Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 9, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

As we now know, and as the Prime Minister has stated, the Prime Minister only recently learned of the specifics of the use of the case of Member of Parliament Michael Chong. He was asked in the other place when he was briefed. He said he received a briefing from the top security officials as soon as he heard of this.

As you would expect, matters of national security and intelligence are delicate matters, one that this government takes seriously.

Earlier today, the Prime Minister was asked whether information pertaining to Member of Parliament Chong was briefed up to him from CSIS. He answered that it was not. CSIS officials had made the determination that it wasn’t something that needed to be raised to a higher level because it wasn’t a significant enough concern in their judgment.

Upon learning of this, the Prime Minister did a number of things, colleagues. First, he scheduled a meeting between Mr. Chong, his National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Jody Thomas, and the head of CSIS, David Vigneault.

The Prime Minister is also now taking steps that will ensure that he receives more detailed briefings by our security officials in the future, and the government is in the process of issuing a direction to this effect.

Here I’m going to quote from the Prime Minister in his statements today. He said:

Going forward, we’re making it very, very clear to CSIS and all our intelligence officials that when there are concerns that talk specifically about any MP, particularly about their family, those need to be elevated.

Even if CSIS doesn’t feel that it’s a sufficient level of concern for them to take more direct action, we still need to know about it at the upper government level.

Colleagues, remember, the CSIS director briefs the Prime Minister and ministers at their own discretion on issues of the day. But as the Prime Minister stated this morning, and as I repeat, he has instructed CSIS to lower that threshold so he will be given a fuller picture at an earlier time.

I hope that answers your question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of The Honourable Ranj Pillai, member of the Legislative Assembly and Premier of the Yukon. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Duncan.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a group of representatives from MS Canada. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Coyle.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My question again is for the Liberal government leader.

Leader, in a meeting yesterday afternoon, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, confirmed to Michael Chong that he and his family were targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing after he sponsored a motion in the other place condemning the Uighur genocide.

CSIS also confirmed the name of the People’s Republic of China, or PRC, diplomat involved, who, by all accounts, is still permitted by the Trudeau government to work in Beijing’s Toronto consulate. The CSIS official told Mr. Chong that he was authorized to read from the report The Globe and Mail revealed on Monday, “because it relates to a threat to you and your family.”

CSIS was authorized to provide this information by either the Prime Minister or Minister Mendicino. Why was this authorization given only yesterday and not two years ago?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Government leader, while some members even in this chamber might feel uncomfortable when we ask questions about illegal police stations in Canada and foreign interference and intimidation of Canadians of Chinese descent — not because it is actually happening on our very soil; they are uncomfortable because we are even asking the question — the Trudeau government is doing absolutely nothing to combat foreign interference and to defend Canadians of Chinese descent from intimidation. On the contrary, we have members of this very institution, every time we ask a question, throwing up the accusation of racism, running interference for those very authoritarian regimes. We are not going to stop asking those questions. It does not matter if you are a member of Parliament or an ordinary Canadian citizen of whatever diaspora community; you deserve to feel safe in this country.

My series of questions are simple, and I will be clear. When will your government finally shut down the police stations in this country that are being run by the Beijing regime? When will your government expel the diplomats who are running this operation? When will your government put into place a foreign registry to combat foreign interference? When will your government call a public inquiry to deal with all of these allegations that are coming out on a weekly basis? When?

Hon. Rosa Galvez: My question is for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy.

[English]

Senator Wallin, last month, I had the opportunity to speak at the Global Parliamentary Forum of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, or IMF, in Washington where the buzz was all about the opportunities around the race to net zero.

The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, has turbocharged both business investment and emissions reduction south of the border. I understand your committee is undertaking a study on business investment in Canada. Witnesses for this study have spoken both about how the U.S. IRA impacts us and about the opportunities associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy, which include technological and business innovation in renewables, energy efficiency, electric vehicles, agriculture and sustainable finance broadly. Investing in these areas cannot only help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change, but also can provide a competitive advantage and financial return for investors. This is happening in developing nations all over.

