Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I appreciated Senator Bellemare’s discussion of omnibus bills, yet here is another interesting section of this bill.

Colleagues, I rise today to speak to Division 13 of Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, which advances the Senate modernization agenda initiated by this government in 2016 of moving toward a more independent Senate. It includes amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act and other changes.

Division 13 recognizes the steps that have been taken toward independence in our upper chamber and reinforces this direction by making key changes: changing the annual additional allowances for Senate leadership positions, and requiring that leaders of all recognized groups in the Senate are to be consulted on the appointment of certain officers and agents of Parliament.

Colleagues, as we know, these amendments are not new. They were initially introduced as Bill S-4 in the Senate last year; again as Bill S-2 after the 2021 election; then in the other place as Bill C-7; and then were incorporated by the government into this bill, the budget implementation act. They follow from significant rule changes within the Senate since 2016 to recognize groups other than the government and official opposition.

Many of our colleagues have worked hard to achieve these changes. I want to thank all Senate leaders — in particular, our leaders Senator Woo and Senator Saint-Germain — for the hard work they have done over the years, as well as Senator Harder and Senator Gold for taking us to this point.

My goal today is to speak briefly about the evolving Senate and about how Canadians view our upper chamber.

During my 30-year career in the public opinion business, I have had the opportunity to study, analyze and consult Canadians on the many proposals advanced over the years to achieve Senate reform.

In 1987, the Meech Lake Accord included in a short list of provisions a clause giving the provinces the ability to submit names to the Prime Minister to fill Senate spots. That accord died in 1990.

In 1992, the Charlottetown Accord included in its much longer list of provisions clauses to implement a “Triple-E” Senate — a Senate that would be elected, equal and effective. That accord died on the heels of a national referendum that failed that year.

In 2011, Prime Minister Harper introduced legislation with term limits for senators and proposals to allow the provinces to hold Senate elections. That reform also died when the Supreme Court ruled in the 2014 reference that such changes would require constitutional amendments.

Mr. Harper knew then, as we still know now, how difficult it is to change the Constitution. In fact, a recent Environics poll shows that only 35% of Canadians would be willing to reopen the Constitution for the purpose of making changes to the Senate. Much more public support than that would be needed before we would go down that road again.

Colleagues, in my lifetime, the only major Senate reform that has truly succeeded has been Prime Minister Trudeau’s initiative toward creating an independent Senate.

I want to make a few observations about public opinion and speak a bit about what Canadians think of the Senate.

First, we still have challenges with the way the public views the Senate overall. In reviewing national public opinion research conducted by Nanos Research last year, I tried to dig into the weeds to understand what the remaining sources of public dissatisfaction with our chamber were.

Among the number of Canadians who hold a negative view of the Senate, here are the reasons they give for why they view us negatively. Some are critical because we are not elected, and they would prefer to have an elected Senate. Others are critical because they say the Senate is still too partisan, yet others still point to the scandals of many years past. But the single most important critique is that they do not see that we provide value for money. They don’t know exactly what we do, they think maybe we cost too much. They are not quite sure, and that really emerges as the most important of all the critiques.

Colleagues, we have not told the story of our hard work, purpose and sober second thought very well, and we must continue to do a better job of that. When it comes to the independent Senate, however, we see a lot of positive feedback from Canadians.

In the Nanos survey from last year, there was widespread approval of the new Senate appointment process that has been in place since 2016. According to the data, 80% of Canadians think it’s a good change and a good development that new senators sit as independent members and are not active in a political party. Furthermore, 67% think that the open application process to become a senator is a good change, and 79% say it’s a good change that an independent board reviews applications for the Senate.

Most importantly, colleagues, Canadians want future governments to keep building an independent Senate. Three quarters of Canadians — 76% — want future governments to keep the changes to the appointment process that have been implemented, and only 3% of Canadians want to return to the previous ways of appointing senators.

Colleagues, we still have work to do. We must keep building awareness of the Senate’s unique role in governance and of the move toward independence and non-partisanship. When awareness of the independent Senate increases, so do positive attitudes.

I will conclude by saying the reforms promoting independence are a very bright light for our institution. Division 13 of Bill C-19 is an important and vital step toward recognizing our independent Senate and recognizing it into the future. I will be voting yes. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the second reading of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I join my colleagues in speaking today on Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

We have heard many excellent debates about this bill and on the topic of mandatory minimums and their effects on Canadians. But this is not just about mandatory minimums. This is about systemic racism.

It might surprise you to know that even though I’m a former mayor, a lawyer and now a senator, I am not beyond the reach of systemic racism. As I stand here addressing my peers, I want you to know that the privilege that we share does not shield me from the experience of racism.

No matter your path in life, you’re in the skin you’re in.

Now strip away my title as senator. Strip away my career. Strip away my health. Strip away my education, my supportive family and my friends. Let’s take a minute to think about that. If I experience racism, imagine the experience of someone who does not have the privilege that I do.

This is how systemic racism works. As a Black person, you are always subject to the fear, the risk and the reality that there are still injustices that not only exist but are reinforced in places like our legal system, institutions and democracy.

[Translation]

For Black Canadians and members of other racialized communities, mandatory minimum sentences do not start and end at the time of sentencing. Like other inequities in our justice system, these sentences can be traced back and are related to realities, experiences and injustices members of these communities face every day.

[English]

When we look for solutions for these systemic problems and for a clearer understanding of how they tie into issues like mandatory minimums, I am drawn to the writing of community advocates like the Black Legal Action Centre. They wrote in their co-brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:

That the importance of Bill C-5, and the potential impact of their proposed changes to it cannot be separated from the systemic discrimination perpetuated by Canada’s criminal justice system against marginalized people in Canada, and in particular against Black and Indigenous women in Canada.

