Senator Marshall: Could you give us more details with regard to how the government is proceeding? We are looking at $20 billion that, most likely, won’t be spent this year. Are they working on it now, or is it something that has been earmarked for the next fiscal year? I would like to know exactly where they are in the process, because it seems as though they are back to square one. Could you provide us with a further update?

Hon. Colin Deacon: This question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, in November 2020, the federal government announced a targeted $250-million investment over five years to support Canada’s innovative intellectual-property-rich firms. This was to be administered through the Strategic Innovation Fund.

You may recall that I recently shared my concern about Canada’s worrisome IP challenges, so you won’t be surprised that I fully support the intention of this initiative. However, two years later, a recent report in The Logic revealed that no funds have yet been deployed.

Senator Gold, when will Canadian companies start to receive this funding, incentivizing them to strengthen their IP portfolios, which is crucial to their global competitiveness?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for recognizing the historic initiative — the first ever — Intellectual Property Strategy introduced in 2018, with investments of over $250 million. Budget 2021 invested $90 million to create ElevateIP, a program to help accelerators and incubators provide startups with access to intellectual property expertise. The government is finalizing the structuring of this program with leading business accelerators across the country so as to provide maximum effectiveness for this program.

Moreover, Budget 2021 also invested $75 million to the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program to provide high-growth client firms with access to expert intellectual property services through IP assist; indeed, many companies are already benefiting from that assistance.

On the issue of the timelines, senator, I’ll make inquiries with the government and report back to the chamber as soon as I have an answer.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Gold. A further question perhaps that you could give to the government. They recently announced that Nokia will receive $40 million through the Strategic Innovation Fund. However, the IP generated from that investment will flow to Nokia’s head office in Finland. While there are no restrictions on the transfer of IP for foreign companies, this is not the case for Canadian companies.

Senator Gold, why are the Strategic Innovation Fund funding terms for IP transfer different for Canadian companies versus foreign companies? Is there not a concern that these restrictions will strategically disadvantage Canadian companies?

Senator Gold: Thank you. I’ll certainly add that to the questions I pursue with the government.

[Translation]

Senator Francis: Senator Gold, your government announced on Monday that a foreign supply of children’s acetaminophen had been secured and would be “. . . available for sale at retail and community pharmacies in the coming weeks.” Parents in more urban or suburban settings have been scouring pharmacies to find these needed pain relievers for their children as we’re facing a pediatric care crisis. However, families in northern and remote communities where supply is low or non-existing cannot simply search dozens of stores. In order to ensure that First Nations children have an equal chance to thrive as other children, Canada has a moral and legal obligation to ensure sustainable quality in the provision of services.

Senator Gold, can you please let us know how much of the foreign supply of children’s medication will be provided to First Nations people and communities? I’d like to see a detailed breakdown of the distribution.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator. The government recognizes the importance that fairs and exhibitions have and the contribution they make in communities across the country. I understand the challenges that have been brought about in recent years especially by the pandemic. The government remains committed to ensuring that such fairs, tourism events, cultural and community sectors have the support they need and recover from the impacts they suffered because of the pandemic. That’s why the government launched the Major Festivals and Events Support Initiative to help major Canadian festivals survive and adapt to the pandemic.

I understand that the government — notably Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada — continues to engage with some of the largest fairs and exhibitions through the AgriCompetitiveness and AgriCommunication programs. The government — notably Agriculture and Heritage — is always open to further discussions on how it can improve its services and be of assistance.

Senator Gold: Again, thank you. I don’t have the answer to that. I’m not punting it to Agriculture and Heritage, although that is the primary place to go. I will certainly make inquiries, and, when I get an answer, I’ll communicate it to you directly as well as to the chamber.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I certainly cannot answer your question directly based simply on the assertions and assumptions you’re making about what was known or not known at the time of the minister’s appearance.

I have every confidence in the minister’s integrity and transparency, as he demonstrated here before the chamber. I’ll certainly make inquiries based upon your question, as I always do when I don’t have the answer, but I’m simply not in a position to comment on the assumptions and assertions that informed your question.

Senator Plett: Assertions, possibly; but assumptions, no. They are facts, leader Gold, not assumptions.

The member of Parliament for the area Scot Davidson had been advocating for his constituents for months on the issue of the aerodrome. He has tried on numerous occasions to get answers on the status of the proposal and to advise the minister’s office of the many issues with it, but the entire process has lacked any transparency or communication.

