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

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Senator Martin: Thank you for making that inquiry. As we mark this fifty-fifth anniversary, I think that, at a minimum, what should be done — if it is not being done already — is a feasibility study. If there are details on the feasibility of establishing a Canadian embassy in Bulgaria, that would be very helpful. Leader, would you also check whether such a study has been conducted and, if not, is this something we could request at this time?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Marshall: Yes.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Marshall, will you take a question?

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

[English]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill C-6, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

She said: Honourable senators, I move that the bill be read the third time.

[English]

Senator Gold: With regard to what other plans the government may have, I will certainly make inquiries and report back.

The Hon. the Speaker: If you are opposed to leave, say “no.” So ordered.

Senator Batters, do you have a question?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I ask for leave that the order for second reading of Bill S-3 be discharged from the Order Paper and the bill withdrawn.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. Although the government remains convinced that we had precedence on our side for introducing both Bill S-2 and Bill S-3, as we did with the appropriations clause given the statement of the Speaker in the other place, the Government of Canada decided the most efficient and responsible way to move Bill S-3, the Judges Act, forward is to introduce it as a C-bill with a Royal Recommendation in the House of Commons.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, with respect, I have a more important question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate in the few precious minutes that we are allotted for this privilege each day.

Senator Gold, the COVID-19 pandemic has clearly demonstrated the need for much better connectivity for all Canadians. From education to health care, connectivity allows those living outside urban cores access to high-quality public services. An important part of the government’s commitment to connecting every Canadian to high-speed internet is the next spectrum auction. The spectrum auction will be useful in connecting northern, rural and remote communities. It is a public good auctioned by our government. It should be used for the betterment of Canadians, not left to sit without connecting vast parts of our country, which is unfortunately often the case. For various reasons, not all carriers are deploying their spectrum to connect communities.

So with respect to the next auction set to take place in 2023, Senator Gold, what actions will the government take to ensure that carriers build the infrastructure needed to deliver wireless internet when they buy spectrum, instead of not deploying their spectrum and even, in some cases, holding on to spectrum and then selling it at a profit years later?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I will make inquiries and be happy to report back when I get an answer.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. As co-chair of the Canada-Bulgaria Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group, I am well aware of the strong ties that have developed over the past 55 years of diplomatic relations between our two countries. However, there is no Canadian embassy in Bulgaria. Currently, the mission for the region is in Bucharest, Romania. Bucharest is 464 kilometres away — a seven-hour drive — from Bulgaria’s capital, Sofia. That is a one-hour non-stop flight, or four-and-a-half hours with a connection. This can be very inconvenient for Canadians and Bulgarians needing emergency consular assistance or passport services while in Bulgaria.

Leader, given that we are the only G7 country that doesn’t have an official presence in Sofia, Bulgaria, what is the Government of Canada’s position on establishing an embassy there? Is this something that your government is actively considering?

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

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

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold, the government leader in the Senate.

Canadians are starting to learn that the Trudeau government has set a record — a record that had stood for more than 18 years. Unfortunately, that record is an inflation rate of 4.7%, which is making gasoline, furniture, food and clothing very difficult for middle-class and particularly poor Canadians to be able to manage. Furthermore, Canadians are learning that, this fall, food costs in this country are at the highest levels they’ve been in many years.

While the inflation rate has grown to 4.7%, the average income for Canadians over that same time period has only grown by 2.8%, making it difficult for Canadians to stretch their paycheques to get the bare necessities. It’s becoming unaffordable for Canadians to survive.

My question is very simple, government leader, especially given the fact that the financial statement tabled yesterday clearly said to expect higher inflation in the future, so the government not only has a solution but they’re quite pessimistic about what’s around the corner. My question is this: How much more does the Trudeau government think the average Canadian family can afford to pay going forward?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation]