Senator Gold: — looks forward to the constructive engagement of the opposition parties to chart a path forward.

[Translation]

Senator Gignac: Thank you, Senator Gold. I understand that CPP Investments is independent of the political power, and I respect that.

In my opinion, Canadians have the right to know more about the nature of the investments that their retirement plan is making abroad. That would help us to validate not only the carbon footprint of those investments, but also their tax footprint and democratic footprint, given that they’re being made in many countries that don’t really respect the rules of law, human rights and tax fairness. Senator Gold, don’t you think it is time for the Minister of Finance to require CPP Investments and other public sector pension plans in Canada to provide more information and to be more transparent about their activities abroad?

Senator Plett: Thank you very much for that question, and I think that you make a wonderful point. But I’m the critic of this bill so I have not given that any consideration. You would have to ask Senator Kutcher at an opportunity or maybe at committee. But I think that you make a very legitimate point in what you said, Senator Anderson, and that should be considered.

Senator Batters: Senator Omidvar, your Recommendation 2 talks about “targeting populations that are currently overrepresented in Canada’s suicide rates . . . . ” In that short list, your committee included “persons with mental illnesses.”

Senator Batters: Senator Omidvar, your Recommendation 2 talks about “targeting populations that are currently overrepresented in Canada’s suicide rates . . . . ” In that short list, your committee included “persons with mental illnesses.”

Senator Omidvar, another fact noted in that 2010 commercial I mentioned was that 90% of those who die by suicide have mental illness, so it’s not a subset of suicide deaths in Canada. This is nearly the entire group of suicide deaths in Canada.

Why did your committee include that in your targeted demographic list?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Batters, I understand what you’re saying. Mental health is likely an underlying cause for suicides, regardless of which population they are in. I take your point, but I believe the committee did recognize the importance of mental illness as a condition, and we’ve noted it in the recommendation.

If you have not found it to your satisfaction, in retrospect, I wish you had been called as a witness; that would have helped. Hopefully, the next time we study this matter, we will remember to do so.

(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 Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

Senator Downe: Yes.

Senator Plett: Again, as I said to Senator McPhedran, the courts have decided that. They have come out with it. You and I do not need to decide that. The courts have decided it for us.

Senator Plett: Again, hiding the cost. Why not just answer my question? Why not get the information? Answer the questions you are asked. You say that we are partisan and that we are frustrating to you. Yet, you refuse to answer any of our questions. You do not even come close.

On May 24, Minister Guilbeault promised the four Atlantic premiers that he would provide them with information in two weeks, leader, about how much of a burden the Prime Minister’s second carbon tax will be on their people. Those two weeks have come and gone, yet the provinces are still looking for answers from the Trudeau government. Leader, July 1 is just around the corner. Minister Guilbeault must know how much the second carbon tax will cost Canadians — or does he? Is he simply flying by the seat of his pants? Why hasn’t he had the courtesy to provide the information to the premiers, as promised? Why don’t you have the courtesy to give us the answers?

Why hasn’t your government had the sense to cancel this punitive and inflationary carbon tax?

Senator Wells: Understood, Your Honour. As I wait for the motion to be returned to me, I will explain to Senator Dupuis and, of course, to all our colleagues that there was agreement that the bill be referred to the Agriculture Committee as the lead committee and to the Energy Committee as the secondary committee. In the note that was given to me it said the Finance Committee, but I know there was agreement that it would not go there.

If you’d like me to read that section again, I’d be happy to do so, Your Honour. I’ll read the three sections.

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, if Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, is adopted at second reading:

1.it stand referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry;

2.the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill; and

3.the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to take into account, during its consideration of the bill, any public documents and public evidence received by the committee authorized to study the subject matter of the bill, as well as any report from that committee to the Senate on the subject matter of the bill.

Colleagues, as I said, the Finance Committee was removed from the original draft, and the agreement that we have with all parties is that it be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, with, obviously, assistance — more than assistance — from the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Senator Wallin: When we are told about increasing penalties for smugglers from 10 to 14 years, it sounds great. But today, right now, no one has ever been given the maximum penalty of even 10 years, so 14 years makes no difference. Senator Plett suggested the other day that perhaps there was one such case, but we’re not sure.

Legislation and governments must turn their attention to the people who are constantly in and out of the system, who have firearms prohibitions against them but too often get cut loose in a few hours after an arrest. Chances are the bad guys have more firearms — or access to them — and they just go get more and often end up retaliating against the people involved in their arrest or conviction.

Since 2015, the “soft-on-crime” approach has seen violent crime increase 32%, with 124,000 more violent crime incidents in 2021 compared to 2015, and gang-related homicides have increased 92%.

As we all know, crime is about people who commit the crime. Confiscating guns or knives — knives are now actually responsible for an increasing number of deaths — will not prevent this. A tire iron, a kitchen knife or a fist can kill if that’s the intent.

Government also disingenuously uses the endless horrific and deadly gun-related events south of the border to trigger the gun control debate here — a Uvalde or a Buffalo — but we’re operating in two completely different environments.