[Translation]

Even if they continue to look at the statistics on the overincarceration and overrepresentation of racialized people in our justice system, it is obvious that systemic discrimination based on race, sex and income is closely related to this issue.

[English]

This analysis of systemic inequities is also echoed in the testimony of Mr. Brandon Rolle, senior counsel of the African Nova Scotian Institute, who spoke at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In his remarks, Mr. Rolle indicated that the disproportionate impact of mandatory minimums on custody rates for Black people is clearly outlined in the data, but we need to understand the context here.

First, there is a distinct overpolicing and oversurveillance of Black communities, which contributes to the likelihood of being arrested and charged, where Black Canadians are at a disproportionate risk of criminal liability for offences carrying a mandatory sentence.

Second, there is a disproportionate number of Black Canadians detained before trial, which places more significant pressure on them to plead guilty, including to crimes with mandatory minimum penalties.

Third, African Canadians have experienced a legacy of slavery, colonialism, segregation and racism that has led to this historic pattern of disadvantage, which includes overrepresentation in custody, involvement in certain offences, being denied bail and receiving longer jail sentences and subsequently serving harsher time while in custody.

Honourable senators, in understanding that systemic racism is the underlying cause of issues like the overincarceration of racialized people, and is inseparable from practices like mandatory minimums, I will return to the refrain you have heard time and time again.

Mandatory minimums do not work. They do not deter crime. They do not make our communities safer. They do not reduce recidivism and, most of all, they do not bring us toward a more equitable and just Canada for all Canadians. The Black community has been telling us this for decades, and the data reflects this too.

Canada’s federal correctional agency indicates that most Black Canadians accounted for 7.2% of federal offenders in 2018 and 2019, while comprising only 3.5% of Canada’s population. Nearly 1 out of every 15 young Black men in Ontario experiences jail time. That’s compared to 1 in about 70 young White men. These statistics are alarming and disheartening. But, as I have been saying, they only represent one part of the picture.

Mandatory minimums are not merely an issue that affects our numbers and percentages. They are also tools that distance our judicial system from seeing offenders as people with diverse circumstances, perspectives and lived experiences, and are disadvantaged under a racist and discriminatory system.

As I consider these factors and the substantive and data-based responses already outlined by my colleagues, I’m hesitant in my support of Bill C-5. Many advocates, legal professionals and Canadians have waited for so long to finally see this move forward. Bill C-5 does make some progress — it does — in bringing back fairer sentencing by our judges, sentencing based on individual circumstances that slowly turn our eyes to the human, social and financial costs of imposing mandatory minimum sentencing.

[Translation]

However the fact remains, honourable senators, that Bill C-5 eliminates only 20 of 73 mandatory minimum sentences, which means there are still 53 others that will continue to contribute to the overincarceration of racialized Canadians. There are still 53.

[English]

Our communities know how long it takes to get these changes and how many suffer during those years of waiting, advocating and pleading.

Bill C-5 and the entire movement to remove mandatory minimums deals with the systemic racism that continues to ruin so many lives, that robs people of options and possibilities and that prevents people from returning to the healing and rehabilitation potential of their communities.

I acknowledge that mandatory minimums are one piece of the puzzle, and we must do more. We need programs, initiatives with comprehensive community infrastructure and a racialized community-focused justice approach to building real solutions for Canadians. We need efforts further upstream in the justice system that address the root causes of offending behaviour, not just measures that address sentencing after these offences. Colleagues, most of all, we need to be looking at this from the eyes of Canadians who live with and are impacted by our judicial system every day.

In his speech this Monday, Senator Gold stated that for many of us criminal law is personal, and he is so right about this.

[Translation]

Every day, our justice system and our correctional institutions have an impact on the lives of Canadians, whether through their own experiences, those of their loved ones or as part of their duties as professionals or advocates in our justice system.

[English]

I believe we should always treat this as a personal issue, a human issue, that permanently impacts the lived experiences, opportunities and prosperity of real Canadians, not just on our data, statistics and bottom lines.

[Translation]

Mandatory minimum sentences are dangerous tools in our justice system and they do not work. They harm Canadians, particularly those from racialized communities who are already fighting against a system that is still riddled with systemic inequalities, racism and discrimination.

[English]

So while from a political and legislative perspective Bill C-5 is a good step in the right direction, from a human and personal standpoint, I’m under no illusion here. We have not gone far enough. This is why I look forward to the opportunity for a robust committee study this fall when we will have the chance to see where and how we get more for Canadians; why I am eager to hear more about Bill C-5 and how it will tie into the government’s Black Canadians Justice Strategy, as stated in the mandate letter of the Minister of Justice; why I’m focused on what more Bill C-5 can do in advancing change in our justice system.

Laudable, yes, we heard that. Bill C-5 is a laudable effort, but it is not shooting for the moon. It is not shooting for the moon, the stars or any other type of distant goal that hangs high above the realities and needs of Canadians. Repealing mandatory minimums is within reach, not out of this world. It’s one small step in the right direction. The first step makes me feel both concerned and hopeful.

I’ll end on hope — hope that the path ahead offers substantial solutions for the racism experienced by Black Canadians in our justice system. Thank you. Nia:wen.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.)

(At 10:46 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading to speak to Bill C-19, the government’s budget implementation act, 2022, no. 1. I thank all the senators who have spoken thus far for their insightful speeches.

As a member of the National Finance Committee and the Banking Committee, I had the pleasure of immersing myself in a top-to-bottom review of this almost 500-page bill. Combined, we held eight meetings and heard from more than 75 witnesses. We received several written briefs, and I also reviewed the reports from the six committees who conducted pre-studies of specific parts of the bill. And I will attempt to be as complementary as possible to the other speeches we have heard.

Studying a budget implementation act is always an exciting and daunting task that usually includes a review of a long list of policy initiatives, income tax amendments and various other measures. Bill C-19 is no different.