Considering the importance and relevance of these topics to business investment in Canada, does your committee plan to hear witnesses who specialize in these key areas? If yes, can you elaborate? Thank you.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Your Honour, my question today is for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, and I will not have a supplementary.

Senator Galvez, the tourism industry was one of the most hard hit economic sectors during the pandemic. Planes were grounded, and ships were docked. As the world resumes its activities and people seek to travel again, familiar concerns are rising.

While it is important for tourism to once again provide a vital source of revenue to many regions in the country, it must also be done in a sustainable manner.

This brings me to a concern that was recently raised by a Prince Edward Islander regarding the weak waste water dumping regulations for cruise ships in Canadian waters.

The Canada Shipping Act, which regulates marine transportation and ship-sourced pollution, is far less strong in terms of federal dumping regulations than its U.S. counterpart. Cruise ships travelling north from the United States have an incentive to dump an enormous amount of waste water and toxic discharge in Canadian waters. Of particular concern to this Prince Edward Islander was the pollution from cruise ships caused by scrubbers, which are devices installed to remove exhaust gases from the heavy bunker oil used as marine fuel that create waste water containing a cocktail of chemicals.

Cruise ship pollution also includes sewage from toilets and grey water from sinks, showers and laundries. Could you please advise the Senate if the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources would consider studying the issue of Canada’s weak pollution regulations for cruise ships in Canadian waters, as well as the enforcement of the existing regulations?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you very much, Senator Galvez.

I appreciate the question. I’m glad that you are taking notice of our work, and we were glad to have you there last week sitting in at committee.

We are, indeed, looking at why Canada, with one of the largest energy-based economies in the world, is seriously lagging other countries in attracting investment. We are hearing repeatedly from private Canadian companies why they are not investing here — too much politics, too much red tape. The same concern is coming from foreign capital, making it reluctant to invest unless the government offers up millions or in some cases billions in incentives.

The problem with the subsidy approach for us, regardless of what sector you are looking at, is that it is costly and it too often offers only short-term gain.

One of our witnesses, James Hinton, an intellectual property lawyer and part of Own Innovation, explained:

You can’t just fund your way into economic prosperity. For example, in clean technology, we own less than 1% of the global intellectual property. So unless you recognize the existing position of Canadian firms and intentionally ensure that Canadian-owned IP and data assets are part of the clean-tech value chain, you are initiating a generational wealth transfer out of the country because 99% of the foundation is already owned.

We see similar examples with Volkswagen and Ericsson — billions in subsidies without any assurances that the IP stays in Canada. Jobs are created, but what we’ve also heard from witnesses is that the jobs model — and this has been referred to frequently — is not one that incentivizes the private sector to come to the table and invest in Canadian companies as partners sharing IP.

The jobs model secures activity in the country, and it may even help shift activity toward renewables, but it is not an investment strategy that will work in the future.

The U.S. IRA strategy is putting billions into clean growth, repatriating production that was offshored. Ottawa’s approach is, “Well, frankly it is hard to compete with big spenders and with countries that have no carbon tax.”

Many of our witnesses have talked about an attitudinal issue — and I think that this troubles us all — that we tend to be risk‑averse in this country. That too must change. Our start-ups are more likely to sell than grow, so they do not even look to secure their own IP.

Whether it is green technology, clean technology, agricultural technology, communications technology or even artificial intelligence, or AI, we need to have a strategy that will do more than create branch-plant jobs.

Hon. Mary Coyle: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold.

May is Multiple Sclerosis, or MS, Awareness Month. Today, our guests from MS Canada have brought us their red carnations to wear to demonstrate our solidarity with the 90,000 Canadians living with MS and to help spread awareness.

MS Canada does important work, and they are committed to achieving their bold vision which is a world free of multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disease of the central nervous system. It is unpredictable. It is also known as an episodic disability.

Unfortunately, Canada has one of the highest rates of multiple sclerosis in the world. On average, 12 Canadians per day are diagnosed with MS, and typically the onset is between the ages of 20-49, so people in the prime of their lives. Women are three times more prone to be diagnosed with MS than men.

My colleague and friend Sarah Marquis, a University of Ottawa PhD student, is one of those young women.