Bill C-21 does not meaningfully address the root causes of gun violence: illegal smuggling, gang violence, illegal drug trade and drug addiction. We need to focus on rehabilitation, not red tape.

Hon. Éric Forest: Colleagues, the housing crisis is very real. Affordable housing is in terribly short supply everywhere. The real estate market situation is just as bad. It’s incredibly difficult for our young people to become homeowners when the average cost of a mortgage was 34% of disposable household income in the Montreal area in 2022, compared to 20% in 2016.

According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we need 3.5 million units by 2030 to restore balance in the market. Quebec alone needs 1.13 million units, 620,000 more than anticipated.

To address this huge challenge, all three levels of government absolutely have to work together. It’s important to remember that the federal and provincial governments have been, for the most part, disengaged from social housing construction since the 1990s.

We know homelessness and inadequate housing are problems in big cities. That’s a tragedy in and of itself. The housing crisis is also having an economic impact on our regions. For example, in Rimouski, hundreds of students won’t be able to go to university in 2023 for lack of available housing. How can anyone attract skilled workers or health care workers when the vacancy rate is 0.4% and the housing market is overheated?

There can be no doubt that the municipal officials facing this reality on a daily basis are struggling to find solutions. The right to housing is a fundamental right. It is important that all sectors involved work together. It is also important to recognize that municipalities have a central and critical role to play because they are responsible for land use.

Beyond funding, I think it is essential, for example, that municipal taxation be amended so as to encourage urban intensification and to make it easier for municipalities to purchase land. They could then promote real estate projects for non-speculative purposes. Instead of threatening municipalities and cracking down on them, we should be supporting them.

In that sense, the new Housing Accelerator Fund announced in Budget 2022 was deployed this summer and is proving to be a first step in the right direction, particularly to induce change towards the urban intensification that is needed. With an envelope of $4 billion, this fund will finance municipal action plans to rapidly increase the housing supply. A municipality that relaxes its bylaws to promote secondary suites, for example, could receive funding, provided that this relaxation actually translates into concrete results.

Madam Speaker, we’re currently experiencing an unprecedented housing crisis. It requires an unprecedented response. Without additional funding, regulatory flexibility and the cooperation of all public and private players, this problem will never be solved.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Gold: I thank the senator for his suggestion. I will bring it to the minister’s attention.

That being said, I’d simply like to point out that the Canada Pension Plan and the public sector pension plans are subject to their own acts of Parliament, which have been amended many times by various Parliaments.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the questions. I’ll certainly add that to the inquiries I undertake to make.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I realize the government is considering it. Officials may be doing likewise, but governments in some jurisdictions, such as Louisiana, Germany, France and Great Britain, have taken action to protect children by passing legislation. Why is our government silent on such a serious public health issue?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your questions. As I have stated before in this chamber, there’s no doubt that the allegations that have swirled around the issue of foreign interference have caused harm and discomfort, to say the least, to members of the diaspora community. That is the reason why the government is proceeding in a prudent and responsible way. By having proper investigations by the RCMP — which works at arm’s length from the government — matters can be dealt with on the basis of facts, and not allegations and innuendoes. The Government of Canada is committed to doing the right thing for those organizations if it turns out that the allegations are unfounded. I’m not in a position right now to know, much less respond, with regard to the issue of potential remedies.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: I would point out that the CPP Investment website clearly states the following:

Our accountability is ultimately to our stewards — the federal Finance Minister and the Finance Ministers of the participating provinces.

It also states that the “annual report is tabled in Parliament by the Federal Finance Minister.” We are Parliament, and your government is the Minister of Finance. I think Senator Gignac is absolutely right to make this proposal, and I think it’s unacceptable for a federal board to use tax havens.

Senator Woo: Senator Gold, in the meantime, there are organizations and individuals who have been maligned by these accusations. They have had their funding cut for services that provide language training and settlement for immigrants. They remain under a cloud, and they continue to be slandered by the media and by others, including some in our own Parliament.

Senator Gold, what can the minister do to provide some support for these organizations that have not been charged with anything — where the evidence from other countries suggests that the so-called police stations are a hoax? What is the government going to do to provide some remedies for organizations that are under siege?

Senator Martin: The delayed answer I received indicates that $208 million will not be the final amount that Canadian taxpayers will provide Accenture to administer the CEBA program. The answer states:

Given Accenture’s role in CEBA to provide ongoing technology services, EDC expects a Maintenance and Support contract to be negotiated to support ongoing collection activities.

Leader, how much more money does the Trudeau government estimate Accenture will receive for the CEBA loans collection? Do you commit to being transparent with Parliament and taxpayers about these future costs? As well, could you tell us why Export Development Canada chose Accenture in the first place, and why the contracts were sole sourced?

Senator Housakos: Can you please tell the chamber what data you have? What evidence is there that members of any political party have found intrusions or misuse of their data? Where is the evidence that there has been abuse? Have there been formal complaints? Have there been numerous complaints? Have complaints been filed with the Privacy Commissioner?

As much as your speech was interesting, what are the remedies you’re proposing? From my understanding of the speech and given the fact it’s dealing with Bill C-47, there are no remedies. Am I wrong?