The fact that the Minister of Transport did not present the facts accurately when specifically asked here is very concerning, Senator Gold, but seems to be part of a pattern regarding this file and, indeed, many others. Senator Gold, what is the minister trying to hide?

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader. Yuesheng Wang, a researcher employed by Hydro-Québec, appeared in court in Longueuil yesterday, after being arrested on Monday by the RCMP, accused of economic espionage for the benefit of China. La Presse reported that Tina Zhu was there to support him.

Ms. Zhu said she was a representative of the Canada-China Friendship Promotion Association, an organization whose exact workings are nebulous. Ms. Zhu said she does not work for the Chinese government and that it’s a coincidence that she advocates for Chinese officials in Canada and peddles the same messages as Beijing.

A bill I introduced in the Senate last February, Bill-237, would have allowed us to determine whether Ms. Zhu is working for the Chinese government. Unfortunately, that bill was blocked by a senator appointed by the Trudeau government.

Senator Gold, why does the Trudeau government oppose Bill S-237 and the creation of a foreign influence registry? The provisions of that bill would easily apply to authoritarian countries such as China, Iran and Russia.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, Senator Housakos. I am not doing anything to block the bill. Every bill introduced in the Senate must be properly examined, step by step, and your bill will be treated the same as every other bill.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, we have seen many examples of the Leader of the Government in the Senate exerting his power. When you have an interest in a bill, you have influence. Right now, Canada is in a situation where it is truly threatened by a number of countries that are trying to influence it.

The charges against Mr. Wang are very serious and unprecedented in the history of Canada. Senator Gold, can you reassure Canadians and confirm that the Trudeau government will see the proceedings against Mr. Wang through to the end and will not come to an agreement with the Chinese government to bury the matter, as it often does?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, on Tuesday, the Auditor General released a report that referenced significant delays in procuring Arctic‑capable vessels and icebreakers. When it comes to the icebreaker fleet, that fleet is now between 35 and 53 years of age. It’s urgent that the vessels be replaced since, given the age of the ships, a major failure could occur at any time, leader, yet no replacement vessel has been ordered, let alone construction started.

Why has this government failed so completely in addressing the issue — an issue that is so vital for Canada?

Senator Plett: Government leader, in 2019, the government announced that it would add a third shipyard to the National Shipbuilding Strategy specifically for the purpose of building icebreakers. That shipyard was to be Davie Shipbuilding in Quebec.

In 2020, the government indicated that an agreement with Davie, adding it as a third shipyard, would be initiated by the end of 2020. Nothing happened, government leader.

In 2021, the government publicly stated that an agreement with Davie, adding it as a third shipyard, would be initiated by the end of 2021. Again, nothing happened.

Now, this past June, the government said once again that an agreement with Davie would be reached by the end of this year. Government leader, is something actually going to happen this year or will there just be another promise next year?

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I also rise to speak to Bill C-31, and, before I make my comments, I would like to thank Senator Yussuff, the sponsor of the bill; Senator Seidman, the critic of the bill; and all my colleagues who have spoken to the bill.

This bill will provide financial assistance for two unrelated programs. The first is to provide a dental program for children under the age of 12 years old if their families meet the criteria defined by the act. The second is a rental program to provide financial assistance to individuals and families who rent if they meet the criteria defined by the act.

Since the two programs are unrelated, I will begin by commenting on the dental program for children under the age of 12 years old. The dental program outlined in Bill C-31 is phase one of a national dental program, which was announced in Budget 2022. That budget proposed to provide funding of $5.3 billion over five years, beginning with $300 million this year, and $1.7 billion annually thereafter to provide dental care for Canadians.

The program will start this year with children under the age of 12 years old, and then expand next year to children up to 18 years of age, seniors and persons living with a disability.

Full implementation of the national dental program will occur in 2025. For this year, the dental program is restricted to families with an income of less than $90,000 annually, with no copays for those with an annual income of less than $70,000.

Health Canada officials told our Finance Committee that this program for children under the age of 12 years old is estimated to provide dental services to half a million children across the country.

Budget 2022 estimated that the cost of this dental program for children under the age of 12 years old during this fiscal year would be $300 million — compared to the estimated cost of $247 million, as disclosed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in speaking about the estimated cost of the dental program, told us it would be to the advantage of legislators to have much stronger projections than we currently have with respect to not only Bill C-31, but also to the dental program as a whole. He said that Bill C-31 is only a down payment on a program that is supposed to be much larger and permanent. To emphasize this point, he went on to say that, in his opinion, he does not think it is normal that we do not have better information.

