Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is to the Government Representative in the Senate. For a change of pace, it is about municipal-federal relationships.

City of Toronto councillors have written a letter to Parliament urging them not to adopt the recommendations from the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario, which would result in Toronto losing a riding. They have stated that this would dilute the city’s voice on Parliament Hill, which flies in the face of our democratic values, our ideals of fairness and our ability to make sure the residents of Toronto can reach their representative in Ottawa.

What is your government’s position on this redistribution plan?

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Senator Gold, I have been approached by community members at gatherings and events and have received countless emails and text messages regarding the wait times for visitor visas for Pakistan. According to the government’s website, for other countries in the region, it can be as little as 18 days. However, for Pakistan, it is 638 days for a visitor visa. I’ve been sent copies of applications, and my community is waiting for answers. People’s lives are on hold, and these wait times are totally unacceptable.

When will the Canadian visa office be shifted back to Pakistan to help expedite the processing time for visitor visas?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved second reading of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-46, also known as the cost of living relief act, no. 3.

The government introduced this bill following Budget 2023 to quickly implement measures that would help Canadian families cope with the increasing cost of living, and help provinces and territories deliver the high quality and timely health care Canadians both expect and deserve. The bill was adopted unanimously in the other place, with support from all parties, on April 19, 2023.

More precisely, Bill C-46 would deliver the new grocery rebate and a $2 billion Canada Health Transfer, or CHT, top-up to help reduce backlogs and wait times and to support paediatric hospitals and emergency rooms.

As we all know, with grocery prices going up, far too many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet.

[Translation]

In response to global inflation and rising costs, the government is providing much-needed help to Canadians to ensure that they can continue to put food on the table and pay their bills. Inflation in Canada was 8.1% in June 2022 and is now 4.3%, as Statistics Canada announced last week. Even though the rate is much lower than it was last year, it is still too high, and far too many Canadian families still need support.

As you probably read earlier this week, food inflation continued to outpace headline inflation in March. According to Statistics Canada’s latest consumer price index, the price of groceries increased by 9.7% last month, compared to the same period last year.

That is why the government is helping those who need it most with the grocery rebate. The one-time grocery rebate included in Bill C-46 is there to support the Canadians who have been hit hardest by the increase in the price of food.

[English]

This targeted inflation relief would provide about $2.5 billion for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who need it most. This would mean a one-time payment of up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children; up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children; and an extra $225 for seniors, on average. It is estimated that 9 million single people and 2 million couples will receive the rebate, including more than half of Canadian seniors.

Following the passage of Bill C-46, the grocery rebate would be delivered to eligible Canadians as soon as possible by direct deposit or cheque through the Canada Revenue Agency’s GST credit system.

[Translation]

Dear colleagues, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the health care system and the workers that keep it going are under enormous pressure. This situation was exacerbated by the pandemic, and immediate intervention is needed to provide better health care for Canadians.

Across the country, patients who need urgent medical attention are confronted with emergency rooms that are overflowing or even closed. People are waiting for surgeries that get either delayed or cancelled. The postponement of a good number of these procedures only makes the wait lists longer, which affects the health and quality of life of the people affected and their families.

Bill C-46 would transfer an additional $2-billion top-up to the Canada health transfer, as announced in February, to alleviate these immediate pressures on provincial and territorial health care systems, including the pressures on children’s hospitals and emergency rooms. The provinces and territories asked for more money, and the federal government is honouring its commitments by making more investments.

[English]

This CHT top-up is an additional, incremental investment, and builds on the $6.5 billion in previous one-time top-ups provided through the pandemic to address immediate health system pressures. The block funding structure of the CHT provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to invest the funds according to the needs and priorities of their residents. However, funds would be expected to respect the conditions of the Canada Health Act, including those respecting universality, comprehensiveness, portability, accessibility and public administration.

This investment is part of the government’s $198.3-billion plan to improve health care results for Canadians, to which nine provinces have already agreed in principle. In exchange for the new funding under the government’s plan, the provinces and territories must commit to not diverting health care funding of their own, and commit to improving how health information is shared, used and reported to Canadians in order to help manage public health emergencies and deliver better health outcomes.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw all levels of governments working together across the country to tackle big challenges. Bill C-46 demonstrates a willingness to continue to work in collaboration with the provinces and territories on the next steps in the best interest of Canadians, their families and health care workers. This will allow the delivery of concrete outcomes for Canadians, and improve the health care system that Canadians value and upon which Canadians depend.

Honourable senators, Bill C-46 will help support Canadians with the high cost of groceries, while improving access to the better health care that Canadians expect and deserve. Canadians need the government to continue delivering targeted support to those who need it the most — when they need it the most — while also remaining careful and proven fiscal managers.

