Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, a substantial amount of the spending in Bill C-15 and the Supplementary Estimates (C) concerns Canada’s ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet again, we must reckon with the significantly worse health outcomes faced by low-income Canadians both prior to and during the pandemic.

Data from the Public Health Agency of Canada underscores that those with the least have been twice as likely as those most well off to die of COVID-19. The Public Health Agency links this horrific disparity to social and economic inequalities faced by people below the poverty line — from greater risk of underlying and disabling health conditions and lack of safe housing, to unsafe working conditions and not being able to afford to stay home from front-line gig work or minimum wage jobs.

In human, social and health terms, these unequal health outcomes are unconscionable. They also carry significant financial consequences. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer reminded the National Finance Committee during his testimony on the Supplementary Estimates (C), the financial burden includes:

. . . first, the costs on the individuals themselves by being prevented from working due to poorer health outcomes. . . . it reduces income and employment gains, and it also reduces attachment to the workforce. . . . individuals with poorer health outcomes tend to have weaker social networks, which can lead to further isolation . . . They often have to incur additional expenses: medication, drugs, supports, at-home supports and others.

There are also costs that have to be borne by society. . . . If people with poorer health outcomes have to withdraw from the labour force, that imposes costs on each and every one of us when jobs go unfilled.

There are also the costs of treating people. Those costs would be lower if they had better health outcomes in the first place. It is much more expensive to treat diseases and illnesses than it is to prevent them, generally speaking.

The most significant spending measure in Bill C-15 arises from the need to treat the results of health inequalities that we have neglectfully failed to prevent. Thirty per cent of the spending proposed by the bill — $4 billion — earmarked for procurement and distribution of additional COVID-19 rapid tests is linked specifically to trying to address COVID-19 risk among so-called vulnerable groups.

At the National Finance Committee, the Public Health Agency of Canada identified these populations as including groups such as Indigenous peoples, those of African descent, other racialized populations, those with disabilities, front-line service providers and essential workers. The committee had the opportunity to ask government officials whether these latest proposed measures are projected to close the gap in COVID-19 mortality for Canadians who have the least. Particularly, we asked how they would compare to income support measures that might have addressed underlying inequalities and allowed people to afford measures, from PPE to physical distancing, necessary to better protect themselves, their families and communities during the pandemic.

We also asked about the portion of pandemic spending, from the cost of PPE to vaccinations to mental health supports and so many other measures, related to the need to respond to emergency health situations created by social and economic inequalities that predated and were exacerbated by COVID-19.

In response, the Public Health Agency acknowledged its own previous research revealed “robust associations between income and health in Canada” and that “the direct economic burden of health inequities on health care costs is substantial.”

In 2016 alone, socio-economic inequalities cost at least $6.2 billion annually, or over 14% of total expenditures on acute care in-patient hospitalizations, prescription medication and physician consultations.

The Public Health Agency also indicated, however, that it had not conducted health policy modelling studies to determine the effects on pandemic spending and health outcomes if measures such as robust income supports had been in place to try and redress pre-existing inequalities for those most at risk of COVID.

We could find no department that has conducted such analyses. The failure of the government to provide this type of assessment results in a massive gap and wholly inadequate ability to plan, much less prepare for, future challenges. It thus significantly erodes confidence in the foundation upon which the Canadian health, social and economic policy decisions are being made. When policy is debated in Canada, whether here in Parliament, around kitchen tables, in the metaverse or on the streets, many are acutely aware of the consequences of the continued reaction to emergencies.

Too often, though, the real cost of failing to take proactive, preventative action is not in the balance when we weigh the challenges of decades of inaction. Instead, focus is zeroed in on the initial costs of bold measures to address poverty and inequality — from guaranteed livable basic income to housing strategies, disability benefits, universal mental health care, pharmacare, dental care, child care and education.

Too rarely do we consider the costs of failing to act, the costs we are repeatedly being asked to approve in order to patch some but not all of the wounds and not for everyone.

Poverty and related inequalities cost Canadian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, particularly in emergency health care measures, the criminal legal system and responses like shelters or food banks that dangle the hope of survival while reminding people that they are constantly on the brink of crisis.

These are the hidden costs of policies characterized as pursuing fiscal prudence but which do not reach everyone in need or fail to provide enough support and further stretch social and health systems that already leave too many people behind. Much worse than financial cost, as we have seen during the pandemic, failure to redress these inequalities also costs lives.

I want to urge therefore that we recognize many of the measures in this bill as not only vital to COVID-19 responses but also the costs that Canadians continue to pay as a result of our country’s failure to shore up health and social safety nets, to redress social, health and economic inequality and, particularly, to work to support people in finding pathways out of poverty.

The costs of our inaction need to factor into how we analyze and evaluate government spending. They must also push us to consider how resources can be invested differently to bring about healthier, more just and equal communities for all of us. Meegwetch, thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

This bill provides for funding what we call interim supply, which gives the government the authority to spend before the Main Estimates are approved.

[English]

The publication House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit explains it this way:

Since the fiscal year begins on April 1 and the normal Supply cycle only provides for the House to decide on Main Estimates in June, the government would appear to be without funds for the interim three months. For this reason, the House authorizes an advance on the funds requested in the Main Estimates to cover the needs of the public service from the start of the new fiscal year to the date on which the Appropriation Act based on the Main Estimates of that year is passed.

Colleagues, as someone who came to this place with a fairly extensive background in the private sector, I can assure you that this process raises flags for me and it should for all of you.

We are being asked to provide approval for the government to spend about one quarter of its voted expenditure plan prior to a detailed examination of those expenditures and prior to the approval of the Main Estimates, which won’t happen until sometime in June.

Furthermore, it is important to realize that, regardless of what Parliament decides about the Main Estimates in June, any spending approval which is granted through this interim supply bill cannot be withdrawn later.

As stated in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

. . . during the examination of the main estimates, neither the House nor its committees can reduce a vote to an amount less than the amount already granted in interim supply.