Another major issue discussed at committee was the harmonization of the dental program with existing programs — or should I say, the lack of harmonization. During testimony at our National Finance Committee, we could not get a clear description of how the proposed federal dental plan will be harmonized with provincial plans and private insurance plans.

A 2019 study by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, or CADTH, identified over 80 different public oral health programs across federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions with significant variations between these programs in terms of eligibility criteria, services covered and reimbursement rates.

While this indicates that there is public sector funding for dental care in Canada, most dental expenses are either paid using private dental insurance, or paid for out of pocket by individual Canadians or their families.

Mr. Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, said in his testimony that he did not see any provision in the legislation that seeks to harmonize a new dental program with existing programs. Rather, children whose parents have private dental insurance are not eligible, and those who are covered by a provincial plan are eligible only to the extent that they have out-of-pocket expenses. Provinces and private plans are first payers, and the federal plan comes in after. He said he has not seen any intention to harmonize the plan.

The Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, or CDHA , in their testimony, expressed concern that Canadian employers will repeal private dental plans to offload coverage to the federal plan. Similarly, there’s also a concern that provincial plans will be scaled back once the federal plan is implemented. However, Minister Duclos, the Minister of Health, has assured the committee that no displacement or crowding out of existing plans is anticipated.

Dr. Walter Siqueira, Dean of the College of Dentistry at the University of Saskatchewan, told our Finance Committee that dental students at the 10 dental schools across the country provide professional dental services to many patients, including some patients who will benefit from the proposed dental program. These services are provided at a lower cost, and dental students are provided with practical experience before they graduate. Dr. Siqueira indicated that dental students at the dental schools are concerned they may lose some of their patients to the new program, and this would be a big loss to the students and the dental schools.

Several senators were interested in determining the results of the dental program, which would include a comparison of the cost of the program with cost savings in health programs which are left to deal with the problems resulting from poor dental health in children. I have spent a significant amount of time studying Departmental Results Reports in which many government departments and agencies cannot even meet half of their self-imposed performance standards, so I’m doubtful that any cost-versus-savings analysis will be done.

Mr. Giroux, in responding to the question, said the following much more eloquently than I can. He said that it’s essential to try to capture the benefits and measure whether they have meaningful results. However, he had not seen or heard anything to indicate the government intends to measure the benefits of the dental program, and if the past is any indication, he said he’s not confident it will be done. He concluded that “. . . it’s unlikely we’ll see the government measuring the impacts of Bill C-31, which is unfortunate.”

Incidentally, Health Canada in its 2020-21 Departmental Results Report indicated it had met only 42% of its performance indicators, while the Public Health Agency of Canada indicated it had met only 29%.

Honourable senators, I support a dental program for children, whether it be federal or provincial or a combination of the two. As a former elementary school teacher, I have seen first-hand the results of poor dental hygiene in school children under the age of 12 years. It is not only the poor condition of their teeth but the pain and discomfort the children must endure when they have dental problems but no access to dental services. Dental day surgery for children is not uncommon. In a country such as Canada, all children should have access to a dentist and receive regular dental care.

It is unfortunate that the federal government is not proposing a real dental program. It is a missed opportunity to ensure that the children are actually receiving dental services. What government is proposing in Bill C-31 is financial assistance to low-income families, with no assurance that children will actually receive all the dental care they need. Even the Canada Revenue Agency could not tell us what post-disbursement procedures will be carried out to ensure that a child actually receives dental services as a result of the money paid out.

My final comments on the dental program relate to the adequacy of the funding to be provided. There are two benefit periods: October 1, 2022, to June 30 of next year, and then from July 1 of next year to June 30, 2024. Benefits would be $650 per child if the family’s adjusted net income is less than $70,000; for higher-income households, $390 for each child if the family’s adjusted net income is between $70,000 and $80,000; and $260 for each child if the family’s adjusted net income is between $80,000 and $90,000.

There was some discussion regarding the adequacy of the funding and what recourse the family would have if the amount approved were not sufficient.

The Canadian Dental Association informed us that based on a representative sample of more than 109,000 electronic claims submitted in March of this year across all provinces and territories, the median claim per visit for a patient under age 12 years was $150. The association said that, overall, 95.6% of all claims submitted for children under age 12 were for less than $650. This was consistent across jurisdictions, ranging from a low of 91% to a high of 99%. So while it looks like the amount might be sufficient for most children, it still does not resolve the issue if a child’s dental services require more than the amount that’s stipulated in the legislation.

The dental program defined in Bill C-31 is not a dental program but rather a financial assistance program administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, an agency whose primary function is to administer tax laws for Canada and most of the provinces and territories to collect taxes. The dental program does not even reside in the Department of Health or the Department of Social Development.

Honourable senators, Bill C-31 is also proposing to provide a rental program of $500 to individuals who rent and meet the criteria stipulated in the legislation. Rental rates across Canada continue to increase, and the Bank of Canada’s increase in interest rates will impact the country’s rental market. According to the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, rent in just Toronto has increased 20% compared to last year. The objective of the government’s rental program is to assist low-income renters by providing $500 in financial assistance. The government estimates that this program will provide financial assistance to 1.8 million renters.

To qualify, renters must meet several criteria, although officials from the Canada Revenue Agency told us that compliance with all of the criteria will not be confirmed prior to issuance of the cheques. They told us that the adjusted net income ceilings of $20,000 for individuals and $35,000 for families can be verified through the tax system, and the applicant will have to provide information that the rent paid during 2022 was at least 30% of their adjusted net income. So, as they put it, there will be validation up front of that calculation; however, there will be no confirmation of rent paid. Rather, the Canada Revenue Agency intends to set up audit and compliance checks subsequent to payment of the cheques, but officials could not provide us with any information regarding post-payment audit and compliance checks.

Budget 2022 estimated that this $500 benefit would cost $475 million. The government has since increased that estimated cost of $475 million to $1.2 billion, or more than twice the original estimate. I mention this because this is quite a significant increase, and I question how the government could be so wrong. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated a cost of $940 million for this program but could not reconcile his estimated cost of $940 million with the government’s original estimate of $475 million or the government’s revised estimate of $1.2 billion.

The Maytree Foundation, a private charity, in its brief to the committee, recommended that the requirement for applicants to pay at least 30% of their income be dropped, since the ceiling on adjusted net income for both a single person, at $20,000, and a family, at $35,000, is so low that any proportion spent on rent would be a financial burden. They also said that the section of the act which allows applicants living in multi-tenant dwellings to use only 90% of their income to determine whether they pay at least 30% of their income on rent is unfair. It is possible that by using 90%, it would just barely prevent people from accessing the benefit.

While government committed in Budget 2022 to provide financial assistance to renters, it is not addressing the issue of rising interest rates and the increasing cost to homeowners of paying their mortgages. Budget 2022 contained a number of initiatives to encourage people to buy their homes. This was accompanied by assurances from the Bank of Canada that interest rates would not increase. In fact, in June of 2020, the Bank of Canada dismissed concerns regarding interest rate hikes.

In closing, I’d like to make a general comment on the financial assistance provided to individuals and families. We have recently seen a bill providing additional GST rebates. This bill provides a dental program and rental assistance. I’m confident there will be additional assistance in the future, including those in the Fall Economic Statement 2022. Each program has its own criteria, its own income ceilings and, in some cases, staggered levels of assistance within the programming.

Has the government determined who benefits not only from each individual program but from all the programs as a group? Are the same individuals and families being assisted by each of the programs, and, if so, why not have just one program or two programs? Or is each program assisting a different group of individuals and families? If so, are these the families most in need? Finally, are any individuals and families whom the government should be helping being left behind because of the criteria being used in the various programs? Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, please note that I am delivering this speech today on behalf of our colleague Senator Mary Jane McCallum. What follows are her words:

Honourable senators, unfortunately, I have tested positive for COVID-19 so I am unable to be in the chamber at this time. Without having the ability to participate virtually as was previously afforded to senators in this situation, it is regrettable that I cannot give these remarks myself.

I find this fact particularly perplexing, as we have seen committee witnesses exercise their privilege of appearing before committees virtually, yet this same possibility is not afforded to senators. While I do not want to spend more time than necessary on this matter, I feel it prudent to mention that I am proof that the current pandemic is still ongoing. The Senate has gone to great pains to establish the infrastructure for senators to participate virtually, should they be physically unable to attend in person. I remain disappointed that we continue to not be afforded that option.

I would like to begin with the unfair and arbitrary deadlines for having Bill C-31 come to its third reading vote in the Senate. As some of you may remember, I highlighted my concern over the climate and intent in which this bill is being passed. I have seen first-hand how critical oral health is to our overall well-being. But allowing for its swift passage will not do it justice, as it does not meaningfully address dental disease.

Countless health professionals in the dental field have long awaited such a program. Dental professionals have always been aware, however, that when the opportunity arose, we would only get one proverbial kick at this can. We have one chance to do our best to get it right. The benefit that such a program could yield is immeasurable. However, handing cheques to people who attest to their intent to seek dental services cannot reasonably be called a program.

One concern I have with this bill is with regard to an omitted dental care service provider. Within the definitions section of this bill, it explicitly names dentists, denturists and dental hygienists as being lawfully entitled to provide a suite of dental services. However, a critical group that has been left out is dental therapists, who are registered and licensed dental professionals in their own right. They are trained to perform basic clinical dental treatment, including preventive and restorative treatments, as well as general disease prevention and oral health promotion. Moreover, much of the work that they do is targeted to youth, who are explicitly the intended benefactors off Bill C-31. Neglecting to name dental therapists as dental care service providers under this bill is a serious oversight, as this means they will be unable to provide these services to specific groups of children, thereby creating a patchwork of provincial dental programs directed at these very youth.

While we explored the idea of an amendment to include dental therapists, it was deemed not feasible within the scope of the bill.

Colleagues, another concern I have with the bill is that the benefit flows directly to the applicant as opposed to the service provider. It is not infrequent that dentists end up taking a loss on many of the services they provide by not receiving direct payment and have no recourse to recovering those expenses. That is why many offices have the policy of prepayment.

When looking at lower-income families, we must not lose sight of the fact that many of them face choices that may be unimaginable to us in our collectively held positions of privilege. For many Canadians, receiving $650 is quite substantial.

Although the money may very well be claimed with the right intent and purpose, life happens. It is not unthinkable that some may be in a position where they must decide if the pot of money sitting in their account is really better served for dentistry or for food, rent or clothing. These challenging decisions are a reality for far too many in our country.

This, colleagues, is what we refer to as the social determinants of health. For too many Canadians, there will always be more pressing concerns surrounding basic necessities. It is these determinants that act as indicators of why some of our more vulnerable populations have higher morbidities and worse health outcomes than other populations across Canada. I had also considered an amendment on this matter, but it would have necessitated a thorough rewrite of the bill.

Honourable senators, another issue I would like to raise is the fundamental lack of oversight when it comes to the appropriation of such a vast amount of public monies. If you search the bill, you will note that no reporting mechanism exists in this legislation. There is no onus on the minister to report to Parliament and give parliamentarians and Canadians a sense of how the money is actually spent: if it was spent efficiently, if it was spent effectively, if there were concerning trends with invalid claims and, thus, unintentional misappropriation of taxpayer dollars.

Given the nature, spirit and intent of the program, I feel parliamentarians should be given the ability to know if the program is working as intended. And if it is not working as intended, parliamentarians deserve the right to know that, too.

As such, honourable senators, I bring forward an amendment to remedy this oversight. It is not changing the scope, substance or action of the bill; merely, it is adding a reporting requirement on the minister so that we, as parliamentarians, can be assured that the legislation we pass — which, again, appropriates a considerable amount of taxpayer dollars — is delivering on what it is intended to.

Senator Plett: Senator Pate, the only way I can properly answer that question is whether the person is Indigenous, Black, White or a different ethnicity, they have the same laws. If they conduct themselves properly in prison, they will get out on their statutory release.

You cannot tell me, Senator Pate, that an Indigenous, incarcerated individual who follows all the rules will be treated differently in staying in prison than somebody else. If you’re suggesting, Senator Pate, that we have a law for Indigenous people and for Black people, and a different law for others, then that’s what we should be working with. But you cannot say that because this person may fall through the cracks, let’s let everybody off in an easy manner. That is not the way to run our justice system.

I’m sorry if that’s not answering your question directly. I believe strongly in mandatory minimums. I believe strongly in mandatory minimums for all Canadians, not just certain groups.

Hon. Kim Pate: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 2, on page 15, by adding the following after line 17:

Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Pate: You’re right, you didn’t answer the question. It’s not me saying this, it’s the Office of the Correctional Investigator documenting that 64% of those in maximum security are Indigenous women in the women’s prison. It’s higher also for men and Black folks as well. They have less access to programs and services.

I ask you again, in exceptional circumstances, would you not support that individuals who, but for the day, would have been the victim had they engaged in hand-to-hand combat without a weapon, and they would often end up dead? Do you not believe they deserve the benefit of the exceptional circumstance? And I agree, regardless of the colour, but it’s a particular issue where we see the systemic discrimination impacting Indigenous women and Black women — those who have the least advantage and supports in society.

Senator Plett: I guess my answer to your question is I have sympathy for anybody who is in the situation that you’re describing. But do I believe that they should be treated differently in law? No, I’m sorry, I do not.