Senator Gold, Harvard University research provides strong evidence indicating an association between the Epstein-Barr virus and the onset of MS. News of this groundbreaking study triggered an $18‑million investment by the Australian government in MS research. Not surprisingly, topping the list of policy priorities from MS Canada is securing a $15‑million investment by the Government of Canada in a research partnership with them. They have other priorities, including getting our disability benefit out in a timely manner and at an adequate level.

Could you tell me, Senator Gold, if the Government of Canada will join Australia in taking a leadership role in supporting this groundbreaking research on MS?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for this question. I was very privileged yesterday to meet with representatives from MS Canada. They brought me up to date on the important work they are doing. I met their very able spokespeople, including two extraordinary women who were diagnosed with MS a long time ago. Thanks to innovations in treatment, of which there are growing choices, they are leading healthy, productive lives despite having intermittent relapses as can be the case.

I have been made aware of the research recently published after the last round of funding was provided for research in these areas. I undertake to them, and now publicly to all Canadians, to carry this message to my colleagues in cabinet so that we in Canada can, indeed, contribute to a worldwide effort to find what very well may be a way to prevent MS, even as we make progress in managing this terrible disease to a greater extent. Thank you for your question. You have my commitment to follow it through.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill C-46, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

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-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. It is about an issue that is of concern to a lot of Canadians, which is the changing nature of the economy and how it relates to the future of work.

The nature of work has been changing drastically in recent years with issues such as the growth of artificial intelligence, technological change, equity, inclusion and lifelong learning. I want to ask you about one specific issue, and that is remote work. It is an issue that has come to the fore and is being discussed a lot these days as a result of the agreement between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or PSAC.

This is a time when we are seeing a lot of change in society and a lot of people who want to be able to work from home. Will the government consider leading a national discussion on this issue, both within government and outside?

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Thank you, Senator Downe, for your question and for raising this issue.

Your question reminds me of when, invited by the Canadian Navy, I went to the Arctic and I asked sailors if they could identify cruise ships. They said, of course, they could because cruise ships leave a trail of garbage floating behind them.

It is essential that all sectors prioritize sustainable practices to ensure that, on one hand, they provide economic benefits, but on the other hand, that they prevent pollution and minimize the impact on the health of Canadians, the environment and vulnerable communities.

I believe you addressed your questions to me because we are talking about pollution and the environment. Your question raised a point on policy and regulations. I think it is important to note that.

In 2019, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act was adopted. It aimed to strengthen the environmental protection of navigable waters on which the public has the right to travel. Its implementation is under the responsibility of the Transport Department. In its mandate letter, the Minister of Transport must ensure that Canada’s transportation system supports the government’s ambitions, economic growth and job creation, while building a transportation system that is safe and reliable, facilitates trade and the movement of people and goods and is more environmentally sustainable.

On the other hand, the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to ensure that “Canada’s oceans and other aquatic ecosystems are protected from negative impacts,” including those of the tourism industry. The mandate letter of the minister mentions the priority of protecting Canada’s three ocean waterways, ensuring they remain healthy for future generations, and providing economic opportunities to Canadian and coastal communities.

As you can see, ensuring pollution prevention and that polluters pay — in this case, pollution arising from solid and liquid waste produced and discharged by the tourist cruise ships — is a transversal issue under the responsibility of Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Now, I speak for myself, but I believe that the Energy Committee members would all be concerned by the pollution caused by the tourist cruise ships. In fact, pollution, the environment and the economy are interconnected and transversal issues to several of the Senate committees’ missions. In fact, I raised this point during my testimony to the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.

Senator Downe, your concerns are very real, and the situation should be redressed as soon as possible. Because it deals with the operation of cruise ships, the Transport and Communications Committee would be a more appropriate leader of what should be a pluri-disciplinary study involving three or more of our Senate committees.

Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the critic of Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act, otherwise known by its short title as the “Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 3.” This bill authorizes two initiatives contained in the 2023 federal budget. It amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide a $2-billion one-time payment for health care to the provinces and territories. As well, it implements the $2.5-billion grocery rebate, which is a one-time payment to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians.

The $2-billion initiative stems from a February 7, 2023, announcement made by this government when it promised to increase health funding to the provinces and territories by $196.1 billion over 10 years, including $46.2 billion in new funding. This funding was to include:

 . . . an immediate, unconditional $2 billion Canada Health Transfer (CHT) top-up to address immediate pressures on the health care system.

. . . especially in pediatric hospitals and emergency rooms, and long wait times for surgeries.

Bill C-46 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize this $2-billion payment. Budget 2023 also announced that the government has called for a grocery rebate to be delivered through the goods and services tax credit.

Individuals and families who qualify for the GST tax credit will see their January 2023 payment tripled, providing them with an additional payment equivalent to six months of their GST tax credit payment.

The payment amount under the grocery rebate will be $153 per adult, $81 per child and $81 for the single supplement. On average, this is the equivalent of up to an additional $467 for eligible couples with two children, $234 for single Canadians without children and $225 for seniors. Bill C-46 introduces the necessary legislative changes to authorize this payment.

Colleagues, if you are feeling a bit of déjà vu, let me reassure you that it’s not simply your imagination. You have been here before.

On September 20 of last year, the government tabled Bill C-30, known by its short title as the Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1. With much fanfare, the government’s press release announced that this bill would “make life more affordable for Canadians.” How did it plan to do this? It did this by none other than providing an additional GST tax credit payment equivalent to six months of their GST tax credit payment. This was the equivalent of $467 for a family with two children, or almost $500. It was precisely what is happening in this bill.

In fact, if you take clause 2 from Bill C-30, and place it side by side with clause 3 from Bill C-46, which is before us today, you will find out that they are virtually identical. It was a simple exercise of copy and paste with a few minor tweaks.

The Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1 provided 11 million people with a cheque equivalent to six months of their GST tax credit based on their 2021 tax return. Now, the cost of living relief act, no. 3 will provide 11 million people with a cheque equivalent to six months of their GST tax credit based on their 2021 tax return.

However, colleagues, please do not make the mistake of thinking that the government is lacking in ingenuity or creativity. Just because the two benefits look identical, it is important to point out that they are not. They are very different. The benefit provided under Bill C-30 was targeted tax relief, whereas this payment is a grocery rebate.

According to the government, they are two very different initiatives, but if you can’t see the difference, do not despair; you are probably not alone.

All my life, I have thought that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. However, I am learning under this government that this is not necessarily the case.

This government claims that it is a grocery rebate, even though the payment is not tied to actual expenditures. It does not need to be spent on groceries, and requires no submission of receipts to show that you ever bought groceries. It’s not a rebate and has nothing to do with groceries. But they have chosen to call it a “grocery rebate.”

This, colleagues, is a duck that cannot swim, waddle or quack; it has no feathers; it has no webbed feet and no bill. It does not look like a duck, sound like a duck or walk like a duck. Nonetheless, this government insists that it is a duck.

I have serious problems with this for a couple of reasons: First, our Prime Minister has repeatedly shown a complete and total disregard for accountability when it comes to sending cheques to people. We saw this during the COVID pandemic. The government provided much-needed relief in the form of various payments, and then balked at the idea of ensuring that it actually reached the people who needed it. He basically said, “Send the cheques. We’ll deal with the corruption later.” But he never dealt with it. Instead, taxpayers were defrauded out of billions of dollars that the government couldn’t be bothered to try to collect.

This Prime Minister repeatedly demonstrates disdain for the responsible and efficient use of tax dollars. He seems to take pride in opening the spending spout as wide as he can and as often as he can, regardless of where the money runs to. It’s like he doesn’t even care.

The other problem I have with this grocery rebate is that it is blatantly misleading. If it’s a rebate, there should be receipts to back up the payments. If receipts are not required, then let’s not call it a rebate. Let’s call it what it is: a tax rebate.

Yesterday, at the Senate’s National Finance Committee, Senator Carignan asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, about this. This is what the PBO said:

There’s no doubt that the cheques sent to people based on their income and family situation do not have to be based on particular types of expenses. So, there is no direct connection with grocery expenses, and young people living with their parents might receive it and might not be buying groceries . . . .