This applies to the Senate as well. Even though the Senate’s National Finance Committee has not yet cracked open a single page of the Main Estimates, this chamber is required to approve $75 billion of interim spending and there is no recourse to withdraw any of that spending approval once it has been granted.

If the business of supply were operating properly, this would be an acceptable process. Checks and balances would be in place to ensure that adequate accountability and oversight was in place. But this is not the case. When it comes to the business of supply, parliamentarians are receiving inadequate information, receiving it late and are not being provided with a plan to see this rectified.

We always complain about it, but it is the same, ugly cycle. I want to be clear, colleagues. This is not a new problem. It has occurred many, many times. We rip our shirts in indignation when it occurs.

[Translation]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer brought up this problem in the report he released in November entitled Considerations for Parliament in Reforming the Business of Supply. He noted that there was, and I quote, “increasing unease among many legislators regarding their ability to provide informed consent of the government’s proposed financial plans.”

He goes on to say the following, and I quote:

This wariness is most palpable in the number of parliamentary standing committee reports issued since the mid-1990s offering recommendations to improve legislative scrutiny of the Business of Supply.

The mid-1990s, esteemed colleagues. That was 30 years ago, and this is still going on.

[English]

Colleagues, I think I can safely speak for most of us when I say that when the Main Estimates arrive, you open them up to take a look and almost immediately feel overwhelmed and exhausted, as stated by many of our colleagues. No doubt there are a couple of exceptions to this, perhaps Senator Marshall and Senator Loffreda, but I’m sure that for a great many of us perusing the Main Estimates can be like drinking from a fire hose. There is simply no way we can be expected to adequately review and digest that amount of financial information in the time frame that’s expected.

In the end, I wonder how many of us slap the estimates shut and are more thankful than ever for Senators Marshall and Loffreda, and others who more readily consume all that information and are able to drill down on it, because, colleagues, it represents an awful lot of money that is going out the door in an awfully quick fashion.

But the truth is no parliamentarian has the ability to properly scrutinize the government’s expenditure plan and Main Estimates because the information necessary to do so is not made readily available. And my raising the red flag on this isn’t just partisan rhetoric; this is a widely acknowledged problem which has been left unaddressed for a long time.

In his 2016 report — six years ago — the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that there were three core problems with the business of supply: one, the budget presents new policy initiatives but the estimates present functional adjustments to the allotments. Why does this even matter? Well, because, as stated in the PBO report:

Parliament does not have control over new policy initiatives, allowing money to be transferred between policy initiatives without parliamentary approval.

The second problem is that the Main Estimates do not include new budget measures:

Parliament spends its time scrutinizing a spending plan in the main estimates that does not reflect the current reality presented in the budget.

Third, the budget and Main Estimates have a different scope and basis of accounting. As noted by the PBO, this means that:

Parliament is asked to vote on a spending plan in the main estimates that cannot be easily reconciled with overall spending.

[Translation]

Colleagues, I mention these three points to emphasize that the problems that affect parliamentarians’ ability to provide effective oversight of public spending are well known. There is no mystery there.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s 2016 report summarized the findings of a House of Commons committee report published in 2012 entitled Strengthening Parliamentary Scrutiny of Estimates and Supply.

That report, which was supported by all parties, not only identified some of the problems at the time, but also proposed practical and meaningful measures to address them.

That was 10 years ago, and parliamentarians are still waiting for the proposed solutions to be implemented.

[English]

To its credit, this government did not simply ignore the proposals. It admitted the system is broken and that it needed to be fixed.

In November 2016 — again, six years ago — the government published a document entitled Empowering parliamentarians through better information, the government’s vision for estimates reform. The very first paragraph in the document, which is available online, reads as follows:

The inability of Parliament to play a meaningful role in reviewing the Government’s spending plans is a frequent source of frustration. It stems from an incoherent Estimates process, where Budget items are not included in the Main Estimates, spending plans are difficult to understand and reconcile, and departmental reports are neither meaningful nor informative.

Honourable senators, those were the government’s own words in 2016. That statement was made in a document published by the President of the Treasury Board at the time, none other than the Honourable Scott Brison.

Now, on the one hand, perhaps we can take some comfort in the fact that the government has acknowledged there is a problem and that it needs to be addressed. But on the other hand, that acknowledgment was made five and a half years ago and nothing has substantively changed since then; absolutely nothing.

[Translation]

In this year’s report on the Main Estimates, the Parliamentary Budget Officer again sounded the alarm. He wrote the following, and I quote:

As noted by the PBO in previous reports, while there is a fixed tabling date for the Main Estimates (no later than March 1st), no such guarantee exists for the other supporting information (notably the Departmental Plans and the Departmental Results Reports). While this discretion provides greater flexibility to the Government, it does create the risk of misalignment between the money parliamentarians are asked to approve and when details of the planned (and actual) spending are available. This undermines the ability of parliamentarians to meaningfully scrutinize proposed spending.

[English]

There was more. The PBO went on to say:

While the Government refers to the Main Estimates as the “Government’s Expenditure Plan”, they generally fail to include any measures in the corresponding Budget, nor do the Departmental Plans, and therefore present an incomplete picture of government spending. Tabling the Main Estimates prior to the release of the budget has allowed for more detailed Treasury Board scrutiny of budget measures prior to their consideration by Parliament in the Supplementary Estimates. However, this results in asking parliamentarians to approve funding through the Main Estimates that were incomplete as they do not represent an accurate picture of the Government’s planned spending.

The PBO goes on:

As previously admitted by the Government, this lack of cohesion between two of the Government’s primary fiscal documents engenders confusion. As such, it hinders the ability of parliamentarians and Canadians to understand the overall federal spending strategy, track new policy measures announced in the Budget, or identify the expected results of new Budget measures.

The PBO then repeats the three all-party recommendations made ten years earlier by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates:

Parliament should establish a fixed tabling date for the budget;

This tabling date should be early enough to ensure that Budget measures can be incorporated in the Main Estimates; and

The Departmental Plans should be tabled at the same time as the Main Estimates.

In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, repeated two recommendations he made earlier this year:

. . . Move the publication date of the Public Accounts to no later than September 30th; and

Require the Departmental Results Reports to be published at the same time.

According to the PBO, these five changes “ . . . would create a cohesive, intuitive and (critically) transparent financial decision‑making process for legislators.”

Honourable senators, the truth of the matter is that not only are the problems well known, but the solutions are equally well known. The government’s clear acknowledgment that these problems exist needs to be addressed. You would think this equates to a clear and simple path forward.

Yet, not only has nothing been done, but this lack of information and accountability has also progressively been getting worse over the tenure of this government. Consider the fact that in 2020 we never even received a budget. Then, in 2021, the budget didn’t arrive until the third week of April. Of course, the government blamed the lost budget in 2020 and the late budget in 2021 on COVID. Yet, even this year, the budget will not be tabled in Parliament until April 7.

The Financial Administration Act requires that the public accounts are tabled in Parliament before December 31 of each year, but by convention, they are usually tabled in October. Last year, they were not tabled until November 30. The year before that, they were tabled December 12. This year, the public accounts were not tabled until December 14, 2021, which, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer pointed out, was the latest publication date since 1993-94.

[Translation]

In his January report entitled Economic and Fiscal Update 2021: Issues for Parliamentarians, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated, and I quote:

Comparatively, Canada was among the last of the G7 countries to publish their financial accounts for the 2020‑21 fiscal year.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer added the following:

The federal public accounts are published later than most provincial and territorial public accounts, with nearly half of the provinces and territories publishing their respective public accounts within six months.

The government’s tardy publication of the Departmental Results Reports is further evidence of its inability to provide information in a timely fashion.

[English]

These reports outline the government’s actual performance by department for the most recent fiscal year and enable parliamentarians to review what was actually accomplished through all that money being spent. Yet, this year, these reports were not published until February 2022, which was 10 months after the end of the fiscal year. This is no small thing.

As noted by the PBO:

The lack of timely, comprehensive results data makes scrutinizing proposed spending more difficult. It is important that parliamentarians can understand the results organizations expect to achieve, how they will be measured and how these compare to previous years in order to make informed decisions.

Colleagues, there is no lack of clear action that the government could be taking in order to correct the problems that plague our ability to provide proper oversight and accountability to the expenditures of public funds, which is our fundamental role in this place. Instead of doing so, they continue to make things worse instead of better. A perfect example of this is found in the interim supply bill before us today. As I mentioned earlier, interim supply is supposed to provide an advanced appropriation of money needed for three months: April, May, and June.

Yet, under this government, the amount of money included in the interim supply bill has sharply increased since they took power from 29% to more than 40% of total voted appropriations in the Main Estimates. How high do they plan on allowing that number to go? It’s like they are stuffing as much spending as they can into an interim estimate just to diminish accountability even further — 29% to 40%. It’s unacceptable.

Colleagues, we desperately need this government to get its act together and to do the right thing, but all the indicators are pointing in the wrong direction. Spending is going up, while accountability is going down. Disregard for the role of Parliament has become what we all know it to be. Even those that deny it sense it and see it.

Take note that this interim supply bill is for $75.5 billion. That is almost as much as the entire voted supply in the 2015-16 Main Estimates when this government took power. That year, total voted appropriations in the Main Estimates came to $88 billion. This year, that number is $190 billion. That is a 116% increase in only seven years.

In 2015-16, interim supply was $29 billion. This year, it is 193% higher at $75.5 billion. This government has almost doubled their voted spending requirements in only seven years.

[Translation]

Colleagues, don’t forget that the Main Estimates do not take into account any of the new spending the government will announce in its budget or any of the spending promises it had to make to buy the NDP’s support to save the government.

This government will not hesitate to open the floodgates of public spending and print as much money as necessary so it can keep sprinkling it all over the place.

[English]

They don’t care that our debt is ballooning. They don’t care that the inflation rate has exploded. They don’t care that last year’s fiscal sustainability report warned that current fiscal policy in Canada is not sustainable over the long term and they don’t care that they have no plan to balance the budget.

The truth is, colleagues, they have no fiscal anchor. They are irresponsible. They are short-sighted and dangerously negligent in their stewardship of public finances, and they can’t be bothered to make the fundamental changes necessary to ensure proper oversight by Parliament. It is our obligation to make sure they do.

At the end of the day, I want to remind colleagues that the way this democracy is supposed to work is not the way it’s working. It’s not the Prime Minister at the top with his cabinet under him, and his MPs under him and his senators under him. It is supposed to be the other way around. It’s supposed to be Parliament at the top. Under Parliament, it should be ministers, and under the ministers, at the bottom of the totem pole, it should be the Prime Minister. That’s where the word “prime minister” comes from, servant of the people. That’s where the word “ministers” comes from. The word means servants of the people. Somewhere along the line, we have lost track of that reality. We think that our Parliament, our bureaucracy and our ministers are all accountable to the Prime Minister’s office.

It has to stop at some point if we want to defend fiscal responsibility and we want to defend democracy in the true spirit that we’re supposed to be practising it in. This government has no interest in doing what is right and no qualms about heaping all the obligations to pay for their profligate spending habits on future generations. Clearly, we are seeing a debt right now that generations will be saddled with for decades to come. This government has been reckless and unapologetically incompetent.

Honourable senators, today, I suspect in all likelihood this Senate will pass this bill. We the opposition, the Conservative Party, will continue to call for transparency, for accountability and for fiscal responsibility in our governance. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that after the next general election Canadians will once again have a responsible and competent government that works to ensure the future rather than the present and that takes into consideration that decisions we make today will have a huge impact on future generations of Canadians. Thank you.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15, Appropriation Act No. 5 for this fiscal year. It is the final appropriation act for this year and is requesting parliamentary approval for $13 billion.

I would like to start by thanking my colleagues on the National Finance Committee and also the officials who support the committee.

This appropriation act is supported by Supplementary Estimates (C), which specifies the amounts and broad purposes for which the funds will be spent. Supplementary Estimates (C) was studied by the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I, along with the other members of the committee, have studied the Main Estimates and supplementary estimates for this fiscal year, which will end today.

My comments focus on the challenges and problems in reviewing the government’s spending plans. I must say that in all my years of reviewing federal supply bills, I have never been so disappointed in the lack of direction of the government in addressing the problems related to their financial and accountability documents.

There are four issues that I will raise in my comments today. Regrettably, none of my comments are positive.

My first comment is on the non-alignment of the budget with Supplementary Estimates (C) and with all the estimates documents. I have spoken on this problem many times.

Because the Main Estimates are tabled on or before March 1 and the budget is not tabled until the month of April, the two spending documents do not match. New budget initiatives that are announced in the April budget are not included in the Main Estimates, so we will spend the remainder of the year, and maybe into subsequent years, trying to track the implementation of new budget initiatives in Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C).

Despite knowing that the estimates documents do not match the budget, there is no attempt by government to address the problem. Rather, the government provides a “reconciliation” in each supplementary estimates document that purports to “reconcile” its proposed spending as per each supplementary estimates document with its proposed spending as per the budget. While the reconciliation is better than nothing, it is confusing and leaves many unanswered questions.

To demonstrate the problem that this misalignment causes, Budget 2021 indicated that there would be $49 billion in new budget initiatives in this fiscal year. However, Supplementary Estimates (C), which supports Bill C-15, indicates that there are $36 billion in new budget initiatives, not $49 billion. The reader is left to wonder how the government accounts for this difference of $13 billion.

Were budget initiatives not undertaken? If they weren’t undertaken, why not? And what are the implications?

Tracking the implementation of new budget initiatives is important because it identifies which initiatives are delayed so that the committee can follow up to determine the reasons why.

For example, Budget 2021 provided $2 million over two years to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to support the implementation of a publicly accessible corporate beneficial ownership registry, and $1 million was allocated to this fiscal year.

This initiative is instrumental in assisting lawmakers to catch those involved in money laundering and tax evasion. Canada has long been seen as having weak anti-corruption laundering laws and enforcement. It is not possible to track the implementation of this Budget 2021 initiative. I have looked everywhere for it and simply cannot find it.

I read with interest an article in last week’s Senate clippings noting that Budget 2022 will be released on April 7, while the Main Estimates have already been released. The article included comments from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the trend to later budgets is undermining Parliament’s oversight of government spending. I agree with his comments, as it is not possible to track government spending.

My second issue relates to the Public Accounts of Canada. The financial statements of the Government of Canada are called the public accounts. Each year, the public accounts are prepared for the fiscal year that runs from April 1 to March 31 of the following year.

There are three volumes to the public accounts. Each volume contains hundreds of pages of financial information, some of which is provided in summary form and some of which is provided in detail. Legislation establishes a deadline for the release of the public accounts. Specifically, the Financial Administration Act requires that the public accounts be tabled by December 31.

The information in the public accounts is required by legislators and the public to stay informed about the financial activities and financial position of the government. The public accounts for the year that ended March 31, 2021, were released unusually late. They were not released until December 14, just three days before the House of Commons adjourned for the Christmas break, and therefore just three days before the legislated deadline.

We reviewed the date on which the public accounts were released for the past 27 years, going back as far as 1994, and the tabling of the public accounts on December 14 was the latest we could find. We use the public accounts to review government spending, and they should have been released months earlier so they could assist us in our review of government spending during the fall sitting of Parliament.

My third issue relates to the Debt Management Report. The Minister of Finance has a legislated obligation to table the annual Debt Management Report in each house of Parliament on money borrowed during each fiscal year and on the management of the public debt. Specifically, the Financial Administration Act requires that within 30 sitting days after the tabling of the public accounts, the Minister of Finance must table the Debt Management Report for the same fiscal year.

Since the government withheld the 2021 public accounts until mid-December, they were able to push back the deadline for the 2021 Debt Management Report to March 28, which was just a few days ago. The Debt Management Report was finally tabled last Friday, on March 25 — a mere one day before the legislated deadline and 359 days after the fiscal year to which it relates.

Honourable colleagues may recall that I asked Senator Gold in this chamber when government would release the Debt Management Report. This report was of particular interest because it was the first year of the pandemic, during which the government borrowed $345 billion.

Given that the government continues to run large deficits, requiring the borrowing of significant amounts of money, the Debt Management Report should have been provided earlier to assist us in our review and oversight of government spending.

My fourth issue relates to the Departmental Results Reports. The Departmental Results Reports are part of the estimates family of documents. These reports support the estimates, supplementary estimates and appropriation bills, including Bill C-15. The reports were designed to focus on what departments and agencies are doing to achieve results for Canadians, while continuing to provide transparency on how taxpayers’ dollars are spent. However, in reviewing these documents, there are two significant problems.

First, the Departmental Results Reports were not provided to us until last month. In other words, we waited 10 months for reports that focused on a year that ended 12 months ago. We reviewed the Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B), the budget and the fall fiscal update without the benefit of these reports. In summary, we had to review almost all government spending this year without knowing what the government had previously achieved.

The second problem relates to the quality of the information in the reports. The reports released last month indicated that there are 2,722 performance indicators for 86 organizations. Of the 2,722 performance indicators, 1,242 indicators were achieved. This is less than 50%. There were 739 indicators not met, while 741 indicators were categorized as “not available” or “to be achieved.” If 741 of 2,722 indicators provided no information, and there were 739 indicators not met, how can these reports be considered accountability documents?

The delay in tabling the Departmental Results Reports and the poor quality of the data make scrutinizing spending more difficult when we review the government’s requests for billions of dollars. We need to know what results government programs have achieved in the past in order to assess their request for additional monies.

Honourable senators, my last comment relates to a study that was done by the C.D. Howe Institute. For senators who are not familiar with this organization, the C.D. Howe Institute is a reputable research institute. It is widely considered to be Canada’s most influential think tank. Last December, the C.D. Howe Institute released a report on the financial information presented to legislators and the public by Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments.

