Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my question is a follow-up to one I asked you in March regarding the secret outsourcing of the Canada Emergency Business Account, or CEBA, loans program to the consulting firm Accenture. When I originally asked you about this matter, it was believed that the Trudeau government paid Accenture $61 million to run the CEBA program. However, since then, further documents revealed to The Globe and Mail through an access to information request show that the amount paid was at least $146 million. The fact that the Trudeau government never disclosed these contracts tells Canadians everything they need to know about this government’s total lack of respect for their tax dollars.

Leader, you previously said that outside sources were used to provide benefits. With respect, that response did not answer my question. Why was the outsourcing of this program hidden from Canadians?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I actually don’t have the answer to your question, but I’m glad that at least some of the questions you asked here have been answered in the House of Commons. I invite you to share those answers with us for the benefit of all the senators present.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Liberal leader, my next question concerns Harrington Lake, the official retreat of the Prime Minister and your colleague. Harrington Lake has been in the news recently for costing taxpayers approximately $20,000 a month in upkeep.

Written Question No. 47 on the Senate’s Order Paper asks for information regarding the cost and timeline for renovations to the residences at Harrington Lake. It has been on the Order Paper since June 16, 2020 — approaching three years, leader. A month before I submitted my question, a similar question was put on the House of Commons Order Paper, and it was answered in July of 2020.

Leader, there is only one main difference between the House question and mine. I asked if the Prime Minister, his office or the Privy Council Office was involved in the decision to move and rebuild a residence called the farmhouse. Why doesn’t the Trudeau government want to answer this question?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I am not in a position to agree that it was hidden. I will have to look into the nature of those contracts. I am sorry you have not received an answer yet, but I will certainly do my best to get a better one for you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Congratulations to you and our colleagues for a wonderful event this morning on Bear Witness Day, which I was privileged to attend.

This is an important issue. Government has, as you underlined, made enormous efforts in this area, and that includes giving First Nations communities control over the provision of these services.

That said, the statistics to which you referred are preoccupying. I will have to make some inquiries, and I will certainly report back as soon as I can.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: This is a question to Senator Gold, please. It relates to announcements made recently about funding to deal with violence against Indigenous women and children.

The recent budget contained many ambitious promises, which are nice. However, implementation is what counts, and on this count the government track record is less than stellar. For example, this week, Ministers Miller and Hussen announced $103 million in funding for Indigenous women’s shelters. It is much needed, for sure, but this isn’t new money. It comes out of a $724‑million commitment previously made by the government in 2020, aimed at supporting Indigenous women and children facing gender-based violence. More than two and a half years later, it is reported that less than 5% of the original promised funds have been spent, without a single new shelter or house to show for it so far.

The need is acute. The danger is real. Indigenous women 15 years and older are 3.5 times more likely to experience violence than non-Indigenous women.

Perhaps the ministers should more properly announce, “We don’t have any new money, but we are finally going to start investing the money we already promised years ago.”

As our colleague Senator Audette stated in response, it is an ongoing search for justice. At the current pace, it will take decades to implement this violence-prevention strategy.

Senator Gold, will this glacial pace continue? When will we see accelerated spending to implement promises made years ago to increase the safety of Indigenous women and children?

An Hon. Senator: Shame.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for raising and underlining the importance of this issue. I don’t have the information as to why the spending to date has been as you have described it, and I won’t make assumptions as to the reasons. I will make inquiries so that I can give a proper response when I get an answer.

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

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the critic of Bill C-46.

In my second reading speech, I noted the following about this bill:

One: This is the government’s third attempt to provide Canadians with some relief from the cost of living.

Two: On their third try, the best they could do was a cookie-cutter approach with this bill, using a simple cut-and-paste from Bill C-30 and Bill C-19.

Three: The two previous attempts failed to reduce Canadians’ cost of living, and this one will fail as well.

Four: This government repeatedly slaps legislation together with no clearly articulated plan and no discernable strategy.

Five: This government demonstrates no understanding of how they have contributed to the cost-of-living crisis Canadians find themselves in today.

Six: This government repeatedly exhibits incompetence on a level which should alarm us all.

Colleagues, I would note that Finance Committee made no amendments to this bill and therefore all of my concerns stand. Despite the government’s enthusiastic announcements and self-congratulatory messaging, the measures taken in this bill continue to be far less effective than what the government portrays them to be.

I am not going to revisit in detail all of the points I have previously made. However, I would like to drill down further on at least one of them, and that is the absurdity of using the GST rebate system to provide a cost-of-living relief payment.

In my second reading speech, I noted that while this payment makes sense as a GST rebate, it is the wrong tool for getting money into the hands of those who need it most. The government loves to brag that they can get money out the door quickly by using this method, but what they do not bother to explain is who the money is actually going to.

This is where the problems begin: We don’t have a detailed breakdown of where this money is going. That’s why the government always says that the cheques are going to benefit “. . . approximately 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families across the country.” Even they don’t have an actual number.

The latest source of detailed information we have available is found in the 2020-21 Canada Revenue Agency statistics on the GST/HST credit benefit. These tables are available online and break down the benefit for that year by gender, by family income, by marital status, by the number of dependent children and by province. Based on this information, we can see roughly where the money for the so-called grocery rebate is going to go.

Colleagues, you would think that if the government is going to push $2.5 billion out the door to provide cost-of-living relief it would be directed to end up with those who need it most. It is not. Let me give you a few examples.

As has been mentioned a number of times both in this chamber and in the National Finance Committee, this money will only be disbursed to Canadians who file an income tax return. If you do not file a tax return, you are not eligible to be considered for the benefit at all.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, this bill is at day 15. Therefore, with leave of the Senate, I ask that consideration of this item be postponed until the next sitting of the Senate.

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

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: So ordered.

(Debate adjourned.)

[English]

On Other Business, Senate Public Bills, Second Reading, Order No. 26:

Second reading of Bill S-257, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting against discrimination based on political belief).

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, with leave, I would like to reset the clock.

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate postponed until the next sitting of the Senate.)

(At 4 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on September 21, 2022, the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.)

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 5-10(2), I ask that Government Notice of Motion No. 100 be withdrawn.

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