Many of you, with good reason, will ask if government spending at this time can — or will — accentuate pressures on inflation. Honourable senators, a government must account for a variety of factors before intervening in the economy — this includes being especially attentive to the most vulnerable members of society, and acting in such a way as to allow actors in the market to innovate and develop efficiencies. There is a balance to be struck, and the government is doing just that. This is not only an assessment that I share, or the position of the government, but, more importantly, it is one shared by the Governor of the Bank of Canada as well.

Commenting on the government’s spending in a recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Finance in the other place, Mr. Macklem stated:

. . . government spending patterns aren’t contributing to the slowing of the economy, they’re not contributing to the easing of inflationary pressures, but they’re not standing in the way of getting inflation back to target and in our projections which incorporate those measures, we have inflation coming back to target.

Honourable senators, there is no doubt that strengthening Canada’s public health care system — and ensuring better health care outcomes for Canadians across the country — is critical at this time. Bill C-46 will facilitate much-needed targeted inflation relief, and strengthen our public health care system at a time when provincial and territorial governments are eager to receive additional financial support.

Honourable senators, I thank you for your attention, and I hope we can adopt this bill as soon as possible. Thank you for your kind attention.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The Constitution, as you know, requires a review of the federal election map every decade to reflect the changes in our population. This process — this redistribution — is completely independent and non-partisan. It is conducted by the electoral boundaries commissions that are appointed at arm’s length from the government. But the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act does provide a process for members of Parliament to raise concerns about proposed changes.

My understanding is that the Procedure and House Affairs Committee in the other place is currently considering these objections that you raised in respect of Ontario.

I believe Canadians can continue to have confidence in our electoral boundaries process. It is recognized around the world as a model of fairness and of our democratic values.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill C-46, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Despite all the time that has passed, it is always appropriate to pay tribute to the victims of this tragic and horrific attack, which hits close to home for me. I hope that everyone in this chamber and in Canada feels moved by what happened.

The Government of Canada received the request for extradition. It is being examined, and the decision will be communicated to the public as soon as it has been made.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Gold, I’m interested in a provision included within the budget that speaks to the possibility of employee ownership. It provides the structure for a group of employees to buy out a small company — in many cases where the owner is retiring and is going to sell the company.

We’ve heard from people who have worked on developing that proposal that similar provisions exist in the U.K., the U.S. and other places, and that they are very effective in drawing future and more investment into the economy, as well as effective in boosting the economy. However, there needs to be a series of incentives that are in there for the benefit of the owner who is selling. Otherwise, it is “sell today and get your money today.” If it will be paid over a period of time, which employee ownership provisions allow for, there has to be an incentive for this to work most effectively for the owner, for the employees and for the economy.

Can you comment on the government’s position with respect to such incentives? They are not included in the bill, and it is not clear to us that the provision will be effective without them.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, perhaps I missed it, but what did you say the total cost of this particular bill is?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Colleagues, we will have some decorum, and we will continue this debate.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Government leader, no one is questioning the validity of a grocery rebate at a time when this government has created or helped create such great inflation, and Canadians are suffering, but we have seen time and time again in this place that when you pass legislation with all the best intent in the world that legislation isn’t clear and transparent in giving directives to those that are going to apply this particular bill and apply this particular program with clear regulations.

We are just asking if it wouldn’t make sense to have some regulations and guidelines to make sure that all these billions of dollars would go to a grocery rebate and not to a hardware store rebate.

And there is nothing wrong for people in need who might need tools, Senator Cardozo, but there is something wrong when you take a government program, and then it is used, for example, to go on a vacation or to buy accessories for an automobile or to buy sporting goods, for example, for entertainment and sports reasons.

Would the government leader agree that we need to attach to the title of this bill clear guidance to make sure that all the money goes for grocery rebates and nothing else?

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

The impetus for providing assistance to Canadians was very much a function of the rising cost of groceries, a rise that continued even when global inflation came down through the combination of efforts of the Bank of Canada, the government and the operation of our economy more generally.

It is not misleading to identify this particular assistance as a grocery rebate, because that was really what was at the heart of it.

However, what the government chose to do was to deliver it in the most efficient, effective and dignified way to those Canadians and households — half of Canadian seniors — with moderate incomes.