They concluded that massive increases in spending and borrowing in response to COVID-19 and the ambition for new social programs have coincided with some serious backsliding in the transparency and timeliness of financial information, notably at the federal level.

The three documents on which they focused were the budget, the estimates and the public accounts, all of which I have just discussed.

The researchers assigned letter grades that reflected how readily an interested but non-expert user could find and understand the information that the documents should contain. The years reviewed included the financial statements for 2019-20 and the budget and estimates for 2020-21.

Receiving an A grading were Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C. and Nunavut. Ontario received a B rating. Receiving a C rating were Newfoundland, P.E.I., the Yukon, Manitoba and Quebec.

The federal government earned an F grade. One of the reasons for the federal government’s F grade was the lack of a budget in 2020. The report indicated they were on track for a C grade in their report card for 2022. My question is: Why only a C? Why not an A or even a B?

The report also said that the federal government’s budget for last year was late — it was released in April — and that it buried key numbers under hundreds of pages of marginally informative and repetitive material — not a performance consistent with the importance of its fiscal policy nor the example the federal government should set.

Just to conclude, I will summarize my comments as follows: The government’s financial and accountability documents are provided much too late to be of any significant benefit. The lateness of the documents diminished their usefulness. I refer specifically to the Public Accounts of Canada, the Debt Management Report and the Departmental Results Reports.

In addition, the government’s budget and its estimates documents indicate different spending plans, and they should be aligned. Departmental Results Reports should provide the information on the results of their spending in their reports.

Honourable senators, for the government to leave this issue unresolved, it is a disservice to parliamentarians and the public. The issues I have raised should be addressed. Thank you.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Thank you for your speech, and I share your concerns on many fronts. I am particularly in agreement with you that the National Finance Committee is too often asked to review billions of dollars of government spending in so little time. Tracking money is not always an easy task, and for Supplementary Estimates (C) we were limited to two meetings. We only heard from 5 of the 70 departments seeking funding. This is unfair for committee members, and although we do commendable work — we do great work, and, like me, I know you take this work very seriously — it seems as if it’s always a race against the clock for us to conduct our reviews.

In all of your years of experience, what would you propose to do to fix this issue? Do you have a solution that could allow us more time to review the estimates? Is it more meetings? Is the parliamentary financial cycle too restrictive and uncompromising? I know Senator Smith proposed mandatory dates. I would like to know your opinion.

Senator Marshall: I think the government should look at earlier tabling of some of the documents, like the Main Estimates and the supplementary estimates. I think they should also look at the possibility of doing pre-study on some of the bills that are over in the House of Commons. For example, Bill C-8 is over there now. I expect the National Finance Committee will get it. It’s a very complicated piece of legislation, but its arrival, I expect, will coincide with our study of Main Estimates, and possibly Supplementary Estimates (A). I would like to see more time given to the pre-study.

I’d also like to see more frequent meetings. I find that the pandemic has had a terrible effect on the National Finance Committee. One meeting a week is not sufficient. We should go back to our two time slots, and we should also have the ability to have those extra meetings when the Senate sits.

An Hon. Senator: No.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for your comments.

Before I start my speech, I only have a few words to say about the interim estimates, but I want to pick up on a couple of points that you made. We spend a lot of time in the National Finance Committee — and I spend a lot of time — reading the government’s financial documents. Of course, most of them are hundreds of pages long, but even I find it challenging to try to make sense of what is happening. I must say that trying to match the estimates documents with the budget is an absolutely impossible process.

The other point I would like to make with regard to some of your comments is that the National Finance Committee spends a lot of time on the estimates documents and the supplementary estimates documents. It’s the appropriations bills we focus on, but if you look at last year’s public accounts, you’ll see that there was $166 billion approved by appropriations bills, but there was $308 billion approved by other legislation. We rarely look at that money. We’re focusing on one third of government spending, so that has always been a concern of mine.

I’ll talk about the specifics of the interim supply bill. Senator Gagné mentioned most of it already and Senator Housakos alluded to it, but sometimes you need to say something eight times before people pick up on what you’re saying. I’m going to give a very short speech with regard to the interim supply bill.

This is the first appropriation bill for the 2022-23 fiscal year. As I said previously, the year runs from April 1 to March 31, so the old year ends today. This is a big day. It’s the end of the fiscal year, and tomorrow is the new year. The Senate just approved the last appropriation bill for the old year, which was Bill C-15.

This is Bill C-16, and it will approve some funding for the new year. It’s called the “interim supply bill.” That will be tomorrow. Because the Main Estimates have yet to be approved by the House of Commons and the Senate, the government needs money to continue operating, so parliamentary approval is being sought for an advance of the funding that is requested in the Main Estimates. That will be achieved through Bill C-16, and the bill itself sets out in detail the sums of money that the government requires to operate until June 30, when we expect the Main Estimates will be approved.

If you look at the bill itself, you’ll see that funding is requested in the supply bill and is expressed in twelfths of the amounts that will be voted in the Main Estimates. There is a schedule there, but it starts off by saying that everybody gets three twelfths of their funding in interim supply, except for the following, and then there is a schedule that says certain departments and certain votes will get four twelfths, so many will get five twelfths and it goes up to 12 twelfths. On average, if you look at the total amount in the bill, you will see that the government is effectively requesting, on average, about five twelfths of the money being requested.

What is striking about this bill is that the $190 billion being requested in the Main Estimates is significantly more than the Main Estimates last year, because last year the Main Estimates requested $142 billion. This year, it’s $190 billion, so it’s an increase of about 33% or 34%.

The interim supply bill, as a result, has also increased, going from $59 billion to $75 billion. However, it’s still very early, so you can expect that these amounts will increase significantly.

We haven’t done our study of the bill yet, but we usually go through it to see whether anything stands out. There are a couple of things there. Four organizations are requesting significant increases in their funding. The Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario is requesting a significant increase, as are Employment and Social Development Canada and the Department for Women and Gender Equality, so I expect we will hear from them. The fourth is Indigenous Services Canada, which is already problematic for me because they testified at our committee for Supplementary Estimates (C), and their Departmental Results Reports need a lot of work. They have 79 performance indicators, and they indicated that 14 of them have been met, so 63 are not met or not available or to be achieved. That stands out as an issue.