[Translation]

As we all know, sometimes you need to look around you to feel better about yourself. Indeed, the Canadian economy is doing well compared to our G7 allies. For example, the International Monetary Fund revised its growth projections in April downward slightly. Globally, growth is projected to hit 3.6%, while in Canada, the increase is 3.9%, which moves us ahead of the United States, Great Britain and the European Union. These projections are encouraging.

Although the Canadian economy is moving full steam ahead, many Canadians remain in tough, precarious situations. Inflation is mainly to blame for the many problems facing Canadians who are worried about making ends meet. Fortunately, there are some measures in Bill C-19 that will ease the financial burden for some of these Canadians.

[English]

There are a few measures in C-19 that I welcome and feel will help alleviate some of the financial pressure and economic hardships Canadians are dealing with these days due, in part, to the inflationary pressures we are experiencing. I’m optimistic that some of these measures will help create wealth and increase productivity in our country.

For instance, I think of the labour mobility deduction for tradespeople, which was well covered, to allow workers to deduct eligible expenses of up to $4,000 per year. I’ve spoken to many entrepreneurs who continue to struggle to find workers. This measure should help and, hopefully, will solve some of the delays. Labour shortages are not the only challenge, as supply chain delays also continue to have a negative impact, as we have all witnessed and experienced.

I also support the government’s commitment to providing greater support to the disability community, namely through the home accessibility tax credit. This measure is expected to benefit 10,000 Canadian families and allow seniors and people with disabilities to live and age at home. I also support the expansion of the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit, and I would welcome further expansion in the future to a refundable tax credit.

We all know housing supply and affordability in Canada are big issues. Let’s not mince words: It’s a crisis that needs our immediate attention. Thankfully, there are a few measures in Bill C-19 that focus on housing, namely Divisions 4 and 12 of Part 5. Division 4 authorizes the Minister of Finance to make payments to provinces and territories of up to $750 million out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of addressing municipal and other transit shortfalls and needs, and improving housing supply and affordability, which is so important.

Division 12 enacts the prohibition on the purchase of residential property by non-Canadians, a new statute that implements a ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing for two years. The prohibition would also apply to certain foreign corporations and entities and prevent non-eligible foreign persons from avoiding the ban by using corporate structures.

I also want to briefly acknowledge the government’s commitment to fast-track by two years the implementation of a public and searchable beneficial ownership registry by bringing amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act. Division 30 of Part 5 of the bill will require private federal corporations to proactively send information on their beneficial owners to Corporations Canada. The registry is being implemented in a two-phase approach, and we expect further amendments this fall in the government’s second budget implementation act of 2022. In committee, officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, explained that the government will further consult with stakeholders, which is so important.

I think it will be important for our Banking Committee, when the time comes, to take a good look at the proposed changes in phase two to make sure that there are no loopholes that could, among other things, allow foreigners to create shell companies and bypass the measures in Division 12, which bans foreign investment in housing. I know our colleague Senator Downe shares this concern and has written to Minister Freeland about it.

Of course, these three measures are in addition to another housing-related measure we adopted in Bill C-8 last week: the Underused Housing Tax Act, which the government estimates will generate $735 million in revenue in the next five years. Officials who appeared before the National Finance Committee argued that Division 12 is one measure that is packaged within a number of measures put in place in Budget 2022 by the government to contribute to better affordable housing outcomes for Canadians and curb foreign demand.

I was reassured that these measures are only part of a larger package of initiatives because a lot of work still needs to be done on this file. Taxing foreign owners won’t solve the housing shortage, and it is unlikely to address affordability challenges. With the recent and anticipated interest rate hikes, housing may become increasingly more inaccessible for Canadians. Approximately one in four Canadians are worried that increasing interest rates will force them to sell their homes.

It is my hope that our Banking Committee will take the time this fall to explore what opportunities, challenges and risks lie ahead in the sector and make recommendations to the government on how to make housing more affordable, available and accessible.

I appreciate that the federal government may be limited in what it can actually do to address the housing crisis since many of the responsibilities fall within provincial and municipal levels of government. Zoning issues and permitting come to mind. I respect jurisdictional authority, but I also believe that the Canadian federation works best and can achieve great things when all levels of government work together. The housing file is one such issue where collaboration is crucial. When funding transit provincially, a solution would be that this funding be linked to an increase in housing supply. This housing supply is currently being rationed by provinces and municipalities. This is too complicated to get into in a short period of time, but we will study this further, and I will comment on it at a later time.

One issue that has received a lot of media coverage and that I have some reservations about is the select luxury items tax act, Part 4 of the bill. On the surface, this seems like a good policy. As the government argued when it introduced the tax in Budget 2021, those who can afford to buy luxury goods can afford to pay a bit more. It is estimated that this measure would increase federal revenues by $749 million over five years.

At the National Finance Committee, we heard from the aerospace and marine industries, and both advanced that the measure would be harmful to the economy and would have a negative impact for thousands of Canadian families. It was suggested that this measure could result in lost jobs and lost revenues to companies across the country. I won’t get into the numbers, but many supply chains will obviously be affected. We were reminded that the United States enacted a similar tax on boats in the early 1990s, only to repeal it a couple of years later. We can always learn from global jurisdictions and especially our largest trading partner.

Finance officials suggested that, within the context of the economy of the whole, it wouldn’t really impede growth globally but recognized that specific sectors, like automotive, boating and planes, will experience a bigger impact. I think the government may have failed to look at the consequence of this measure on workers within these sectors, lost revenue from sales and the impact on our reputation globally.

I am not suggesting that this tax be repealed from Bill C-19 — and we’ve made a few observations in our National Finance Committee’s report, to which you can refer — but I can’t help but question what economic impact assessment the government conducted to justify it. I think it will be very important for senators on the National Finance Committee to monitor the implementation and impact of this tax and for the government to also track the impact of this tax and the impact it will have on employment, and to act very quickly if the impact is negative.

