Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: I think the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Those in favour of the motion, please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will be held at 2:14 p.m. Call in the senators.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Fifteen minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker: I think the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Bev Busson moved third reading of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, as amended.

She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to take the floor once more to speak to you about Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

This bill has recently returned to this chamber following the study by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

I first want to thank the Department of Justice for their timely support, along with my amazing staff. I also need to thank all the senators of our committee for their comprehensive analysis of the bill and for their engagement with the bill’s important objectives, especially Senator Boisvenu, the critic, for his strong and compassionate commitment to championing the issues around sexual offences and intimate partner violence referenced so forcefully and emotionally on this special day of remembrance for him.

The committee made a number of amendments, which were reviewed in detail in a long and deliberative Monday evening meeting during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Some of these amendments were drafted by the government in collaboration with key stakeholders, many of whom testified at committee earlier this month. Others were proposed by individual senators. All, I believe, were part of a collective effort to strengthen the bill. Despite differences of opinion expressed, I remain strongly supportive of this legislation as a whole and urge senators to pass this legislation at third reading.

I will remind you all that because this government bill has originated here in the Senate, it will then be up to our colleagues in the other place to conduct their own thorough study of the bill after we hopefully present it to them as amended.

Bill S-12 responds to the 2022 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down elements of the National Sex Offender Registry. In particular, it struck down the law that required judges to order all offenders to register, regardless of their risk level — thus violating the offenders’ Charter rights under section 7 — as being overly broad and not connected to the goals of the legislation.

The bill addresses this concern and also contains elements that would strengthen the sex offender registration regime to ensure it continues to be an effective tool for police, such as increasing the registrant’s obligation to report their intention to travel internationally from no advance warning to 14 days.

As mentioned in my second reading speech, these reforms do carry some urgency. If this bill is not enacted by October 28 of this year, courts will no longer be able to order offenders to comply with the National Sex Offender Registry. This will seriously undermine its effectiveness in protecting our most vulnerable citizens and thus negatively affect public confidence in the justice system.

I can’t overemphasize the seriousness of this situation, and hope that you are committed to acting with the necessary urgency required to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision that automatic registration for all individuals convicted of or found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder for a designated sexual offence is unconstitutional. The bill proposes judicial discretion in the form of a rebuttable presumption of registration.

In other words, a court must order registration on the sex offender registry unless the offender can demonstrate that their registration would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest or that their registration would not be connected to the purpose of the act.

It further proposes to retain automatic registration in two circumstances, namely, for repeat sexual offenders and for those who commit sexual offences against children in cases where the Crown proceeds by indictment.

I would like to take a moment to discuss in a bit more detail the policy rationale for why automatic registration should still be preserved in these two particular cases.

As a result of the decision in Ndhlovu, some judicial discretion was reintroduced in the sex offender registration regime in order to bring it into compliance with the Charter. That said, the government has been very deliberate in its efforts to put forward the most targeted and specific reforms possible while respecting the Supreme Court’s decision.

The two specific categories of offenders for which registration would be automatic reflect current social science evidence that demonstrates that these categories of individuals — namely repeat offenders and offenders who prey on children — are at a higher risk to reoffend.

In the view of the government, this represents a balanced and constitutional approach to automatic registration and responds to the Supreme Court’s concerns. The proposed enactment of a rebuttable presumption for all other offenders, including for those who commit sexual offences against women, would only direct courts to exempt an offender from registration if the offender could demonstrate it would unduly impact their rights under the Charter. I know that some of us would like to go further, but I believe the bill strikes the right balance and will ensure that the sex offender registry meets the Supreme Court’s benchmark and remains a valuable and constitutional tool for law enforcement to prevent and investigate crimes of a sexual nature.

The goal of this rebuttable presumption is to ensure registration except in the rare cases where registration would not be connected to the objective of helping police services prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature.

Another amendment made by the committee would ensure the application to offenders who are on the registry because of an offence committed abroad. As previously introduced, the bill contained a limitation that unintentionally limited the ability of some offenders from applying for relief. The amendment would ensure that these individuals would be able to apply to be exempt from registration in certain circumstances.

The bill also proposes a number of measures that would empower victims of crime through changes to the rules governing publication bans and a victims’ right to information.

A change was made by the committee to the publication ban provisions relating to the bill’s initial proposals to add the words “otherwise made available” to the list of conduct that is prohibited by the publication ban. There were strong concerns that this vague language might be construed as prohibiting the victim from discussing or communicating with their family, friends or therapist, and was removed from the text completely by an amendment. It also addressed concerns regarding material that’s in place from a prior publication ban.

Honourable senators, the objectives of the proposed reforms to the publication ban regime have received significant attention from victims’ and survivors’ groups and stakeholders across the country. The government, as well as the committee, focused specifically on the proposal that reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the victim takes an active part in the imposition of a publication ban and in the process by which a publication ban could be revoked or varied.

The committee heard the informed and impassioned testimony of witnesses at committee, including from Suzanne Zaccour, Head of Feminist Law Reform at the National Association of Women and the Law; Morrell Andrews of My Voice, My Choice; and Pam Hrick, Executive Director and General Counsel at LEAF, amongst others.

Committee members heard from these witnesses that we must do better in listening to what victims and survivors of crime are advocating for. While many want the anonymity of a publication ban, others, for a variety of reasons, feel that they should have the power to decide whether or not their identities and their stories will be known, thus empowering them to regain the agency and control that had previously been taken from them by the original offences they suffered.

As a result of this feedback, the committee adopted a number of amendments related to these elements of the bill. First, these amendments build on the bill’s proposals that sought to ensure that victims were more directly involved in decisions concerning the imposition of a publication ban and any subsequent variation or revocation. Words like “consult with the victim” are now replaced with stronger language that directs the prosecutor to ascertain the victims’ wishes, using clearer language that sets out specific requirements for both the prosecutor and the court in regard to the imposition and variance of a ban.

In addition, the bill responds to concerns around victims being unable to share their stories with their loved ones. Some had argued that the current legal framework is paternalistic and interferes with the autonomy of victims to make their own choices. As amended, the bill addresses these varying concerns in a number of other ways, including ensuring that there is a clear and obvious path to having publication bans revoked and varied, a path that gives primacy to the interests of victims; clarifying that publication bans do not apply to certain conduct of victims and witnesses, including the sharing of information about one’s case where it is not done for the purpose of making the information known to the public; and making clear that prosecutions are only possible against persons who are the subject of a publication ban and who have allegedly breached it where they have knowingly compromised the privacy of another person who is the subject of a ban and where a warning is not appropriate.