Those are my comments on the interim supply bill. I look forward to looking at the Main Estimates because that’s where we’ll be studying all the details in the bill.

Hon. Senators: Now.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the provisions of the order of November 25, 2021, concerning hybrid sittings of the Senate and committees, and other matters, be extended to the end of the day on April 30, 2022;

That the Senate commit to the consideration of a transition back to in-person sittings as soon as practicable in light of relevant factors, including public health guidelines, and the safety and well-being of all parliamentary personnel; and

That any further extension of this order be taken only after consultation with the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and parliamentary groups.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your speech, Senator Cordy. As some of you may know, in the month of March alone, there have been 23 cases of COVID in the Parliamentary Precinct: 12 in the Senate family, 7 in Parliamentary Protective Service and 4 in Public Services and Procurement Canada.

As we all know, the Parliamentary Precinct pretty much operates in an integrated fashion, so when cases are compiled and reported they include all of those I just mentioned, including, of course, employees of the House.

Given this integration, senator, do you think it would make sense for the Senate to transition back to in-person sittings before the House does? Would this not just simply be increasing the risk, not only for ourselves but for the entire precinct?

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Motion No. 28, and I do so on behalf of my Progressive Senate Group colleagues. On this issue we are unanimous. We support this motion and, in fact, we would support extending the motion until the end of June at this time.

However, we do agree to proceed with this motion as it is today, and wish to re-evaluate the COVID-19 situation and the hybrid measures again before the end of April.

Honourable senators, while I’m keen to return to fully in‑person Senate sittings and committee meetings, I’m also well aware that some senators are immunocompromised or have immunocompromised family members. We should be sympathetic to our more vulnerable colleagues who don’t feel comfortable participating in the chamber at this time. They don’t want to risk their health or the health of their loved ones.

We must also be cognizant that if we continue in a hybrid setting, we are better placed to have the infrastructure in place in the event of another wave. Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health just yesterday warned that the level of COVID here in Ottawa is rising, with the level in waste water rising dramatically over the last two or three weeks. Dr. Vera Etches said in her special statement:

The pandemic is not over and we are currently experiencing another resurgence.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, 5 members out of 55 members of the legislative assembly now have COVID. The legislature is currently discussing a move to hybrid sittings, and there are concerns about it because it cannot happen instantly while the legislature is sitting.

Given these obvious warnings, we must keep in mind that it is easier to maintain hybrid until the end of June than it would be to convert back to hybrid if COVID cases rise significantly here in Ottawa or in our own provinces and territories.

Finally, I don’t think I am telling any secrets to say that many of us in this chamber are in the age group that is more susceptible to poor COVID outcomes than are members of Parliament. It is also interesting to me that the other place continues with their hybrid model until the end of June. Why shouldn’t we do the same here in the Senate?

Hybrid sittings, and settings, do not prevent anyone from attending Senate sittings in person. If a senator wants to be here, as most of us are, they can be. But an in-person-sitting-only environment, at this time, will certainly prevent some of our colleagues who are immunocompromised or who have immunocompromised family members from being able to fulfill their responsibilities as senators.

To be clear, hybrid sittings should not be a long-term occurrence. We all want to be in Ottawa in person with our colleagues, in this chamber and in committees. But I do not want to negatively impact the health and well-being of my colleagues or Senate staff to do so. I believe it is absolutely essential to remember that these decisions not only affect senators but our staff and Senate staff as well.

I will support the current motion, and I look forward to re‑evaluating the Senate’s position at the end of April. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: I would like to ask Senator Cordy a question, if she’d take one.

Senator Cordy: Certainly.

Senator Cordy: Yes, I did speak about those who are immunocompromised. I did not speak about those who may have contracted COVID and who are able to still take part by sitting at home and not going out of their house to spread it. Provided they’re not in a serious condition, bedridden or even in the hospital, they are still able to sit in a room in their house and take part.

You spoke about the lack of direct flights. I think all of us who have to fly to get here understand that. Flying to Nova Scotia used to be very easy with a choice of five or six direct flights a day. Now there are two direct flights a day. If I wait until the next day, it’s either 6 a.m., which doesn’t lead to a very productive day when I arrive at home — and that’s not a direct flight — or getting home late on Friday afternoon and heading back to Ottawa either on Sunday night or Monday morning.

I’ve spoken to one person who has to take three planes to get to Ottawa and could probably drive faster to Ottawa if she wished to do so. You’re absolutely right. There are a lot of things happening during the pandemic times and lack of convenient flight times would certainly be one of them. Thank you for raising that.

Senator Cordy: I absolutely agree that it would be best if we followed the House in this matter and that we ought to continue hybrid until the end of June.

The numbers you’ve presented to us today are not surprising, but they are startling. They certainly give one cause to pause. They suggest that if you wish to be here in person, you can be in person, but if you are immunocompromised or if you are really nervous about going to an airport and flying, then you can certainly fulfill your functions as a senator via the hybrid model.

I spoke earlier and told you that five MLAs in Nova Scotia have COVID, and that’s out of 55 members of the legislature. In Nova Scotia, the Conservative Premier Tim Houston said:

We’re in a pandemic and you’ve got to be willing to roll with it. . . . Very strongly in favour of a hybrid session to make sure that every voice, every Nova Scotian has a chance to be heard through their MLA.

And I would say the same thing would be true in Ottawa Every senator has the responsibility to work on behalf of their constituents in their provinces, and every senator should have the ability to do that in the middle of a pandemic. The numbers that I’m seeing — and my staff in working on this looked at the numbers — are rising, whether we like it or not. It’s a pandemic, and I think we should follow the House of Commons and make our situation hybrid until the end of June.

Having said that, I will support this motion, but my wish would be that it would be until the end of June. I look forward to revisiting this at the end of April and making adjustments if they are necessary at that time.