It would be wrong to ask people who are struggling to pay their bills to not only continue to struggle but to keep their IGA clips for their litres of milk. This is the most efficient and quick way to get it into the hands of Canadians who need it most. It is designed to help them with the cost of groceries, and this government’s position is that it would be completely wrong to demand that; we’re not talking about huge sums of money. This is a prudent and practical way to assist, in some measure, those households. Nobody believes that this will solve the problem of the rising cost of groceries, whether it is a family of one, a single person or a family of five. It is help that the government can afford to provide and is happy to provide.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Senator Gold, we are talking about the grocery rebate, and I have to tell you that on my street the other day, I saw a senior go to Canadian Tire and buy a lot of tools. They could have used their grocery rebate to buy the tools, but I was looking at him, and he looked pretty healthy to me — well-fed. I am assuming he had eaten and that he had bought groceries as of late.

Is the government going to say he should not be eating because he bought some tools, or can he use the grocery rebate to rebate the groceries he bought, the prices of which are going up astronomically?

Do they apply to the groceries that he bought?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Order.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

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

This government is of the view that Canadians make responsible choices in their lives and that it is not the business of government to tell them what to do.

It is the business of government to help Canadians when they are in need, and in this regard, the position of this government is the same as the traditional position — or at least the position of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and, I would hope, the Conservative Party of Canada of today — and that is that we trust Canadians to make responsible decisions when they are given the benefit of either assistance or tax breaks.

We trust Canadians. We know that those who are in need will use the money responsibly for their families, and in this moment in time in our country, they need help putting food on their tables.

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Senator Brazeau, would you take a question?

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for spelling that out.

Am I correct that of those five Indigenous organizations you spoke of, four are included in this bill on the council, but the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is not? I also believe that they were inserted as an amendment at one point in the House of Commons process, and then, all of a sudden, I think that amendment was taken out. Could you shed a little bit of light on that?

As well, could you tell us your understanding of the approximate number of people that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents? Thank you.

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Honourable senators, we’re already on Bill C-29, so we are moving at lightning speed here.

I have just a couple of comments on Bill C-29. In the preamble, it states:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership . . . .

Colleagues, that sounds very nice. Those are beautiful words. I have seen this before and I have seen it too often.

If we move along to clause 10 of the proposed bill, we have the proposed directors of the board of this new organization, namely representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

Colleagues, the last time that I checked, there were five recognized and funded national Indigenous organizations in Canada. I don’t know if it’s by design or just a simple omission, but there is no proposition to have on this board any member of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which I used to lead as national chief.

Like I said, section 35 of the Constitution gives us a definition of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. It says that the term “aboriginal peoples of Canada includes . . .” — is not limited to, but includes — “. . . the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.”

Now, it doesn’t say that these peoples are going to be represented specifically by Indigenous organizations.

Colleagues, for those who don’t know, on June 11, 2008, the former government and the former prime minister offered an apology in the House of Commons. I was able to be there, along with four other Indigenous leaders at the time.

On June 12, 2008, the next day, Indigenous leaders were to give speeches in the Senate — on the original Senate floor. Colleagues, I had to fight my way to make sure that I was able to speak the next day because we were not on the list. The Senate at the time had to introduce a motion to allow the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to speak.

I do not know what is going on with political parties, but they are playing partisanship politics with Indigenous peoples. There will be a time where I will speak more in depth about the political relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada since Confederation. But, colleagues, I think that when this bill goes to committee, it is absolutely necessary that the Minister of Indian Affairs appear before the committee — not bureaucrats — and tell us why they have excluded one of the national Indigenous organizations, one that has been in existence since 1971.

For those of you who do not know, we often talk about the “big three” organizations: the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council. Well, colleagues, the Métis National Council came out of what was originally called the Native Council of Canada, which is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples today. Many of the people who are on the Métis National Council today broke off from the Native Council of Canada in the 1980s.

I will just remind you, colleagues, that, in my view, being a former elected Indigenous leader of an organization in this country, there are five organizations, and it is up to the minister to tell us why he has excluded one of them. If there is an exclusion of one recognized Indigenous organization, I fail to see how there is any respect, cooperation or partnership here.

At the end of the day, these organizations are not the organizations that are going to be negotiating nation-to-nation partnerships with the Government of Canada. They don’t have that right. They are Indigenous organizations, so this nation-to-nation concept is not going to happen with those organizations. The nation-to-nation concept will happen with the Algonquin nation, the Mi’kmaq nation, et cetera.

To conclude, these five Indigenous organizations — four, in particular — were created because of the 1969 white paper that was introduced by the current Prime Minister’s father. We must not forget that these organizations are also funded by the Government of Canada. It is unfortunate that I have to say this, but if these organizations decide not to play ball with the government of the day, sometimes they are punished. I certainly hope this is not the case for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. They are one of the recognized organizations, and they deserve to be there. If they are not there, hopefully we’ll hear from the minister as to exactly what the reason or reasons are why this organization, which has been around since 1971, has not been included. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 6:54 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 2, 2023, at 2 p.m.)