In confirming that a publication ban is solely for the benefit of a victim or witness, the committee addressed the potential role of any accused in any proceedings for the future and in the process of a publication ban being varied or revoked. To that end, committee members made amendments to the bill that reflected that the applicant would not be required to notify the accused, nor would the accused be allowed to make representations during any varying or revocation process. Additionally, if the publication ban is modified or revoked, it is the prosecutor, not the victim, who would be required to inform the accused of this fact.

Clauses in Bill S-12 that reinforce the victim’s right to be informed by Correctional Service Canada officials when the accused’s situation of incarceration has changed remain an important part of the bill and were retained by the committee.

Honourable senators, this is an important piece of legislation made better by our careful study. I urge everyone to support its enactment as quickly as possible. Quite simply, the stakes for the victims, both now and in the future, are too high, and we cannot afford to delay. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-12 at third reading. In my second reading speech on the bill, I explained the historical genesis of the Supreme Court ruling which found that it was unconstitutional to put sexual offenders on the sex offender registry automatically and without appeal or recourse. I also explained the reasons why victims and survivors of sexual assault who choose to speak publicly should be allowed to do so. Therefore, today, I shan’t “chew my cabbage twice.” I will, instead, concentrate on one specific problematic phrase in the bill, which we unanimously agreed to delete at committee.

The phrase sounds innocuous. It was simply the words “otherwise made available.” Let me read you those three words in the context of Bill S-12.

. . . a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or witness shall not be published in any document, broadcast or transmitted in any way —

— or otherwise made available —

— if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

Today, I want to explain why the addition of those three little words amounted to a delicate stealth assault on press freedom, one that could have put even more people — reporters, librarians, survivors — at risk of criminal prosecution for breaching publication bans.

Given that one of the ostensible arguments for this bill was that it would give sexual assault victims back their voices and some measure of autonomy, how did this problematic phrase slip into Bill S-12? Well, that starts with another Alberta legal case. Let me warn you, if you are listening here live or online, the case involves the murder and sexual assault of a child.

On Friday, March 4, 2016, the body of a 14-year-old girl was found in an apartment in the town of Edson, Alberta. The Grade 9 student had been smothered, stabbed and sexually assaulted. The story was horrifying and received wide media coverage. The girl’s mother and schoolmates also posted widely about their loss on social media. The CBC in Edmonton published its own news report about the girl’s death on its website on March 5 and a follow-up story on March 8, stories that included the teen’s name, her photograph and some identifying information about her.

A few days later, police subsequently arrested Tyrell Perron, who was then 21, and charged him with first-degree murder and offering an indignity to a body.

On March 16, Perron had his first court appearance. At that time, the provincial court judge ordered a publication ban on the victim’s name under section 486.4 of the Criminal Code. The CBC then quite properly ceased to name the girl in any of its subsequent stories, but it neither retroactively censored nor removed any of its previous online stories, even when told to do so by the Crown.

The Crown then singled out and charged the CBC with criminal contempt and applied for an interim order to force the CBC to take down its original stories. That application was denied. Undeterred, the Crown continued with its criminal prosecution of the journalists.

In May of 2017, Mr. Justice Terry Clackson found in favour of the CBC. The judge concluded that it was “. . . practically impossible to remove a story once it is online. . . .” Clackson found that simply making the stories which predated the publication ban accessible and available did not qualify as “broadcasting” or “transmitting” them. He noted that such a broad definition could even end up criminalizing libraries that held copies of newspapers which had named the victim before the publication ban was in place.

But the Crown was not done. It launched an appeal. Finally, in November of 2018 — a month after the killer, Tyrell Perron, was convicted of murder — the Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled unanimously that the CBC was not guilty of criminal contempt.

Writing for the court, Madam Justice Patricia Rowbotham concluded that by passively maintaining an original story about the victim on its website, the CBC would likely have “made it available” but did not broadcast or transmit it. The judge noted that the relevant section of the Criminal Code “. . . does not list ‘making available’ or ‘making accessible’ as prohibited conduct.”

If the government wanted publication bans to apply retroactively when identifying information is published and transmitted before a publication ban is issued, Justice Rowbotham concluded, it would need to amend the statute to include the words “made available.”

And that, my friends, is exactly what Bill S-12 sought to do — to add the words “made available” and “making available” all through the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, as it relates to publication bans in sexual assault trials.

This, my friends, bothers me. I feel that it was sneaky, to put it politely, to attempt to add this clear limitation to press freedom to the Criminal Code under the cover, as it were, of allowing more liberty to sexual assault victims to reclaim their own names.

Let us consider the implications of the government’s proposed new language. It would have allowed for ex post facto publication bans, requiring newspapers and broadcasters to go back in time and scrub their websites and archives of identifying information that they had been legally allowed to publish at the time those stories were posted to the web.

As Justice Clackson noted in his verdict, retroactive publication bans would be next to impossible, technically speaking, to carry out, and that would leave publishers criminally liable for having posted important breaking news stories, which were not subject to a publication ban at the time they were reported. Adding those words would have put journalists in an invidious position. In order to avoid criminal prosecution, reporters and editors might have had to pre-censor themselves and avoid naming any victims, including murder victims, if they had any intuition that a publication ban might someday later be imposed.

It wouldn’t only be journalists who might have found themselves criminalized. If it were to become a crime to make available such information, any library that put print newspapers on its shelves might be criminally liable. And what about independent archives? Infomart, one of Canada’s largest online databases of news stories, was once owned by Postmedia. Today, it still maintains a digital archive of all Postmedia stories, but it is owned independently. Such a third-party company might well be held liable for making available stories that were published in good faith before a publication ban was imposed.

Then there’s the complicated question of social media platforms. Right now, platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and others are not considered publishers or broadcasters, so they are not covered by publication bans, although individuals who post content on their platforms may well be. The same is true of search engines such as Google or Bing. I think there’s an argument to be made, though, that social media platforms and search engines make available the news — well, at least they do now; what happens after Bill C-18 comes into force is anybody’s guess. Might social media platforms and search engines be captured by the phrase “otherwise made available” and subject to criminal prosecution? I don’t know, but I think it’s a fair question to ask.

What about victims themselves? Suppose a sexual assault victim were to write posts on Facebook, make a TikTok video or create a podcast, all before the police were able to make an arrest and before a publication ban was imposed. Suppose they wrote a long blog post about their ordeal and how they survived, and then police were able to make an arrest months later. The court might then impose a publication ban and ex post facto criminalize the victim who decided to leave up that post, TikTok video or Facebook page.

“Otherwise made available”: three seemingly mundane words that could have had corrosive effects on press freedom and freedom of speech. But I am happy to report that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee unanimously accepted my motion to amend the act to take out the first instances of that phrase. I’m even happier that my friend Senator Busson, the sponsor of the bill, moved an entire series of amendments of her own, which further removed that troublesome phrase throughout the text of Bill S-12.