We’ve discussed the excise taxes and the “sin” taxes, but, rapidly, what can I add? I’ll add this: as reported in the Public Accounts of Canada, revenues from tobacco between 2016 and 2021 amounted to nearly $16 billion, and just over $9 billion for alcohol. These are considerable sums of revenue for the treasury. With respect to vaping products now being taxed, the revenues from their taxation in the next five years will generate approximately $654 million. I just want to outline the importance of those taxes.

In relation to competition and growth, when Minister Freeland tabled her budget in the other place on April 7 she acknowledged that the Achilles heel of the Canadian economy is productivity and innovation. I completely agree with her, and I feel Bill C-19 could have done more to properly address this issue. The business community feels the same way. Sure there are some measures, like the changes to the Competition Act in Division 15 of Part 5, that could set the stage for a more competitive marketplace. According to the government, these changes could result in lower prices for goods and services, greater choices for consumers and better, good-paying jobs — we never have enough good-paying jobs — and an environment that fuels business, innovation and productivity.

This is good news, because we all know that competition will benefit the consumer, and the consumer, I often say, is the driver of every economic recovery and the motor of every economy. If we look south to the largest economy in the world, and our largest trading partner, the consumer is two thirds of that economy, and close to 60% of the economy in Canada. Seeing the importance of the consumer, any measure and/or amendment that benefits the consumer is always very welcome.

It is also important that the government increase engagement with stakeholders, the business community and others to see what else must be done to ensure that Canada keeps pace with our global competitors. We need to be an attractive destination, a place where we encourage businesses to innovate and give Canadian workers a chance to prosper. We must also establish very favourable conditions to promote domestic and foreign investment.

In conclusion, honourable senators, as we look to the future and consider how Canada can, should and must manage the recovery, we need to turn our attention to Canada’s overall competitiveness. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: It’s much easier to distribute wealth than to attract and create wealth. It was the same in business. When you tell executives to cut expenses, they quickly go and do so. When you tell them to grow sales, it’s a little tougher.

Canada needs a plan to address our lacklustre productivity and growth performance. Simultaneously, we must also find ways to raise revenues and start dealing with our debts and deficits. I won’t get into the numbers. They’ve been mentioned enough by Senator Marshall, who is looking at me while smiling and nodding. I also want to thank Senator Moncion for doing a great job as the sponsor of the bill, and Senator Marshall as critic.

While I’m at it, I want to thank all my colleagues on the Finance and Banking Committees. It’s always a learning experience, and I am really privileged. But the best way to raise revenues is to grow our economy.

Colleagues, I will vote in favour of Bill C-19. I feel most of these measures will have a positive impact on our economy, although I was hoping to see more measures to address Canada’s productivity growth and competitiveness. Bill C-19 is, nonetheless, a good step forward and a reminder that much work lies ahead — and not just talk. It’s easy to talk, but let’s see action. Let’s make action happen. I’m glad to contribute, and to join my colleagues on the Finance and Banking Committees in doing some great work. Thank you for all your work.

[Translation]

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Moncion and Senator Marshall for their exceptional work during the study of this bill.

Honourable colleagues, as you know, I have called out the Government of Canada a few times on its priorities when it comes to the financial needs and rights of persons with disabilities, either by deploring how long it took to bring in assistance programs during the pandemic, or emphasizing the urgent need to kick-start a new Canada benefit for persons with disabilities. Our role as sentinel requires us to point out these shortcomings or any other broken promise. However, when appropriate, we also have a responsibility to commend any measure that eases the burden on Canadians with disabilities.

[English]

Bill C-19 gives us the opportunity to do so by proposing to expand the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit, DTC, which is a gateway to being entitled to other supports, including the Registered Disability Savings Plan and the child disability benefit.

[Translation]

I want to take a few minutes today to talk about these changes and to share the relief of the Canadians who have long been pushing for this tax measure to be improved. The Library of Parliament reports that around 45,000 families and individuals will benefit from the DTC and will have better access to other associated benefits.

You may recall that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology examined this tax credit in 2018, in response to the work done by Senator Munson. The tax credit was known to be difficult to access, especially for applicants with intellectual disabilities. At the time, we learned that it was common for a medical certificate stating that an individual met all of the eligibility criteria to be rejected without explanation. We therefore based our recommendations on the need to eliminate barriers, make the eligibility criteria fairer and more consistent, and inject some compassion into the administration of the program.

[English]

Our requests have been partially met by the changes proposed in this budget implementation bill, which will not only facilitate assessment and reduce delays, but, above all, will improve access to this tax measure. In general, an individual is eligible for the DTC if he or she has one or more severe and prolonged impairments in their physical or mental function that seriously limits their ability to perform basic activities of daily living.

[Translation]

The first set of amendments in Bill C-19 actually updates the list of what are considered to be mental functions essential for daily living. This list was strongly criticized for its lack of clarity and consistency with respect to several regular life situations.

The other major change to be commended concerns what can be included when calculating the time spent weekly on essential therapy. At present, certain activities are not included. For example, consumption of food and activities related to the physical exercise required to administer medication and ensure the safe dosage of medical food or medical formula are not eligible.

This will no longer be the case once Bill C-19 is passed. Even better, the new category of activities will also include the time spent on appointments to receive treatment because of the impairment. It will also be possible to calculate the time spent by another person to assist the individual receiving therapy if that individual is unable to perform the activities themselves because of the effects of their disability. At present, any recipient must be receiving essential therapy at least three times a week, for a total of at least 14 hours a week. The frequency required for the administration of this will be reduced from three times a week to two.

Another bit of good news in this bill is that, thanks to an amendment passed unanimously by the other place’s finance committee, people with type 1 diabetes will now automatically be eligible for the DTC.