Colleagues, the question I have is this: Why does this government struggle so hard with being transparent and truthful? There is a solid pattern of either blatantly telling an untruth or intentionally distorting reality. I’m not sure that you could fit a piece of paper between those two, but I’m trying hard not to offend senators by calling it what it is — especially after yesterday’s ruling on the issue of parliamentary language.

Colleagues, this is not a responsible way to run a government.

There is another pattern here as well with this government: Less than one month after announcing the Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1, we were debating another bill entitled the Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2. This bill introduced the dental benefit and the rental housing benefit. The dental benefit was worth $650 per year and the rental housing benefit was — wait for it — $500.

When the government announced the most recent measure — the cost of living relief act, no. 3 — the National Post penned a headline which summed it up nicely by saying, “The Liberal fixation on addressing complex problems with $500 cheques.” The article went on to say:

For the third time in 12 months, the Trudeau government will be taking a complex policy problem and attempting to address it with a one-time $500 cheque.

Colleagues, we support putting money back into the pockets of the hard-working people who earned it in the first place. What we don’t support is the terrible government policies which have put so many Canadians into difficult financial circumstances.

It is no secret that the Prime Minister’s inflationary spending has caused the price of everything to skyrocket, and makes life increasingly unaffordable.

Interest rates are higher than they have been in decades. Families that bought a typical home five years ago, with a typical mortgage that is now up for renewal, will pay $7,000 more a year. Paycheques don’t go as far as they used to. Canadians are cutting their diets. Mothers are putting water in their children’s milk because they cannot afford yearly food inflations of 10%. Seniors cannot afford to heat their homes. Home prices have doubled since 2015, so 35-year-olds live in their parents’ basements. According to Bloomberg, Canada has the second most inflated housing bubble in the world.

Food bank usage is at an all-time high. According to recent figures, food banks and other food-related programs across Canada served over 5 million people per month last year. That, colleagues, is expected to climb to more than 8 million people a month in 2023 — a roughly 60% increase.

Yet, in spite of these hardships, the Prime Minister’s response has been to shrug and pile on by jacking up the carbon tax once again, in spite of the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted the tax will cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates.

The truth is, colleagues, that the so-called grocery rebate will not come close to covering the rising cost of food that Justin Trudeau’s fiscal policy is fuelling. Canada’s Food Price Report 2023 predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year. That is $598 more than the $467 rebate that they will receive.

Furthermore, as I noted when I spoke to the Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1, this bill does not help people as much as the government makes it sound like it does. For starters, you need to understand that this money is only going to those who would normally receive a GST credit benefit. So, if you don’t file an income tax return, you will not qualify for the benefit. This means that many people who need it the most will not receive it.

Second, as Statistics Canada has pointed out in the past:

Since the economic well-being of an individual also depends on family income rather than just personal income, those who qualify for the GST credit are not necessarily disadvantaged. An example would be a young adult living with parents and working part time at a low-paying job. . . . the majority of recipients . . . are from multiple-earner families or those with more than one recipient (for instance, a child and another relative of the major income recipient living in the same family).

In other words, senators, as I said before in this chamber, don’t think for one moment that there is some kind of surgical precision in the deployment of this money. There is not.

The third thing that I would point out is that the GST tax credit was designed to be a tax rebate of GST expenses, not some kind of a cost-of-living-reduction tool. Using the GST tax credit in this manner is a blunt instrument, which will not necessarily result in the lowest earners receiving the higher amounts. For example, the 9 million recipients who are single with no children will only receive the base amount of $306, but if you earn more than $9,900 a year, you will receive 2% of every dollar earned over and above that amount to a maximum of an additional $161.

This means in practice that a single person earning just under $10,000 a year will receive $154 under this bill, whereas a single person earning twice that amount will receive $234, which is 52% more. For a GST rebate, the program makes sense because those with higher incomes pay more GST. But for a measure which is supposed to provide targeted relief to those who need it the most, this is a poorly designed program.