This suggests to me that the Minister of Justice and his department have recognized, albeit belatedly, that this small phrase could have had huge repercussions for libraries, archives, newspapers, broadcasters, social media platforms, search engines and anyone else who makes available the news. I sincerely and optimistically hope that all of our amendments on this topic will remain in place when the other place takes up the debate, knowing that we are all working against the clock set by the Supreme Court.

I was honoured to be part of the debate on Bill S-12 as a sort of visiting backup member of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and I want to thank all my committee colleagues who made my participation possible. I also want to thank the media law team at Reynolds Mirth Richards & Farmer, who have fought long and hard for press freedom in this country, who represented the CBC in the Perron case and set an important precedent about the dangers of retroactive publication bans, and who also took the time this month to walk me through the legal implications of Bill S-12.

In committee, senators from all four groups worked together to make Bill S-12 a better bill. I ask you to send it now to the other place for their consideration, with the hope that the amendments and observations we crafted together will receive the respect they rightly deserve.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as critic at third reading of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, which was introduced by the Honourable Marc Gold, Leader of the Government in the Senate.

First of all, colleagues, I would like to acknowledge the work that members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs did on Bill S-12, despite how little time we had to study it. I also want to thank the committee chair, Senator Cotter, who oversaw the debates and managed the committee’s time with the utmost respect for all members.

I would also like to thank Senator Busson for her kind words about me and, most importantly, for her work as Bill S-12’s sponsor.

I also want to acknowledge all the victims and families of victims who are with us this afternoon via SenVu to listen to this speech. Since coming to the Senate in 2010, I have spoken on behalf of thousands of victims who shared their tragic stories with me and told me what a poor job our justice system and our public safety system did of protecting and supporting them. Your courage and your resilience sustained me in advocating for your rights all these years. I am grateful for all the encouraging words you regularly send in support of my work.

This bill responds directly to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the conviction of Eugene Ndhlovu, handed down on October 28, 2022. I must say that I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, that the Justin Trudeau government chose to wait until there were only six months left in the year to introduce its bill, when it was well aware of the October 28, 2023 deadline set by the Supreme Court of Canada for making the change to the Criminal Code.

As I said earlier, this means that we were unable to study all aspects of the bill, more specifically those involving the changes related to the National Sex Offender Registry.

That being said, honourable colleagues, I would like to focus for a bit on the topic of sexual violence against women to get us thinking about this. I often hear fine speeches in the Senate about the importance of fighting violence against women and fighting sexual assault. Unfortunately, for the victims of that violence, all too often, these are just words followed by very little meaningful action, such as the adoption of legislation seeking to truly protect them, like Bill S-12.

Bill S-12 was introduced in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ndhlovu. This case, that made it all the way to the Supreme Court, involved a 19-year-old man who sexually assaulted two women at a party, where he touched both women’s private parts.

Despite these acts, which I consider serious and disturbing, one nonetheless gets the impression from reading the Supreme Court decision that including this offender on the registry can’t be justified considering the consequences it could have on his life. As a result, this was considered grounds for striking down the provisions requiring automatic registration of every person found guilty of or not criminally responsible for designated sexual offences, as well as the provisions requiring that certain violent offenders be included, in perpetuity, in the National Sex Offender Registry.

Personally, I’m wondering if we took the victims’ point of view into account, if we asked them whether they experienced trauma and whether they have suffered lasting effects from those assaults. Why weren’t they asked whether they thought the offender should be added to the registry?

This type of decision trivializes sexual violence against women in Canada and sends a negative message to those who have been the victim of a sexual assault and who are reluctant to report the perpetrator. That offender should be added to the National Sex Offender Registry because he is a sex offender. The acts that he committed are unacceptable in a society like ours that is governed by the rule of law. The goal is to protect women from future assailants.

Every day, many women are the victims of sexual offences that vary from inappropriate behaviour to aggravated sexual assault. There was no consent and these women are often very reluctant to report what happened to them to the authorities. One has to wonder why victims would have any confidence in our justice system when, unfortunately, they’re being told that a man who sexually assaulted two women at a party singled-handedly managed to get provisions of the Sex Offender Registry Act repealed, a law that was passed by Parliament.

Senators, would you have confidence in the justice system if you were those victims? I doubt it.

I would ask you, colleagues, to consider whether it is right that in 2023 a man convicted for touching the private parts of two women would not be registered in the National Sex Offender Registry. I would remind senators that the statistics on violence against women in Canada are alarming. Most sexual assaults are committed against women, with 37 incidents per 1,000 women, compared to five incidents per 1,000 men. That is seven times more women than men who are assaulted.

In 2018, Statistics Canada reported that 4.7 million women, or 30% of women aged 15 and over, reported having been sexually assaulted at least once from the age of 15. In 2021, just over 85% of sexual assault victims were women. The rate of sexual assault of Indigenous women is approximately three times higher than that of non-Indigenous women.

We know that Indigenous communities are overrepresented in the prison system and on the National Sex Offender Registry. This overrepresentation is too often and too easily attributed to our laws and statutes, particularly minimum sentencing requirements. I would remind you, colleagues, that since the Gladue decision, which was upheld by the Supreme Court and incorporated into the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court has twice reminded judges that they were not rigorously applying that decision, which allows for alternatives to incarceration. This situation is believed to be a major factor in the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in Canadian penitentiaries. In recent years, the Supreme Court has twice reminded judges that they must find alternatives to incarceration for members of Indigenous communities.

Generally speaking, the rate of Criminal Code level one sexual assaults increased by 18% compared with 2020. As for level two and level three sexual assaults, the most serious crimes, the highest rate since 1996 has been recorded in recent years.

I also urged committee members to be cautious when talking about recidivism rates as justification for not requiring registration.

I would point out that the Auditor General released a report in 2018 showing that the federal data on the calculation of recidivism was invalid because it did not include offenders who had received a sentence of at least two years or those who had been convicted by municipal courts.

In light of the statistics I just cited, I believe it is our duty and our responsibility to take action to protect women in Canada. In its response with Bill S-12, the government has chosen to automatically include in the national sex offender registry only child sexual offenders and repeat sexual offenders, which is clearly inadequate given the serious and concerning statistics that I just gave you on violence against women in Canada.

Women are the primary victims of sexual assault. A man who is sentenced to more than two years for a sexual offence against a woman should automatically be placed on the registry, as he would be if the offence involved a minor, so that he is properly monitored by the police to prevent him from victimizing others. A federal sentence for these assaults is in and of itself indicative of the seriousness of the crime and the high risk of reoffending.

Colleagues, although the objective of monitoring is important, this is also a matter of principle. It is extremely important that we take the safety of women in our country seriously, as I’ve said time and time again in this chamber over the past 14 years. Take, for example, the recent case of a sex offender who was sentenced to three years and nine months in prison on April 11, 2023. From January 7 to June 5, 2022, this man assaulted six women between the ages of 30 and 65 in Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Saint-Raymond, Quebec City and Lévis.

Three years and nine months for assaulting and traumatizing six women! I want to speak out about the permissiveness of our justice system, which is soft on these criminals. No wonder the statistics for sex offences are so high and no wonder women choose not to report their attackers.

Under Bill S-12, the offender I just talked about wouldn’t be automatically added to the registry. He would have a right to recourse, even though he sexually assaulted six women. That is worrisome and unacceptable.

To correct this flaw in the bill, I proposed an amendment to automatically include in the registry offenders who are sentenced to more than two years for sex offences against women. I find it deplorable that this amendment was rejected by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I honestly think that the committee lacked courage.

Some of my colleagues have expressed some reservations about the fact that this amendment might go against the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the case I just mentioned. Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court doesn’t have a say in the work of legislators, under the principle of the separation of powers in a country governed by the rule of law.

For those who may have forgotten, judges don’t direct the work of legislators. I’d like to share a quote from well-known French philosopher Montesquieu in his 1748 work entitled The Spirit of the Laws on the importance of the separation of powers under the rule of law.

Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end of every thing, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.

In particular, I would note that four of the nine Supreme Court judges had dissenting opinions. Those four judges pointed out that, before inclusion on the registry became mandatory, too many judges refused to require that offenders be registered, thereby making the registry less effective.

I would like to share some relevant numbers. When the 2004 legislation creating the national registry was being revised in 2010, I was surprised to learn that the percentage of sexual predators who were actually on the registry was relatively low and varied from one province to the next. The Canadian average was barely over 50%.

Numbers ranged from about 30% in the Maritimes to about 70% in the Western provinces.

This inconsistency does justice a disservice. That will be the case in the years to come.

In that regard, I would like to point out how pragmatic Quebec’s justice minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, was in deciding to set up courts specialized in sexual violence and domestic violence. That initiative sent a clear message to victims that they are central to these important decisions. The judiciary publicly criticized him for this, especially the Court of Quebec’s Chief Justice, who had no qualms about trashing his bill. Nevertheless, Mr. Jolin-Barrette chose to listen to victims and played his part as a lawmaker to the fullest extent by getting his bill passed.

I would like to read you a very powerful quote from the statement he made when his bill was passed:

Today, we are sending a clear message to victims of sexual violence and domestic violence: You have been heard. Sexual violence and domestic violence have no place in our society, and we do not want a single other victim in Quebec to hesitate to come forward and file a report. The passage of Bill 92 marks a turning point and a major cultural change for Quebec’s justice system.

Unfortunately, I believe that we did not listen to the victims when we studied Bill S-12, as was the case for Bills C-75, C-3 and C-5. It seems to have become a habit. I am only a few months away from leaving the Senate, and this realization makes me rather pessimistic about the degree of consideration and concern you have for victims. If they don’t have the support of the men and women in this chamber, who will be their voice? What support can they count on?

Our role in the Senate is not to blindly follow the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, but rather to collectively reflect on the reality that we are facing and to design laws the same way an architect designs a building, by taking into account all of society’s difficulties, circumstances and needs. We choose our materials, meaning laws, based on our ability to meet people’s needs and to help them adapt to their circumstances and overcome their difficulties.

Today, we are going to pass a bill that is not adapted to the reality of crime in Canada. There were a lot more things that needed to be done to improve the National Sex Offender Registry, and I can already guarantee that by passing Bill S-12, we will be giving hundreds of sex offenders a free pass to target new victims. These women did not have to be victims, but they will suffer nonetheless, and that will perpetuate the lack of confidence in our justice system.

When this bill is reviewed in five years, I predict that you will be saying, “We should have done” this or that.

I speak from experience, because, believe me, no family wants to get the news one day that their daughter is dead because an unsupervised sex offender was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is what happened to my daughter, Julie, when she was raped and murdered by a sexual predator. No doubt that offender would not have been in the registry because of the light sentence he received for the first sexual assault he committed.

In 2002, the National Sex Offender Registry did not exist. A few minutes before Julie was kidnapped, held against her will and assaulted, the sexual predator, who had only just gotten out of prison, was stopped by the Sherbrooke police twice, but they let him go because of inadequate information.

Violence against women is a serious issue, and we should never hesitate to create and use more firewalls if they save a woman’s life and spare victims and their families from lifelong suffering. Given the registry’s low inclusion rates between 2004 and 2010, I firmly believe that the precautionary principle should have guided our position.

An offender’s right to privacy should never take precedence over the right of Canadian women to live in peace and safety, and, above all, to stay alive. Too many sexual assaults shatter lives, and many go very wrong and can foreshadow femicide.

Dear colleagues, I do want to highlight the committee’s work on the second part of Bill S-12 concerning publication bans. The committee listened carefully to all the groups that testified, which led to the government making important amendments to Bill S-12.

From now on, the wishes of victims will have to be taken into account when the prosecution issues a publication ban. Bans will no longer apply if victims decide to share information about the case with loved ones or a therapist, provided the information isn’t shared with the public. The process to lift a publication ban has been simplified such that victims no longer need to take steps themselves with the justice system to have the bans lifted.

These changes align with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and help reinforce those rights.

Honourable senators, although the government has taken a step in the right direction to improve victims’ rights, this doesn’t go far enough considering how far behind we have fallen over the past few years.

This means that this small step isn’t enough to make this legislation a good bill. It is progress, but it is far from meeting the urgent needs expressed by victims and women when it comes to getting protection from sex offenders.

As I mentioned, there wasn’t enough time to do a thorough study of Bill S-12 or to hear more victims. We should have done a lot more to ensure that women in Canada are protected from sexual offenders when we had the opportunity to do so. This is more than just a simple question of a sex offender registry. It is a matter of life and death for many women, believe me.

The numbers I mentioned earlier in my speech reflect the reality of sexual violence against women in Canada. This is a serious, endemic and persistent problem. We need to do everything we can to protect our fellow Canadians. I’m often at a loss to explain how and why we don’t do more, when we could be taking action and making a difference for hundreds of victims across the country. I’m at a loss for words and I have no explanation when I receive messages of distress, disappointment and bewilderment.

Let me conclude by reiterating that, as legislators, we have a responsibility to the citizens of this country. We shouldn’t pass laws simply to respond to a court decision. We should pass laws because they are fair, because they are necessary and because they protect the most vulnerable members of our society.

It is time to take sexual violence against women seriously and give the authorities the tools they need to protect our fellow citizens. Unfortunately, Bill S-12 isn’t good enough.

Honourable senators, I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Can we do better for women in this country? Must we? I’m sure the answer is yes, so we have a duty to do so. Please join me in showing your support for women, for the victims who are listening to us today.

Thank you for your attention, colleagues. I hope that this debate has given us the information we need to make decisions that are good for the safety and well-being of all Canadian women. For too long, they’ve been forgotten, neglected and abused. They deserve justice, and we must deliver it. That is our duty as representatives of the people and as human beings.

Finally, to my daughter, Julie, thank you for being my inspiration and my strength in my battle and in the fight to end violence against women.

Thank you.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[English]

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved second reading of Bill C-54, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to introduce appropriation act no. 2, 2023-24.

Like other appropriation bills we receive on a regular basis, this legislation is a vehicle through which payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund are authorized for government programs and services.

As you will recall, we adopted the last appropriation bill, Bill C-44, in March. That was an interim supply bill with the funding that departments and agencies needed to conduct their business from April to June. Bill C-44 provided for ongoing operations while the Main Estimates were under review.

The bill I’m introducing today is the full supply bill, which details the remaining funds to be released for this fiscal year. These amounts are based on the Main Estimates 2023-24, which were tabled in the House of Commons by the President of the Treasury Board on February 15.

To be clear, the dollar amounts in this bill are ceilings — or estimates — meaning spending levels may turn out to be lower. Actual expenditures will be reported in the public accounts after the end of the fiscal year.

The Main Estimates present information on approximately $433 billion in planned budgetary spending for 129 organizations to deliver programs and services to Canadians. This includes $198 billion in voted expenditures and approximately $235 billion in statutory spending, already authorized through existing legislation.

Most expenditures in the Main Estimates are transfer payments made to other levels of government, organizations and individuals. Transfer payments make up approximately 60% of the Main Estimates, or just over $261 billion. These transfer payments make concrete impacts on the lives of Canadians in all sectors of society, as well as on people outside Canada.

As pointed out in the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on the Main Estimates, about $1 in every $6 in planned spending is for elderly benefits. In the coming years, elderly benefits are expected to grow by an average of 7% annually.

Also, a number of temporary programs resulting in transfer payments to individuals are now closed. These include COVID‑related supports to Canadians such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit, the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit.

Turning to transfer payments to other levels of government, the Government of Canada provides significant financial support to provincial and territorial governments on an ongoing basis to assist them in the provision of programs and services. Major transfers to other levels of government are expected to increase over the forecast horizon, largely due to expected nominal GDP growth.

The Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer are federal transfers which support specific policy areas, such as health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, early childhood development and child care.

The Canada Health Transfer grows in line with a three-year moving average of nominal GDP growth, with funding guaranteed to increase by at least 3% per year. In 2023-24, the Canada Health Transfer is forecast to provide $49.3 billion in support, which is an increase of 9.1% over 2022-23. Of note, this amount does not include enhancements announced in February, which will appear in future estimates. The Canada Social Transfer is legislated to grow at 3% per year.

The Equalization Program and the Territorial Formula Financing provide unconditional transfers to the provinces and territories. They are expected to grow by 9%. Equalization enables less prosperous provincial governments to provide their residents with public services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces at comparable levels of taxation. The Territorial Formula Financing program provides territorial governments with funding to support public services in recognition of the higher costs of providing programs and services in the North.

Colleagues, that is a detailed look at transfer payments, which, as I said earlier, make up the majority of the spending in the Main Estimates. These Main Estimates also seek funding for the continuation of previously approved programs and services, as well as investments in Indigenous communities, national defence, the environment and skills development.

Of the 129 organizations presenting funding requirements in these estimates, 10 are seeking between $5 billion and $40 billion in voted budgetary expenditures. These include the Department of Indigenous Services; the Department of National Defence; the Department of Employment and Social Development; the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs; the Treasury Board Secretariat; the Office of Infrastructure of Canada; the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Department of Industry; and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. While time precludes me from speaking to each of these departments in detail, I would like to highlight two of them: the Department of Indigenous Services and the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs.

These Main Estimates include funding aimed at advancing reconciliation and self-determination of Indigenous peoples and positively impacting the quality of life of Indigenous communities. For 2023-24, in partnership with Indigenous peoples, Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, will focus on advancing eight departmental results or objectives.

The first and second departmental results are the physical and mental wellness of Indigenous people. The third is that Indigenous peoples have access to quality federally funded health services. Examples of funding in this area include community‑based funding for public health promotion and disease prevention, the Non-Insured Health Benefits program and mental health wellness initiatives, as well as Jordan’s Principle and the Inuit Child First Initiative.

The fourth objective is that Indigenous peoples be culturally safe and socially well. In support of this goal, Indigenous Services Canada provides funding to programs such as community safety and violence prevention services, child and family services and income support programs. Initiatives in this area include immediate and long-term reform to child and family services on reserves and in the Yukon, as well as ongoing implementation of An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, the former Bill C-92.

The department’s fifth objective is to ensure that Indigenous students are progressing in their education. ISC is working with First Nations partners to transform elementary and secondary education programming for First Nations students to support education that respects First Nations’ methods of teaching and learning. Also, ISC will continue to implement co-developed distinctions-based post-secondary education strategies for eligible First Nations, Inuit and Métis students.

The sixth objective is for Indigenous communities to have sustainable land management and infrastructure. This includes supporting First Nation on-reserve communities in their efforts to have reliable and sustainable infrastructure such as safe drinking water, housing and educational facilities. It also includes land management and land use planning, environmental reviews and addressing concerns associated with waste management and contaminated sites, as well as emergency management.

The seventh objective is ensuring that Indigenous communities are progressing in the realms of business and economic growth. ISC’s economic development funding respects the right of self‑determination by Indigenous partners and uses a distinctions‑based approach.

The eighth objective is to ensure that Indigenous communities have governance capacity and support for self-determination. This includes investing in First Nations-led processes to transition away from the Indian Act.

Colleagues, I would now like to turn to the funding sought for the work of the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. As set out in its 2023-24 Departmental Plan, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada will focus on seven results: first, that past injustices be recognized and resolved; second, that Indigenous peoples advance institutional structures and governance; third, that Indigenous peoples determine our own political, economic, social and cultural development; fourth, that Indigenous peoples strengthen socio-economic conditions and well-being; fifth, that northerners and Indigenous peoples make progress in the areas of political, economic and social governance; sixth, enhancing the resilience of Northern and Indigenous communities in the face of changing environmental conditions; and, seventh, that Northern lands, waters and natural resources be sustainably managed.