[English]

Dr. Michèle Hébert, Chair of Buds in Bloom and family advocate at Children’s Healthcare Canada, welcomes this progress in these terms:

This amendment recognizes the extensive time spent to coordinate care, in large part due to issues related to application processes and administration such as missing forms, heavy paperwork, re-application requirements, rejections, securing a prescriber’s approval or bureaucratic interpretations in meeting eligibility to secure this important tax credit.

Dr. Marc-André Dugas, Chief of Pediatrics at Centre mère‑enfant Soleil du CHU and board member at Children’s Healthcare Canada, states that:

 . . . this is a welcome change to reduce the associated administrative burden on families and providers alike, this reduces the challenges facing young families at a time when they are attempting to courageously manage this illness.

[Translation]

There are still barriers. The eligibility criteria will be less stringent. However, some Canadians who hire consultants to fill out the form so they can collect the benefit may turn over up to 30% of their tax refund once their application is approved. This is in spite of the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act that was passed in 2014 — yes, 2014 — and the publication of the regulations in 2021, which was nine years later. The regulations, which were supposed to cap fees that DTC promoters could accept or charge for these services at $100, were suspended indefinitely by a British Columbia judge pending the outcome of a constitutional challenge.

There are still obstacles and barriers. From equipment costs to treatment and services, the harsh reality is that it always costs more to be a person with a disability.

That said, I’m pleased to see that people with disabilities are now participating in the conversation more than ever before. Three years ago yesterday, the ambitious and historic Accessible Canada Act received royal assent. The act is based on the principle of “nothing without us,” which set the tone and showed that a barrier-free Canada is possible by 2040. It’s realistic to hope the provinces will follow suit in sectors under their jurisdiction.

The 2020 Speech from the Throne announced a plan to include people with disabilities, and the new Canada disability benefit is a key component of that plan.

[English]

In conclusion, while I applaud the proposals in Bill C-19, it remains frustrating and disappointing to see that Bill C-22 has not even begun second reading in the other place. I therefore urge the government to make it a high priority when we get back in September because as we are about to recess, we must never forget that for the 22% of Canadians living with a disability — and as many have said before me — poverty will not take a summer break. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-5 introduced by Senator Gold earlier this week and, if I may say so, spoken to in depth and with elegance.

I support the bill, but am hopeful that at committee we will have the opportunity to explore the bill and potentially go further.

Many colleagues will have a deeper empirical appreciation than I do of the implications of many aspects of this bill. I will not try to replicate those deeper understandings or appropriate them. Today, I would like to speak to the principles associated with two aspects of the bill and that I hope we will have the opportunity to study in depth.

The first relates to the removal of a series of statutorily imposed mandatory minimum sentences for approximately 20 criminal offences. As others have noted, including the sponsor of the bill, these offences represent a minority of the existing mandatory minimums in federal criminal law. I want to explore the principles upon which this initiative is based and will suggest that these principles are equally applicable to the sentences for the remaining 50 or so mandatory minimum sentences.

I want to suggest that there are two governing principles that underlie this aspect of the bill. The first is the principle of constitutionality and the consequences of unconstitutional laws on the books. As we have heard, a significant motivation for this amendment is that over 40 courts have struck down mandatory minimum sentences as unconstitutional violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, either because of the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or as an unjustified violation of the principles of fundamental justice.

The presence of mandatory minimums has created at least four problematic consequences. First, they have, in many cases, led to incarcerations that can only be viewed as harsh and unfair and, as we have heard, these harsh and unfair consequences have been disproportionately assigned to offenders from racialized and marginalized communities.

Second, consider the circumstances where you are charged with an offence that carries a significant mandatory minimum sentence. Even if you think you are not guilty of the offence, the sword of that mandatory minimum hanging over your head is liable to induce you to admit to a lesser offence just to avoid that sword. The coercive nature of mandatory minimums is unacceptably weighty, and consequently too susceptible to leveraging unfair plea bargains.

Third, for those who wish to challenge the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum sentence, they must launch and fund such a challenge on their own. Given that many who are caught up in the criminal justice system are of modest means, to say the least, absent the willingness of a lawyer or legal organization, the opportunity to launch such a challenge is minimal — unfairly minimal.

Fourth, the cases that challenge mandatory minimum sentences are complex and, in certain respects, unique. They consume an enormous amount of both court time and court cost. They require courts to develop imaginative approaches to analyzing the constitutionality of mandatory minimums. Indeed, one of our leading judges on these issues, Justice David Doherty of the Ontario Court of Appeal, is rapidly becoming the “emperor” of so-called “reasonable hypotheticals,” a necessary, though unusual, technique to analyze mandatory minimums.

These questions of unconstitutionality are important to us as senators in relation to our responsibilities, and the implications of unconstitutional mandatory minimums have great significance for offenders, the system and the big issues of access to justice that deserve our serious consideration.

The second principle involved here with respect to the initiative to eliminate a number of mandatory minimums is an implicit statement of our confidence in our judiciary and their wise exercise of discretion. This is also really important. We are a society governed by law and, as we like to say, the rule of law. We, as senators, are part of that framework, but judges are at the centre.

Given the importance of the rule of law, it is surely an understatement to say that we repose enormous authority in, and responsibility upon, our judges. With rare exceptions, we try our best to pick the best people available to serve as judges. Once there, they have important work to do in ensuring that proceedings are fair; they hear and assess the witnesses; and they reach decisions, some of which are life-determining for the people before them — weighty decisions, to say the least.

That is no less true in cases where mandatory minimum sentences are at play.

But keep this in mind: Long before the sentencing decision and question arise, it is the judge who must oversee the proceedings and, in most cases, weigh the evidence in determining this most important question of whether the person before them should be convicted of the offence in the first place. So is it not passing strange that we parliamentarians have decided that these very judges are not capable of administering the next stage of justice; they cannot be fully trusted to impose a fair and just punishment?