Colleagues, this government is very good at creating problems and pretending to solve them. They are very much like a serial arsonist who occasionally shows up at a fire they started with a few buckets of water claiming to be a hero. I would suggest, colleagues, that Canadians are no longer buying it. As I mentioned earlier, the other part of this bill is the amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize a $2-billion payment to the provinces. Once again, if you are having a flicker of déjà vu, it’s probably because, last June, we were debating Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1. Division 6 of Part 5 of that bill amended the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize — wait for it — a $2-billion health care payment to the provinces.

Honourable senators, the provinces desperately need this money because, on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s watch, our health care system has become completely broken. There is a growing shortage of health care workers. Millions of Canadians cannot find a doctor. One of those Canadians emailed me just this morning from Kleefeld, Manitoba, just 10 miles down the road from where I live, saying that he had lost his family doctor and he could not get another one.

According to the Canadian Medical Association a few months ago, our health care system is collapsing. The deal that this government made with the provinces in February of this year is badly needed. But don’t be fooled: it was the bare minimum. And while this $2-billion initial payment sounds like a lot of money, it doesn’t go very far when you divide it between 10 provinces and 3 territories.

For example, public health care spending in Prince Edward Island is over half a billion dollars per year. Prince Edward Island will get $8.7 million from the $2‑billion pot. The Yukon expects to spend $589 million on health and social services this year. They will receive just under $2.3 million from this bill. My province of Manitoba has budgeted $7.9 billion for health care this year, and will receive just over $72 million, less than 1% of their annual budget.

Don’t misunderstand me, colleagues. The provinces are happy to receive the support, but I want to point out that this payment amounts to a bucket of water on a four-alarm fire.

I suggest you save your applause for something more substantive. The fact is that much more must be done to fix our health care crisis, and it has become very clear that this Liberal government is not up to the task. I would point out, however, that if the government doesn’t introduce a quick fix to Bill C-47 on the other side, the provinces will end up getting $4 billion instead of $2 billion and the grocery rebate will be doubled. That, colleagues, is because Bill C-46 is basically copied and pasted from Bill C-47. You’ll find the grocery rebate at clause 29 of Bill C-47, and you’ll find the federal-provincial transfer at clause 242. This duplication is a problem because there are no coordinating amendments between the two bills. This was brought up at both the House of Commons Finance Committee last week and our National Finance Committee yesterday.

So, colleagues, here we are once again. And I know — the government leader is shrugging already — even on this, the government will come along and say, “Just trust us. We will fix it. We will fix it.”

Colleagues, here we are once again rushing through a bill that the government suddenly slams together at the eleventh hour. It’s like they just woke up and realized that grocery prices have gone up, and they scrambled overnight to put something together — except even that doesn’t make sense because the so-called grocery rebate and the health transfers to the provinces were included in the budget document. That means that they have been on the government’s radar for a while.

Even though it was on their radar for a while, they still are left scrambling to throw the legislation together and then have to rush it through the other house with no debate and no examination by committee, and they’ll expect us to expedite it as well, flaws and all.

I could go on and on, senators, but let me just make one more brief point. If you open up Bill C-46 and look at the inside page of the cover, you will find what is referred to as a “Royal Recommendation.” Royal Recommendations only need to be included in money bills if the expenditure was not anticipated in the estimates. We just had Supplementary Estimates (C) and the Main Estimates in this chamber. The fact that Bill C-46 contains a Royal Recommendation means that neither of these two expenditures were anticipated at the time that the estimates were being put together.

Colleagues, I would despair, except that I know for a fact that a Conservative government led by Pierre Poilievre will work tirelessly with our provinces to address the critical problems we are facing in order to find and implement real solutions.

Senator Martin: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government is very pleased and proud to have a modern workplace where employees can work from home up to three days a week. As part of this transformation, the government has agreed to work with the Public Service Alliance of Canada to modernize the government’s telework directives and take steps to advance equity and fairness between employees. These measures are part of a tentative agreement that has been reached with a third of the government’s workforce through collective bargaining.

These measures still need to be ratified by union members, so I think it is premature to speculate on the next steps, including what role the federal government might play going forward as our society continues to evolve.

Much of this is provincial and territorial jurisdiction — work and the regulation of businesses. I think a conversation has to take place at all levels of society going forward as we continue to evolve.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 3:36 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

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

Hon. Senators: Question.