We’ve had a chance to delve more deeply into these topics at the Indigenous Peoples Committee, including during our studies of Bill C-29 and Bill C-45. I’m glad the government is committed to making progress in these areas, and I know we in this chamber share that commitment.

Senators, allow me to also highlight three organizations with the largest increases in voted expenditures compared to last year’s Main Estimates. First is the Department of Finance with an $18.3-billion increase. This includes a $4.2-billion increase in the Canada Health Transfer, reflecting the 9.3% GDP-based escalator being applied to the 2022-23 level, and a $2-billion increase in fiscal equalization, also reflecting the 9.3% GDP‑based escalator.

The second department with a significant increase is the Department of Employment and Social Development, which is seeking $6.7 billion more than last year. This amount reflects an increase in one area and a decrease in another. The amount for the Old Age Security pension, or OAS, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or GIS, would grow by $8.2 billion. This is due partly to an expected increase in the number of pensioners and partly to an expected increase in the average monthly payments, resulting mainly from the indexation of benefits and the 10% increase to the OAS pension for seniors aged 75 years and over, in effect since July 2022.

At the same time, there would be a $1.3-billion decrease to the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program and Canada Apprentice Loans, mainly due to the end of the temporary COVID-19 measures.

The third-largest increase in the year-over-year funding is sought by the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, which is seeking $3.3 billion more than last year, mainly because of settlement agreements.

Senators, I know this can be a bit dense, and the time allotted to me isn’t enough to get into much detail about any of this, but the government continues to prioritize the way these estimates are presented with extensive explanatory documentation readily accessible online to parliamentarians and Canadians alike.

I encourage senators who have not already done so to consult GC InfoBase, an interactive online tool that presents a wealth of federal data in a visual way. It contains the Main Estimates, along with other data related to government finances and results and the federal public service.

Publishing expenditure data sets using this kind of digital tool makes it easier for parliamentarians and all Canadians to understand how public funds are being spent and what they’re achieving. To this end, the estimates support Parliament’s review of proposed new government spending and the ensuing appropriation bills — like this one — which grant spending authorities upon Royal Assent.

Every year, the Main Estimates and related documents outline how the government proposes to allocate public funds and help ensure that spending is transparent and accountable. These documents in the estimates cycle include the Main Estimates, the supplementary estimates, the Departmental Plans and the Departmental Results Reports, all of which, in conjunction with the Public Accounts of Canada, help parliamentarians scrutinize government spending.

In conclusion, honourable senators, the bill I have the honour of introducing today is a central part of the estimates cycle, and, substantively, it is key to delivering on the government’s commitments to Canadians.

I extend my thanks to the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for their important work, and I thank all of you for your ongoing involvement in our chamber’s role of analyzing both how the government spends money and what Canadians get out of it. Hiy hiy.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Thank you, Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for your comments on Bill C-54, and welcome to the club.

As the critic of the bill, I also have comments, and the first thing I want to mention is that what we’re being asked to approve today is authority for the government to spend $108.7 billion. I’m not going to be brief because I’m going to go through a lot of the work that the committee did.

Bill C-54, which is supported by the 2023-24 Main Estimates, is requesting $108.7 billion. Honourable senators may recall that Bill C-44, which received Royal Assent on March 30, provided the government with $89 billion in Interim Estimates until these Main Estimates are approved. The $108 billion in this bill, along with the $89 billion approved in Interim Estimates, reflect the $198 billion outlined in the Main Estimates. The Main Estimates, which support this bill, were tabled before the budget was tabled, and as a result, the Main Estimates in this bill do not include any new budget initiatives for this year. I can assure you the government is going to spend the full $108.7 billion, and they’re going to come back for more.

However, it is important to realize that this is just a portion of the government’s spending for this year. In addition to this $198 billion, there is also estimated statutory spending of another $235 billion, as well as Employment Insurance benefits of $24 billion and the Canada child benefit in the amount of $26 billion.

In summary, while the Main Estimates provide some details on the $198 billion, the document also discloses that actual expenditures this year are projected to be $487 billion. With the release of Budget 2023, the government now projects total expenses for this year to be $490 billion.

The $109 billion in this bill is being requested by 130 government departments and organizations. Two of the organizations requesting funding — the Law Commission of Canada and the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited — did not receive any funding last year. A third organization, the VIA HFR-TGF Inc., was incorporated as a subsidiary of Via Rail Canada Inc. in November of last year to manage the development of the new High Frequency Rail project.

Of the 29 organizations requesting increases of at least 10% compared to the amount they requested in last year’s Main Estimates, these increases amount to over $3 billion for 7 of those organizations. These seven organizations are Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada; Transport Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Natural Resources Canada; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation; Treasury Board Secretariat; and Canada Revenue Agency.

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is requesting an additional $3.3 billion from $5.8 billion last year to $9.1 billion this year. Out of the increase of $3.3 billion, $2.9 billion is for the Gottfriedson Band class settlement agreement. This is a trust fund established to help revitalize Indigenous language, culture and heritage lost during the residential school years. It is to be operated independently of the federal government, and it will be governed by a board of nine Indigenous directors, one of whom is to be chosen by the federal government. Also included in the $3.3 billion increase is $475 million to implement comprehensive land claims and self‑government agreements and other agreements to address the rights of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Given the extent of funding requested by the department for the settlement of claims, agreements and treaties, departmental officials informed us that the department maintains a database to track these claims. In terms of specific claims alone, officials estimate there are over 500 of these claims. This makes it difficult for parliamentarians to track the progress of these claims, and officials committed to providing the 20 major outstanding claims and settlements to assist us in our work.

Officials from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada told us that one of their targets this year is to conclude 35 specific claim settlements, so this should help parliamentarians in tracking claims.

Indigenous Services Canada is requesting $39 billion, which is comparable to the $39 billion in last year’s Main Estimates. The main item in each year is the approximate $20 billion budgeted for compensation to an estimated 300,000 Indigenous children and families. The origins of this settlement began in 2016 when the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the federal government had discriminated against First Nations children for years by not properly funding child welfare services on reserves.

The recent agreement between the federal government, the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society will deliver $23.3 billion to an estimated 300,000 Indigenous children and families.

Departmental officials testified that the amount included in Main Estimates is slightly more than the $20 billion originally requested. Officials indicated that an additional $981 million has been requested in these Main Estimates. However, the other $2.3 billion has yet to be identified in the government’s fiscal framework.