Sentencing is a process itself that is guided by a body of law — the law of sentencing — that has been developed over the decades. At my law school, for example, we offer a popular course exclusively dedicated to sentencing in criminal law. So there is a thoughtful system in place.

If one thinks that the judge got it wrong in the application of those sentencing principles, the decision is capable of being reviewed.

It is a remarkably good system.

I don’t want to be uncharitable to parliamentarians, and I have not studied the work of Parliament when mandatory minimum sentences were introduced over the years, but my guess is that this body of law — this law of sentencing — was not much studied at the time.

Regarding this bill, to the government’s credit, the bill expresses the support for and endorses those two principles: a commitment to constitutionality and a recognition of the independence of judges and their exercise of judicial discretion in doing the difficult jobs we ask them to do. Each of those principles is applicable to the amendments before us that will remove some mandatory minimums.

But here is the rub for me and, I think, for others: Each of these principles also applies to those mandatory minimums left in place, not even moderated where exceptional circumstances exist and might justify them. Indeed, to the credit of Senator Jaffer and other colleagues in this house, the sponsorship of other bills would take those two principles to their logical conclusion and address the range of mandatory minimums in honourable and principled ways.

On that point, I want to end by observing that some may say that political expediency — half a loaf — is sometimes necessary; that is, half measures are required. I’m new to this kind of work, and I think I understand that principle in a general way, but we’re talking about principles here that are deeply embedded in our law. We are a people who adhere to law, especially our Constitution, and we trust one of the best judiciaries in the world to deliver the law well, honourably and fairly.

My hope is that we will choose such principles over expediency and go further than Bill C-5 on this issue of mandatory minimums.

My second set of comments relating to Bill C-5 is focused on the diversion measures contemplated for inclusion in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I support these measures but want to pose two questions or concerns. The first is contextual. Here I am borrowing and, to some extent, critiquing the observations that Senator Gold made in his speech with respect to the bill.

The bill proposes that prosecutions proceed on charges of simple possession only if the prosecutor is of the opinion that none of the alternatives — a warning, referral or alternative measures — is appropriate. That none of those other measures is appropriate is a requirement for a prosecutor to proceed. But by any other measure — and to some extent, Senator Gold referenced this — this is a description of prosecutorial discretion. All of this authority already exists for prosecutors, so the section seems redundant and unnecessary.

Furthermore — and this is a mystery to me, although perhaps this is already in place — nearly all the charges under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are prosecuted by federal prosecutors or their agents rather than prosecutors within provincial governments who prosecute most other criminal matters; that is, those who handle drug cases are agents of the Attorney General of Canada. The Attorney General can give this directive to prosecutors without one word of legislation. Although Senator Gold observed that this is helpful in provincial contexts, the fact of the matter is that provincial prosecutors do not prosecute these cases except in the most extraordinary of circumstances.

It feels like a redundancy. I support the concept, but it seems to me that it’s unnecessary in legislation.

My second and, quite frankly, more serious concern with this part of the bill is the curious disconnect between what prosecutors are to do in the context of alternative measures — the process I have just described — and what is required of police officers.

This is a fairly significant dimension of the bill in real time. This is where the issues of individuals facing potential charges are encountered the most. In most Canadian jurisdictions, when the police officer has a reasonable basis on which to believe that a crime has been committed, they have the authority and discretion to lay a charge — in legal terms, “laying an information.” The same is true particularly for charges of simple possession with respect to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

You will recall that the proposed amendment for prosecutors requires that they proceed with a charge only when alternative measures are inappropriate. The way it works is that they take up the prosecution of the charges laid by the police officers and make a judgment. Hence, you would expect that, for police officers who initiate the process, the standard for laying the charge in the first place — that is, only when other options are inappropriate — would be the same. But it is not. Police officers need only consider whether it would be “preferable” to pursue an alternative measure. That is far less than a mandatory requirement: “prosecution only where no other option is appropriate.”

You might be inclined to think, “This is okay. The prosecutor will clean things up.” True, but that fails to take into account a number of observations, including ones Senator Gold made, about the consequences of being charged: if one thinks about it, the lost opportunity of an alternative measure; the embarrassment to an accused of a charge, though subsequently withdrawn, having been laid in the first place; and it doesn’t take into account the waste of police, court and prosecution resources when matters are resolved later in the process than necessary.

If “only where appropriate” is the requirement for proceeding with a charge in court, surely it should be the requirement for laying the charge in the first place. That has to be addressed.

While I support the bill, in my view, it can be improved and expanded. I hope that those and other aspects of Bill C-5 will be carefully considered at committee and that a good initiative can be made even better.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

Hon. Éric Forest: I would like to congratulate and thank the sponsor of the bill, Senator Moncion; the official critic, Senator Marshall; as well as the committee chair and its members.

I just want to come back for a moment to the luxury items tax that would apply to the aeronautical, nautical and automotive sectors, among others.

As you know, the current government made this a key election promise; unfortunately, it seems to be poorly crafted. Indeed, during our work, we were very surprised to find that officials from the Department of Finance, otherwise extremely competent people, were unable to justify this tax which, as we know, could be very damaging for the aerospace industry and its workers.

Aircraft manufacturers came to committee to tell us that, as it stands, the tax will have a significant impact on the entire aerospace industry. They estimate losses of $1 billion in revenue as well as 1,000 direct jobs gone. It is important to put this in the broader context, where the Canadian aerospace industry has lost almost 30,000 jobs in 2020 alone and the sector’s contribution to Canada’s GDP has decreased by $6.2 billion.