Senator Bovey: Senator Cordy, you mentioned that the hybrid sittings allow those who are immunocompromised to fulfill their responsibilities and take part in the chamber. You’ve talked about the hybrid continuing until the end of June. I certainly agree with that, especially at a time when direct flights from our cities have not yet been put back in place. I’m from Winnipeg. Mine is not going to be back in place until June. That increases the occasion for some of us, as I have, to contract COVID. The hybrid sitting has allowed me to take part this week. I would not have otherwise, though I’d much rather be in the chamber, as you know.

Would you agree that hybrid sittings allow those who do contract COVID to continue to be active in chamber deliberations?

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for that. I couldn’t verbalize it any better than you’ve already done. I think it’s really important. Resources were stretched before COVID, and they’re stretched now. Our office staff and the Senate staff have been going above and beyond, and I’m sure that exhaustion sometimes leads you to be more vulnerable to picking up COVID, colds or flu when you’re exhausted. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Senate staff and our office staff for going above and beyond.

You have raised a really good point that maybe we should have a working group looking at resources. We’re looking now, and Senator Gold gave us the numbers of people within our institution who have been getting COVID. However, we should certainly look at it and see where we need people and where we have to hire more staff. Thank you very much for raising that.

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in opposition to this motion to extend the Senate’s hybrid parliamentary sittings to April 30, 2022.

As you may know, I have opposed similar proposals for conducting virtual and hybrid parliamentary business in the past. Frankly, I don’t think a virtual connection between senators is sufficient for adequately handling the magnitude of issues Parliament deals with every day — refugees fleeing from war‑torn Ukraine or Afghanistan, assisted suicide, the Emergencies Act.

As parliamentarians, we are called to come together in this place at the heart of Canada’s very democracy to debate the issues that matter most to Canadians. For us to be here, in person, matters. Our senatorial duties aren’t something we should fit in around the edges of our own lives — something to which we log on or off. Our primary responsibility should be to represent the interests of our respective regions in the legislative process. To do that, I think it’s important to stand up and make our voices heard.

This motion is indicative of a Senate parliamentary bubble that doesn’t reflect real life in Canada. Let me preface my comments by saying that I am proudly triple vaccinated, and I have promoted this widely on my social media. But at this point in time, every province has either dropped their vaccine mandates or has a plan to do so. Still, this federal Trudeau government obstinately refuses to drop the federal vaccine mandates or even plan for it.

With this motion, the government signals that it intends to keep this chamber under the boot of hybrid Parliament just a little while longer. As we’ve seen, a dull Parliament conducted by Zoom is much less likely to spark public and media interest, which is advantageous to a government keen to avoid transparency and accountability.

This motion is weak on any commitment to returning to in‑person Senate sittings. It reads:

That the Senate commit to the consideration of a transition back to in-person sittings as soon as practicable in light of relevant factors . . .

The Senate should “commit to the consideration of a transition”? I could “commit to the consideration of a transition” into a Winnipeg Blue Bombers fan, but it doesn’t mean I will. Such a wide-open phrase commits the government to absolutely nothing.

The reality is that most people don’t have the luxury of dialling in remotely to work. For months, Canada has been asking Canadians to work while still being as safe as they can. Cleaners, health care workers, mechanics, farmers, wait staff, first responders and truckers are just some of the people who have worked in person throughout this pandemic to support the public. And, honourable senators, as public servants — quite literally servants of the people — senators should be on that list too.

But that hasn’t been the case, has it? On top of the unnecessary election Prime Minister Trudeau called, we’ve been in virtual sittings for the past 18 months. We’ve had hamstrung committees that can only do half as much work as normal because of Zoom broadcast scheduling problems and frequent suspensions in the chamber due to technological problems at one end or the other. All of these interruptions and obstacles ultimately chip away at our democracy.

Because of challenging personal circumstances during the pandemic, many senators have not been coming in person to Ottawa at all. I haven’t seen some of my Senate colleagues for two years. This loss of informal, in-person communication between senators at committee or in the halls hampers not only political strategy but also the collegiality, communication and cooperation between senators. Previously, I have actually convinced other senators to vote with me on initiatives just as the whips were heading down the aisle before a vote, something that is just not as possible under a hybrid system.

Other COVID safety measures could have been employed in the Senate Chamber, which would have allowed us the freedom to safely social distance while still gathering in person for chamber sessions. These included measures like plexiglass dividers or speaking from a more distanced corner of the chamber or gallery, for example.

At times, when the Speaker himself has to attend the chamber by Zoom, the disadvantages of a hybrid system are quickly made apparent. He is unable to see the full chamber in detail and thus can’t see if a senator is rising in the chamber or if someone is trying to get his attention.

One of the biggest drawbacks to a hybrid Senate system is the impact it has on our parliamentary interpreters. This is an ongoing major problem, and it’s one I’ve voiced at the Internal Economy Committee and in the chamber. Hybrid Parliament has had very detrimental health implications for these employees, especially given the varying quality of audio equipment used by senators and witnesses in the chamber or at committees.

Furthermore, the limited number of qualified interpreters in the National Capital Region, plus a higher demand for their services, means an increased level of work overload and burnout. It is unfair that we expect interpreters to shoulder this increased burden at a risk to their own personal health so that senators can attend by Zoom from the comfort of their homes.

Furthermore, as a detailed House of Commons report found last year, hybrid sittings required double the number of employees in general to run, compared to an in-person sitting of the House. The argument that hybrid Parliament is better for staff simply doesn’t hold water.

Also, Ottawa’s vaccination rate is one of the highest in the country. The Senate already has a vaccine mandate as a precondition for employment or even attending at the Parliamentary Precinct. Yet, rather than those measures providing an additional measure of freedom within the Senate in the last several months, our restrictions have tightened. Now we not only have to wear a mask in the chamber, even at our seat, and sit six feet apart, but until recently we were expected to wear a mask while speaking in the chamber. This is different than the House of Commons where they have always been able to remove their mask to speak.

Of course, the Senate has continued to adhere to this masking policy even though the Province of Ontario recently removed its provincial mask mandate.