Our National Finance Committee was interested in the departmental results for both Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and how the “deliverology” method and results reporting have evolved over the past eight years. Witnesses from both departments told the committee that they had been refining their Departmental Results Reports and specifically their performance indicators in partnership with Indigenous First Nations. Officials from Indigenous Services Canada informed us that they have introduced a new results framework in their 2023-24 Departmental Plan. There is still work to be done in terms of outcome performance measures, and they are working with Indigenous organizations to establish those performance indicators.

Officials from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada indicated that their departmental results framework has also changed quite significantly over the years, and they are working in partnership with Indigenous First Nations to develop meaningful goals.

For the most recent departmental results for 2021-22, Indigenous Services Canada met just 14 of their 79 performance indicators, or just over 17%. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada met 17 of their 39 performance indicators, or just over 43%.

Departments and agencies, on average, met just over 49% of their performance indicators, so both departments are just below the average. We will be following up on their progress to determine the changes they are making to their performance indicators and the extent of their progress.

Each year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issues numerous reports including one on the Main Estimates and one each on Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C). In addition, he appears at the Senate National Finance Committee to discuss each of his reports and respond to questions.

This year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report on the 2023-24 Main Estimates on March 3 and testified before the Senate National Finance Committee on April 18. His report on the Main Estimates emphasizes the spending allocated to elderly benefits, health care and professional and special services. He indicated that 1 in every $6 will be spent on elderly benefits and 1 in every $9 will be spent on health care. Professional and special services are estimated at $20 billion and has increased significantly over the last number of years.

Federal spending on elderly benefits is the single largest area of government spending, which is comprised of Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Allowance payments. Elderly payments are expected to increase to $76.6 billion this year, an increase of 11%, after being impacted by a larger number of seniors, inflation to which benefits are indexed and policy decisions which have increased benefits, such as the 10% top-up for those 75 years and older, estimated to cost $2.6 billion in this fiscal year and which was approved in Budget 2021.

The Canada Health Transfer — or CHT, as we call it — is the largest single transfer to provinces and territories and is used to pay for health care. In February of this year, the government announced a new agreement to provide additional monies for health care, including $2 billion to address urgent pressures in emergency rooms, operating rooms and pediatric hospitals. This $2 billion was included in the budget.

In addition, the government committed to increasing the CHT by 5% each year over the next five years rather than the original 3%. The Main Estimates of the Department of Finance discloses $49.4 billion for the Canada Health Transfer. However, Budget 2023, released subsequently to the Main Estimates, indicates that funding for the CHT this year will be just over $55 billion.

The Main Estimates also includes $19.5 billion for professional and special services, the majority of which is spent by the Department of National Defence; Public Services and Procurement Canada; Public Safety Canada; Indigenous Services Canada; and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. This $19.5 billion is about $2.2 billion more than the amount in last year’s Main Estimates.

Budget 2023, released after the Main Estimates, committed to reducing spending on consulting, professional services and travel by $500 million in this year and $6.6 billion over the following four years.

During testimony on April 18, the Parliamentary Budget Officer discussed these and other items, including the benefits of a long-term human resources plan, since the number of public service employees and their related costs have increased significantly in recent years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that a long-term human resources plan could help the government ensure that it has the right skill set in its public service and has the capacity to deliver on its policy priorities, rather than what we have seen recently — increasing the numbers of public servants and increasing the use of consultants and outside services, but still, in some instances, failing to deliver on the services that Canadians expect.

According to the Departmental Results Reports for the past four years, less than 50% of targets are met each year. These reports, along with the Departmental Plans, are intended to assist parliamentarians in their review of the government’s proposed spending plan. However, given the low numbers of targets being met, the usefulness of the data is questionable.

The government’s Results and Delivery program and their “deliverology” program were implemented in 2016, with the appointment of Mr. Matthew Mendelsohn as the Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet in the Privy Council Office, responsible for the Results and Delivery Unit.

The Results and Delivery Unit tracked ministerial mandate letter commitments, as well as performance indicators established by each department and organization. The unit was responsible for assisting departments in determining the objectives of policies and programs and how they would be evaluated. In other words, the Results and Delivery Unit was to help government departments and agencies to systematically and consistently focus on delivery and results.

Mr. Mendelsohn left the government in 2020, and subsequent organizational charts show the Results and Delivery Unit being pushed further and further down in the organizational chart of the Privy Council Office.

The Department of National Defence is requesting $24.7 billion compared to the $24.2 billion requested in the Main Estimates last year. Some senators, as well as some Canadians, were expecting the Main Estimates of the department to include a larger or much larger increase in funding. Of particular interest was Canada’s level of defence spending compared to other NATO countries. I spoke on this issue in March.

Canada has been a member of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, since 1949. In 2006, NATO members agreed with the goal of setting their annual defence spending to at least 2% of GDP. Since making this commitment, Canada has never achieved this goal. The world has changed in the past few years. The war in Ukraine as well as Canada’s changing relationships with China and Russia have led to a shifting in priorities.

Many Canadians and some parliamentarians are concerned about the level of funding provided to the military, especially given problems such as the chronic recruitment issues that have left the Canadian Armed Forces short by 10,000 personnel; our minuscule and antiquated submarine fleet; Canada’s exclusion from the recent tripartite military pact in which three of our biggest allies — the U.S., the U.K. and Australia — will work together to respond to China’s growing aggression in the Indo-Pacific; and Canada’s inability to procure armaments and equipment in a timely manner. Especially concerning is Ottawa’s refusal to meet its NATO obligation to spend 2% of its GDP on defence.

VIA Rail is requesting $1.2 billion in Main Estimates, and its wholly owned subsidiary is requesting $43 million. The subsidiary was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act in November 2022 as a wholly owned subsidiary of VIA Rail Canada Inc. Because it was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act and not under its own legislation, it does not receive the same parliamentary oversight. Information on the structure of the corporation, its mandate, its governance structure, its relationship with its parent company and its reporting requirements is not readily available to parliamentarians and Canadians.

Officials from the subsidiary testified at our Senate Finance Committee, along with VIA Rail, its parent company, and provided some additional information. For example, information that is publicly available, including information on the subsidiary’s website, disclosed three directors. However, we were told at committee by witnesses that there will be seven directors.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is requesting parliamentary approval to spend $5.6 billion. Of this sum, $5 billion will be disbursed as grants and contributions for a number of programs, such as the Strategic Innovation Fund, the Universal Broadband Fund, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Global Innovation Clusters.

Some senators were interested in the recent $13-billion announcement for the Volkswagen battery plant in Ontario, but witnesses were unable — or unwilling — to answer questions on this item. Of particular interest was whether there was any funding for the Volkswagen battery plant included in the Main Estimates. A sum of $13 billion is a significant outlay of public funds, and the question is whether this expenditure has been included in the government’s financial projections. Given that the government projects its fiscal requirements over a five-year time frame, the question arises as to whether this $13 billion is included in the government’s financial requirements and financial projections. You may recall that I asked Senator Gold that question a couple of days ago in the Senate.