Our first instinct was to ask Department of Finance officials the following: If 1,000 direct jobs and $1 billion in revenue are about to be jeopardized because of this luxury tax, can we assume that a study of the anticipated revenue has been conducted, to assess whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Much to our great surprise, we were told that no such studies had been done. Since I’m sure you are as shocked as the Finance Committee members were, let me quote the relevant part from the evidence.

The Director General of the Sales Tax Division with the Department of Finance, Phil King, appeared before the committee on May 31. I asked him the following, and I quote:

Following the consultations, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada indicated that it estimated that the tax could result in the loss of approximately 1,000 jobs in Canada and lost sales of between $500 million and $1 billion.

In your consultations, did you estimate the impact of this tax on Canadian jobs in the aerospace industry? I have nothing against taxing the wealthiest; it’s a matter of social equity. However, has the impact on workers been assessed?

He provided the following answer, and I quote:

To respond directly to the senator’s question, no, the department has not done an economic impact estimate on the auto, boating or aviation sectors. There are a couple of reasons.

First of all, there are few other examples of such taxes to which we can appeal to look at the impacts, and the economic literature on this type of tax is fairly thin. In particular, that’s true of the aircraft sector.

So we don’t have an estimate of specifically what the impacts could be, but we have, at the very least, consulted fairly extensively with industry and heard some of the impacts that the senator had mentioned.

Just to be clear, C-19 introduces a tax on luxury items to help the government balance its budget after it had to spend significant amounts during the pandemic. According to the government, the idea is to get the wealthy to contribute. This tax applies to different items, including aircraft mainly produced in Quebec. However, the government is unable to say whether this tax will bring in more than what it will cost in terms of job losses, employment insurance, lower GDP, and so forth.

It is nonetheless quite astonishing that a G-7 country would proceed by trial and error without taking the full measure of the potential negative impact that this tax could have on the flagship businesses of Quebec’s economy.

I admit that the lack of a cost-benefit analysis, even a cursory one, tends to reinforce the argument of those who claim that this luxury tax is primarily an electoral ploy by the government to show that it is attacking the wealthiest one per cent.

If the goal is to balance the budget by taxing the wealthy, I think it would have been more effective to increase income taxes to better target the wealthiest members of our society, reconsider certain tax loopholes and revisit our tax treaties with some complacent jurisdictions. However, I must admit that, from an election perspective, that seems less impressive than a tax on luxury items.

I must say that we are very concerned about the lack of a cost‑benefit analysis. That is why the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance added an observation to its report on Bill C-19 to recommend that the Department of Finance conduct a real study on the effect this tax would have on Canada’s aircraft market and jobs before imposing this tax on the aerospace industry.

As several committees and several colleagues pointed out, it is shameful that we have so little time to study such a big and important bill.

We have criticized the use of omnibus bills to pass measures that have nothing to do with the budget many times in the past. For example, as the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs indicated, it is appalling that the government is including amendments to the Criminal Code to tackle antisemitism in a massive budget implementation bill.

Honourable senators, let me be clear. I think we need to pass Bill C-19 in order to help pensioners, the unemployed, students, workers, and, generally, Canadians. However, I do not want this support to be interpreted as condoning the actions of the government that unfortunately has a bad habit of pushing around parliamentarians by imposing far too strict deadlines to study complex bills containing hundreds of measures that often have nothing to do with the budget. This is a terrible practice and is certainly inconsistent with the government’s claims that it is in favour of transparency and sound management of public funds. Thank you. Meegwetch.

[English]

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I want to first thank Senator Moncion for her sponsorship of this bill and her excellent speech. I also want to thank Senator Marshall. I think we may have only four more budgets that Senator Marshall may be giving great reviews of — maybe better reviews, in another year. We’re all appreciative of the time you take to describe the different elements, Senator Marshall, very reliably, regardless of who the sponsor is.

Colleagues, I want to speak to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, 2022, referencing Budget 2022 that was titled: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable. It was billed as a:

. . . plan for targeted and responsible investments to create jobs and prosperity today, and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians.

I am always pleased to see the government invest in innovation, but innovation alone will not secure the prosperity of our grandchildren and future generations to come. For us to get a strong return on that innovation investment, we will need to align government policies, including procurement polices, regulations and legislation.

We have no time to waste. We are in a global competition for economic opportunity as the world transforms due to digitization and climate change. Right now, it doesn’t look good. The OECD predicts that Canada will be at the back of the pack in terms of economic performance through 2030 and in the three decades that follow.

So I am going to make three points that I hope will help to focus attention on what is needed to generate economic return from innovation.

Point 1: The government needs to catalyze and accelerate private investment in innovation.

The pandemic highlighted the potential for governments to innovate, but I feel we have slipped back to where innovation is the exception, not the norm. We have to start applying an innovation lens to our most pervasive problems in our society and economy with agility, speed and scale.

Government has a role in catalyzing private investment and accelerating innovation in the private sector. Unfortunately, this is because we’re much better inventors than we are innovators. We have a fabulous research engine, but we are still searching for that transmission that will convert all that research power into the opportunities, jobs and prosperity that Canadians increasingly need.

Achieving this is and has been difficult. Deputy Prime Minister Freeland stated in her budget speech that innovation and productivity are the Achilles heel of our economy. I agree with her. Indeed, many governments, no matter the political party, have been unable to tackle this issue effectively. This is not a new problem in Canada.

This problem was also highlighted by the Senate’s Prosperity Action Group, led by Senator Harder. Our report highlighted the following two points. First, over a period of 50 years, Canada’s productivity growth has declined considerably. In 1970, Canada’s GDP per hour worked was roughly $1 less than in the United States and $1 more than the G7 average. By 2019, Canada’s GDP per hour was $18.10 less than the US and $9.50 less than the G7 average.