Senator C. Deacon: In terms of the evidence of intrusions or complaints, the Privacy Commissioner made it clear he has no jurisdiction here. He has no legal authority to engage. That’s a problem.

I look at it and say I don’t understand the reasons why political parties don’t see it appropriate to obtain consent from their members and others they gather data from and to be transparent about how those data are used. I turn it around and say: What is the problem? Why is that not happening? Why is that being rebuffed? What is anybody worried about here in a political party that they wouldn’t want to build trust with their constituents and potential constituents about how they use their data? That’s the way I look at it.

In terms of the remedies in this chamber, we all know that the budget implementation act — the BIA — has been amended in the past. That’s a fact. It was amended at the request of the Minister of Finance, I think in 2016, and at the will of the chamber there was an amendment put forward in 2017 that was rejected by the House. So it has happened. Whether that’s the way to go or if there’s another way to go, I look at it and say this is a real issue. This is an issue that, at this point, the House does not seem to be at all interested in addressing.

The political parties have rebuffed — I find it amazing — their own elected members on the Ethics Committee, two officers of Parliament who repeatedly say this is a priority for Canadians to maintain confidence in our electoral system. I don’t know what the remedies are, Senator Housakos; I’m sorry.

Senator Marshall: Thank you to all my colleagues.

I wanted to talk about the Canada Health Transfer, because there’s an extra $2 billion provided for under Division 8 of Part 4 of the bill. It’s being disbursed to all the provinces and territories on a per capita basis. We talked earlier about the economy, and I was talking about the food banks and about people finding it difficult to pay for their rent and mortgages. I know on one side we have a group saying the economy is doing fine, but there’s another group that is really struggling.

For the Canada Health Transfer, the introduction to Chapter 2 of the budget starts with this sentence:

Canadians are proud of our universal publicly funded health care system. No matter how much money you make, or where you were born, or what your parents do, you will receive the care you need.

But we now know that’s not true. Our universal health care system is not accessible to many Canadians. In fact, many Canadians are saying that our health care system has collapsed and is in crisis. Healthy Debate, which publishes journalism about health care in Canada, conducted a survey between September and October of last year, which included more than 9,000 responses across the country. Results from the survey estimated that more than one in five Canadians — this is a big number: 6.5 million people — do not have a family physician or nurse practitioner they can see regularly for care. That’s true, because I’m one of those people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The survey found that the situation is particularly bleak in some parts of the country — in British Columbia, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, where approximately 30% of adults, or one in three, report not having a family doctor or nurse practitioner. But the percentage is better in Ontario, because they say only about 13% don’t have a family doctor or nurse practitioner.

But 21% of those without a family doctor had to pay a fee, and the survey indicated that some people may be paying for primary care services. I assure you that some people are actually paying for primary care services that should be covered under the Canada Health Act, adding to the debate of a two-tiered health care system in Canada.

Emergency rooms are full as Canadians queue up to obtain medical care, waiting for long hours. In some communities, emergency rooms have closed and ambulance services are sporadic. A trip to the emergency department or health clinic requires you to bring a pillow, a blanket and a lunch.

Over the past 30 years, the Fraser Institute has regularly assessed the state of health care in Canada. I spoke about their report last year, but they’ve completed a more recent one.

In December of last year, specialist physicians surveyed reported a median wait time of 27.4 weeks from the time of referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment, which exceeded the wait time of 25.6 weeks reported in 2021 and the 20.9 weeks reported in 2019. So this year’s wait time is the longest wait time recorded in the survey’s 30-year history, and is 195% longer than in 1993 when it was just 9.3 weeks.

Canadians also had to wait for various diagnostic technologies. This year, Canadians can expect to wait 5.4 weeks for a CT scan, 10.6 weeks for an MRI and 4.9 weeks for an ultrasound.

Division 8 of Part 4 of Bill C-47 authorizes the Minister of Health to provide an additional $2 billion to the 10 provinces and 3 territories allocated, as I said earlier, on a per capita basis to address urgent pressures in emergency rooms, operating rooms and pediatric hospitals. New funding of $46.2 billion will also be provided over the next 10 years in addition to the $195.8 billion in health transfers.

I have to say that Chapter 3 of the budget book outlines the funding. There’s a graph there, and I’ve been trying for quite a while to get the numbers associated with that graph because the lines aren’t legible. So I can’t give you an idea as to what is increasing in what year, but I did add it up and there is new funding of $46.2 billion indicated. However, health care professionals are saying that the extra money isn’t enough to fix health care and is not enough to bring fundamental change to the health care system.

Last year, the Fraser Institute released a report that compared the performance of Canada’s health care system relative to its international peers. The report studied the cost of health care systems along with the provision of health care services. The provision of health care services focused on the availability, use and access to resources, along with clinical performance and quality.

All of the indicators used by the institute for the report are either publicly available or derived from publicly available data from the OECD, the Commonwealth Fund and the World Health Organization. To be considered a participant in the study, each country has to be a member of the OECD, must have universal or near-universal coverage for core medical services and must be classified as a high-income country by the World Bank. Of the 37 OECD countries —