Officials were also unable to answer questions regarding the impact that the department’s innovation funding, through its various programs, is having on innovation within Canada. Given that the government just established the Canada Growth Fund, approving $15 billion this year, as well as the Canada innovation corporation, approving $3 billion over the next four years, how does the government know these new corporations will increase growth and innovation if it does not know the impact of existing billion-dollar programs?

The Canada Revenue Agency is requesting $4.5 billion, which is a $400 million increase when compared to last year’s Main Estimates. Departmental officials informed us that $224 million of the $400-million increase is associated with funding to combat tax avoidance and tax evasion and primarily for initiatives announced in Budget 2022. The funding will be used to expand the audits of larger entities and non-residents engaged in aggressive tax planning. It will also be used to increase the investigation and prosecution of those engaged in criminal tax evasion.

Agency officials told us that there are many challenges in addressing tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. They said schemes and structures are becoming more complex, and taxpayers are becoming more litigious, making greater access to the courts to delay access to information and evidence.

Several senators were interested in the agency’s work in measuring and reporting on the tax gap. The tax gap measures the potential tax revenue loss resulting from tax non-compliance. Officials informed our committee that they have not measured the tax gap beyond the year 2018, and for that year, the tax gap was estimated to be between $35 billion and $40 billion. This is a substantial amount of money, and even if the government could collect a fraction of this amount, it would have a significant impact on the deficit.

While the agency says it is addressing issues such as the tax gap, overseas accounts, tax evasion, tax avoidance and the underground economy, there is frustration with regard to the activities of the agency, as well as the lack of reporting information. While the agency’s website provides some information on the tax gap and the Panama, Paradise and Pandora Papers, it is not included in the annual report. It is not current. It is difficult to find on the agency’s website. It does not convey the impression that all taxpayers are being treated equally and fairly.

Canadians, parliamentarians and even the Canada Revenue Agency would be better served if current information was more easily available or disclosed in their annual report.

As colleagues are aware, Senator Downe’s Bill S-258 was referred to our National Finance Committee. The bill will require the agency to list all convictions for tax evasion, including international tax evasion, in the agency’s annual report to the Minister of National Revenue. The bill will also require the agency once every three years to include statistics on the tax gap in the agency’s annual report.

Finally, Bill S-258 will also require the minister to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data to conduct a further analysis of the tax gap.

I support Senator Downe’s Bill S-258.

Veterans Affairs Canada is requesting $5.9 billion compared to $5.5 billion requested last year, an increase of 8%. Over 90% of the funding of the department is used to pay benefits to veterans. Most of the increase this year will be used to pay for an increase in funding to veterans.

Specifically, $338 million of the increase will be used to compensate veterans for pain and suffering. Another $120 million of the increase will be used to pay the Income Replacement Benefit.

Since the department provides services and benefits that respond to the needs of veterans and their families, these programs are open-ended and the cost depends on the number of veterans accessing benefits, as well as the cost-of-living increases which are based on Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index.

One of the major issues facing Veterans Affairs Canada is the length of time it takes the department to process veterans’ applications for benefits. The department’s service standard is to process a veteran’s application within a 16-week time frame. Last year, officials told us there was a backlog of applications, that is, those exceeding the 16-week processing time frame.

Of the 30,000 applications in the queue last year, 11,500 exceeded the 16-week time frame. At that time, the department had said they were committed to reducing the backlog to 5,000 applications as of March 31, 2023. During testimony this year, officials told us that they had made some progress. While they had not met their original target, they have reduced their backlog to 6,800 cases.

Employment and Social Development Canada is requesting $11.1 billion compared to the $11.4 billion requested in last year’s Main Estimates. In addition to the $11.1 billion requested in this bill, the department already has the authority under other legislation to spend $83 billion for a number of other programs, including $58 billion for Old Age Security payments and $17.7 billion for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

Also included in this bill is $6.1 billion for payments to the provinces and territories under the Early Learning and Child Care program, which was announced in Budget 2021 at a cost of $30 billion over the next five years. Payments to each of the provinces and territories over each of the five years is disclosed in Volume 1 of the Public Accounts of Canada 2022.

The objectives of the program were outlined in Budget 2021 when it was announced. The mandate letter of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development requires the minister to implement the objectives of this $30 billion program. In addition, the government’s results and delivery policy requires the government’s Open Government website to track mandate letter commitments. Two of these commitments include the creation of 250,000 new high-quality child care spaces, plus the hiring of 40,000 more early childhood educators by March 2026. Although billions of dollars are being disbursed by the government, these commitments are not being disclosed on the government’s website as required by government policy.

During meetings, departmental officials told us that as of February of this year, over 50,000 new child care spaces have been created. They said this has been determined by conversations with the provinces and territories. However, there is no information on the federal government’s website, as required by policy.

Rather, officials told us that public disclosure is the responsibility of the provinces and territories. However, since the government is providing $30 billion for this program, and has established objectives which are measurable — for example, 250,000 new spaces and the 40,000 early childhood educators — progress should be reported in the department’s Departmental Results Reports.

Of concern is the child care crisis being experienced across Canada. From the West Coast, to the Prairies, through Central and Eastern Canada, all the way to my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I have read countless media articles lamenting the lack of child care spaces and the impossibility of hiring enough workers to staff daycares or to pay them adequately.

Competition for spaces is intense and inadequately remunerated workers are leaving. These issues should have been addressed before billions of dollars were promised for this policy, but since they weren’t, it is being experienced now. It should be addressed by the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Media articles highlight these issues. Last week, the CBC posted an article about early child care workers in Ontario leaving the profession and the millions of dollars more that are needed. A month ago, Global News reported the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report stated that Manitoba was a child care desert, and it is not alone; another CBC article says that Saskatchewan is a similar desert.

Provinces and territories are uneven in the way they present their statistics on child care spaces and positions created. It has been very difficult to compile the information ourselves, and we should not have to.

Employment and Social Development Canada should devote specific, up-to-date information that offers data on what has been accomplished across the country. That way, Canadians and parliamentarians can monitor the progress of the implementation of the new child care policy program.

I am encouraged that Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, has received first reading in the Senate and hopefully will be referred to a Senate committee for study.

This concludes my comments on Bill C-54 and the Main Estimates for 2023-24. In closing, I extend my appreciation to my colleagues for their contribution to our study, and their support, including our chair, Senator Mockler, and our deputy chair, Senator Forest.

Thank you also to our committee clerk, our analysts and staff, who ensure our meetings are productive and run smoothly.

Thank you, senators, for your attention.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those in favour of the motion, please say “yea.”