Meanwhile, Ottawa’s downtown is a ghost town. The streets in front of Parliament Hill are still locked down to vehicular traffic, weeks after the convoy left. No one seems to be able to explain why; it’s just one more of those infuriating details of life in a bureaucratic city. It seems every week another long-time small business is closing, no longer able to withstand the absence of its usual clientele.

What is the plan for reopening in this chamber, this precinct and in the streets surrounding us in the National Capital Region? We can’t live this way forever. It’s not good for Parliament, and it’s certainly not good for the Canadian economy.

Recently, the Senate circulated a notice announcing the easing of restrictions throughout the Senate and parliamentary buildings. That memo noted that only 25% of the Senate Administration workforce would be returning to the office by mid-April. There were no other indications about ramping up back-to-work plans beyond that.

Meanwhile, the Senate budget for the upcoming fiscal year has ballooned to $122 million, a sum that has continued to increase despite the fact that we have had two years of a pandemic, a significant portion of senators are not travelling back and forth to Ottawa, and we currently have 15 senatorial vacancies.

Other businesses and organizations have had to make difficult and often gut-wrenching decisions about layoffs and cutbacks because of this pandemic. Yet the Senate Administration has added employees; they and we have not lost one paycheque throughout this pandemic. It seems like everyone else in the country has a back-to-work plan. Why not the Senate?

The motion says the Speaker will only extend the hybrid Senate further after consultation with the other leaders and facilitators in the Senate. My question on that is, is that the Trudeau government’s patented brand of consultation? A phone call just before the emailed press release goes out?

One of the primary reasons I am opposed to extending the hybrid Senate is the Trudeau government’s penchant for using it to try to avoid accountability. This government has pumped billions of dollars in spending through this Parliament during this pandemic, ramming it through the Senate in brief hearings in Committee of the Whole, rather than holding the usual intensive Senate committee studies. With Committee of the Whole, a Trudeau minister or two appear for one or two hours, with no other witnesses, to give rambling responses that don’t directly answer even the most basic of questions. It’s unequivocally bad Parliament, and it impairs the ability for opposition, in fact, all parliamentarians, to hold the government accountable.

How many times throughout this hybrid Parliament have we seen the Leader of the Government in the Senate refuse to even deliver a speech on government bills and motions that they want passed lickety-split through this chamber? He’s even waived his right to speak on this motion, which also denies the rest of us the opportunity to question the government on this important issue.

There is no excuse, honourable senators. None. The Senate government leader has a budget of $1.5 million and a staff of up to as many as 15 people, plus the massive resources of the Government of Canada to draw upon to do his work. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate, he owes the people of Canada at least the respect of doing that job.

We saw it again this Tuesday with the government’s deputy leader in the Senate, who introduced two major government supply bills, worth tens of billions of dollars each, but then did not speak to either one at second reading. When I asked her how much money each bill would cost, she had to pause and look it up, saying she wasn’t expecting any questions. Why not? This is about government accountability. This Trudeau government treats Parliament like background noise to be muted and managed, and in that worldview, dialling it in by Zoom is good enough governance. But Canadians deserve better, honourable senators, and the Senate of Canada is not just a rubber stamp. We must not allow this chamber to be treated like one.

Hybrid Parliament is terrible for accountability, and it has also had an awful impact on Senate committees. First, because of the lack of parliamentary and broadcasting resources, Senate committees can generally hold only about half as many meetings as they would normally. For example, I looked up the committees I have been affiliated with in the past. Since April 1, 2021, the Legal Committee met only 14 times; the Rules Committee, only 7 times; and the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration — the committee that governs budgetary affairs for the entire Senate — sat only 9 times in the whole year. During regular, in-person sittings, Internal Economy would generally meet nine times in only about three months.

Senate committees have traditionally been known as the vehicle to showcase some of the Senate’s finest work — careful, measured, in-depth research and study on issues affecting Canadians. Instead, during this pandemic, committees have often been restricted to meeting once a week. The number of witnesses who can appear at meetings have been limited as well. Senate committees, therefore, bear the negative consequences of these limitations.

Throughout the pandemic, the Senate has been treated like the junior partner of the House of Commons regarding broadcasting time and equipment. The House of Commons was continually prioritized over the Senate; yet this was something that the Senate apparently agreed to, throughout.

Since almost the very beginning of the pandemic, the House of Commons has always had hybrid committee meetings. Almost right from the start, the House had committee meetings operating at nearly 100% normal capacity for almost the full pandemic. Meanwhile, at points, the Senate was forced to have only virtual committee meetings because of a lack of resource capacity. The Senate has had to continue to make do with the leftover scraps.

The Senate and the House of Commons are equal but complementary chambers of Parliament. We should not be continually forced to sacrifice our parliamentary work for the benefit of the House of Commons. The Senate should be returning to in-person committee meetings as soon as possible, not extending this hybrid deadline once again.

Honourable senators, I think we need to think critically about the effect hybrid Parliament has had not only on our committees but on Parliament, on this Senate Chamber and on us as parliamentarians. Does hybrid Parliament serve the best interests of the Canadian public in Parliament? Is this government becoming more open, transparent and accountable under a hybrid system, or has it become a convenient system for shoving spending through Parliament quickly without too much pesky opposition interference?

I fear the Trudeau government views it as the latter. And I, for one, do not want to stand by and watch that happen. I certainly won’t accede to it. That’s why I plan to vote against this motion to extend hybrid Parliament. We need to return to work in person and at full capacity, honourable senators. We should be standing here, in our places, for the people of Canada. Thank you.

Senator Patterson: Thank you for the question. The agreement exists in the context of hybrid meetings and it disadvantages us because of the demands on staff of hybrid meetings. I believe that, through these debates, our Committee on Internal Economy will be inspired to utilize some of the available resources from savings resulting from hybrid sessions to provide our committees with the necessary resources so that they can continue to do the work, notwithstanding the limits of the service agreement with the House of Commons.

All I am saying is that since there appears to be a movement to continue hybrid even beyond April, let’s get our committees working adequately to address this problem within the Senate’s own resources and not rely on the service agreement. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.