which the Canadian health, social and economic policy decisions are being made. When policy is debated in Canada, whether here in Parliament, around kitchen tables, in the metaverse or on the streets, many are acutely aware of the consequences of the continued reaction to emergencies.

Too often, though, the real cost of failing to take proactive, preventative action is not in the balance when we weigh the challenges of decades of inaction. Instead, focus is zeroed in on the initial costs of bold measures to address poverty and inequality — from guaranteed livable basic income to housing strategies, disability benefits, universal mental health care, pharmacare, dental care, child care and education.

Too rarely do we consider the costs of failing to act, the costs we are repeatedly being asked to approve in order to patch some but not all of the wounds and not for everyone.

Poverty and related inequalities cost Canadian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, particularly in emergency health care measures, the criminal legal system and responses like shelters or food banks that dangle the hope of survival while reminding people that they are constantly on the brink of crisis.

These are the hidden costs of policies characterized as pursuing fiscal prudence but which do not reach everyone in need or fail to provide enough support and further stretch social and health systems that already leave too many people behind. Much worse than financial cost, as we have seen during the pandemic, failure to redress these inequalities also costs lives.

I want to urge therefore that we recognize many of the measures in this bill as not only vital to COVID-19 responses but also the costs that Canadians continue to pay as a result of our country’s failure to shore up health and social safety nets, to redress social, health and economic inequality and, particularly, to work to support people in finding pathways out of poverty.

The costs of our inaction need to factor into how we analyze and evaluate government spending. They must also push us to consider how resources can be invested differently to bring about healthier, more just and equal communities for all of us. Meegwetch, thank you.