Second, in 2019, Canadian businesses were investing approximately $15,000 per worker in machinery, buildings, engineering, infrastructure and intellectual property. However, businesses across the OECD were on average investing $21,000 per worker — 40% more — and in the U.S. it was $26,000 per worker — nearly 75% more than in Canada. That is a predictor of the productivity of those workers and our prosperity in the future.

According to the OECD, in 2020 Canada had the lowest level of business investment as a percentage of total investment in the G7. However, it had the highest household investment level and the second-highest government investment level as a percentage of total investment compared to the G7 in 2020.

It is this final point that I would like you to focus on: Canada has the highest level of household investment and the lowest level of business investment despite having leading levels of government investment. If we’re going to deliver the promise of Budget 2022, a plan for targeted and responsible investments to create jobs and prosperity today and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians, our government must find ways to successfully catalyze and accelerate private investment in innovation. And we must hurry up and build that transmission, or else we won’t be able to afford the engine or the fuel for research.

Point 2: There is an urgent need for greater competition. Over the past year, we have seen a revival of the debate surrounding Canada’s competition law and policies. You all know how grateful I am to Senator Howard Wetston for his incredible effort to facilitate the consultation and debate around the Competition Act.

As a result, I was pleased to see the provisions in Bill C-19 regarding amendments to the Competition Act. Division 15 introduced amendments to the Competition Act to criminally prohibit wage-fixing, allow private access to the Competition Tribunal on abuse of dominance and expand the scope of abuse of dominance practices. These are welcome amendments that will move the needle forward on the extensive work needed to reform the Competition Act.

However, I was most pleased when the government clearly positioned these changes to the Competition Act as a “down payment” on what we could expect to see. I was not alone. The Banking Committee shared this view and offered the following observation:

The committee believes it is imperative that the Government of Canada follows through on the commitment in Budget 2022 to consult broadly on the role and functioning of the Competition Act and its enforcement regime, and that it do so without delay.

The need for greater consultation on the act is imperative. Competition affects everyone. It is therefore important to have broad consultations to hear a diverse range of voices on how to reform this important law, not just those of traditional incumbents who have the most to gain from maintaining the status quo. We have to reach far beyond.

Beyond changes to the Competition Act, also discussed by Senator Loffreda, we need to have a whole-of-government approach in terms of developing pro-competitive policies and levelling the playing field for new entrants across the board and delivering increased value to Canadian consumers, especially in sectors where large incumbents dominate, like banking and telecom.

To this end, the Competition Bureau has issued a competition impact assessment and a Competition Assessment Toolkit, which can be a vital tool for legislators and regulators. They need to be used by public servants who have to start prioritizing these tools so they can identify anti-competitive practices, policies and regulations across government and make them pro-competitive.

Our economy will never achieve our potential unless governments become more innovative, more willing to change and unwilling to tolerate the statement, “but that’s not how we do things.”

Point 3: The last point I want to make is about regulatory modernization. You heard me speak about this in my third-reading speech on Bill S-6 earlier this week. Canada has a huge problem with command-and-control regulations. OECD data for 2018 shows that Canada leads the OECD in the use of these regulations, and that is not a good thing. By definition, they eliminate the opportunity to innovate because they define the process that must be followed.

To be clear, I’m not in favour of deregulation; rather, I’m in favour of efficient regulation and regulatory modernization that plays a huge role in spearheading innovation, increasing investment and accelerating the growth of business while protecting consumers from risks that rapidly emerge only when regulations stagnate in our ever-changing world.

If you don’t understand the breadth of administrative burden due to how we regulate, please listen again to the speech that Senator Petitclerc just gave. Those issues are in every corner of how we govern ourselves.

In conclusion, we must become fervent in our determination to build an effective transmission that converts the power from our research engine into opportunities, jobs and prosperity. Increased competition creates opportunities for innovative new entrants, and those new entrants push incumbents to invest in innovation versus increasing dividends, bonuses and share buybacks. That’s the benefit of increased competitive pressure. New competitive opportunities increase investment, which further fuels innovation and drives the changes needed to achieve productivity growth.

But the innovation will not convert to productivity growth unless we modernize our regulations so that businesses are empowered to implement innovative new practices that also protect consumers. It is productivity growth that will deliver the promise of Budget 2022. Productivity growth is what will grow our economy and make life more affordable.

However, we have been heading in the wrong direction for 40 years. Change is hard, and we need change. In a recent op-ed in The Hill Times, Professor Ken Coates of the University of Saskatchewan offered:

Tinkering with Canada’s existing innovation policies will not transform the national economy into a creative economic power. Governments need to rethink their approaches and look for innovative innovation policies.

An innovative economy requires an innovative government. Canada is already a G7 leader in investing tax dollars. However, we are an OECD laggard when it comes to updating policies, regulations and legislation that determine how effectively those investments convert into opportunities, jobs and prosperity.

Let’s “double down” and “triple down” on the down payment that Bill C-19 has made in competition law reforms and the good intentions of Bill S-6 as it relates to regulatory modernization.

I hope you now see how those crucial elements are important to fulfilling the promise of Budget 2022. I support Bill C-19 as a down payment on all the hard work we need to do to maximize the return on the government’s investment in innovation. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Kutcher, will you take a question?

Senator Kutcher: Absolutely.

The Hon. the Speaker: The sitting is suspended until 8 p.m. Senator Galvez, you will have the balance of your time when we return.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Galvez, it is now six o’clock. I apologize, but I have to interrupt you.

Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I’m required to leave the chair and suspend until eight o’clock unless it’s agreed that we not suspend. If you wish the sitting to be suspended, please say “suspend.”

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

The Hon. the Speaker: All those senators in the chamber who are opposed to the motion will please say, “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will take place at 8:36 p.m. Call in the senators.

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator McCallum negatived on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the second reading of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those senators in the chamber who are in favour of the motion will please say, “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on a bell?