Hon. Tony Loffreda moved second reading of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading to speak to Bill C-47, the government’s proposed budget implementation act, 2023, no. 1.

It has been an honour to be asked to sponsor this bill in the Senate, and I thank Senator Gold and the Deputy Prime Minister for their confidence. It has been a pleasure working with both of their teams, and I appreciate all of the support they have provided me since April, when I first agreed to sponsor the bill.

After being the sponsor of the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act last fall, it seemed only natural that I sponsor a budget implementation act, or BIA. I figured that a 172‑page bill was not enough for me, so I agreed to sponsor this 430‑page piece of legislation.

When I accepted to be the sponsor, I had a general idea of what the bill contained. Once I was fully briefed on its contents, I felt comfortable with the subject matter and agreed with the intended objectives of these legislative changes. Once we started our pre‑study, I soon realized that I was going to have my work cut out for me.

Here we are today, nearly seven weeks since the Senate mandated eight of our committees to undertake a pre-study of certain sections of the bill and also gave the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance the authority to review the subject matter of the entire bill.

Based on my calculations, we held 39 meetings in total, and there have been 210 unique committee witness appearances, including 3 cabinet ministers. I think we have every reason to be proud of our work. We often work with tight deadlines, but senators rose to the challenge once again.

I have read the reports from our committees, and I am happy to confirm that none of the committees are calling for amendments to the bill. However, they have made meaningful observations, which I have no doubt the government will take into consideration — many of which I will refer to in my remarks today.

As honourable senators know, Bill C-47 was first introduced in the other place on April 20, and includes measures that were first announced in Budget 2023 and other previously announced budgetary measures. The bill includes four parts: The first part makes amendments to the Income Tax Act and other legislation, and includes 17 different provisions.

The second part includes GST/HST measures.

The third part brings forward amendments to excise statutes and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act.

The fourth and final part contains 39 divisions.

In total, there are more than 60 independent measures. Some of them are quite technical in nature, and others are rather inconsequential. Others have generated quite a bit of interest in the media, amongst stakeholders and in our committees.

For your benefit, I will not address each measure individually since I only have 45 minutes, which is too bad because you all know how much I do enjoy this. Rather, I will focus my remarks on some of the more substantive measures — those that have, in my opinion, generated the most interest amongst senators and witnesses.

Before I address the measures contained in the bill, it is only fair that I say a few words on the state of the Canadian economy. Some will argue that Canada is underperforming compared to our G7 and G20 counterparts. On the contrary, I would assert that Canada is in an enviable position. At a time of global economic headwinds, Canada is operating from a position of fundamental economic strength.

When Minister Freeland appeared before our National Finance Committee last week, she reminded us that:

Some 907,000 more Canadians have jobs today than before the pandemic. And at just 5%, our unemployment rate is close to an all-time low.

That number has dropped slightly to 890,000 with the new employment numbers released last Friday.

Minister Freeland went on to say that Canada had the strongest economic growth among G7 countries in 2022. Our real GDP grew by 3.1% in the first quarter of this year — the highest in the G7 — and Canada has both the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

Honourable senators, Canada’s economy is faring quite well. In fact, I would even argue that we are leading the pack in many ways, and we should be proud of that impressive track record. Of course, we could be doing better, but the situation is not as dire as some might suggest. I think we have reasons to be hopeful that things will only become better as Canada’s economy keeps rebounding with gusto after a few difficult years.

The job is never done. We must continue to work toward greater economic prosperity; create and sustain higher-paying jobs; accelerate productivity growth; increase our overall competitiveness by attracting more domestic and foreign investments; and find innovative ways of generating more wealth.

I know that the government has the same objectives. Indeed, there are many measures in Bill C-47 that hope to achieve some tangible and long-lasting positive results.

Having said that, I now wish to shift our attention to the actual measures in the bill. I will begin with the changes being proposed to the Income Tax Act which appear in Part 1 of Bill C-47.

In Part 1 of the bill, according to paragraph (b) of the summary, the government is proposing to double the deduction for tradespeople’s tools from $500 to $1,000, effective for the 2023 and subsequent taxation years. We expect this measure to cost $11 million over six years. You may recall we adopted another measure last year for the tradespeople: the Labour Mobility Deduction. Canada’s Building Trades Unions told our National Finance Committee that they support this measure which, as they stated, puts “money directly back in the pockets of the skilled tradespeople that build our country.”

In paragraph (c), the government is expanding the residential property flipping rule, which we adopted last year, by extending it to assignment sales. Exceptions will continue to apply for certain life events, such as death, disability and divorce. This measure could affect about 1,400 Canadians per year, and increase the government’s tax revenues by about $1 million annually.

The government is making changes to the Canada workers benefit, or CWB, as explained in paragraph (g) of the summary. The CWB is a refundable tax credit that supplements the earnings of low-income and modest-income workers. As it currently stands, beneficiaries claim this benefit when completing their tax return. This measure would automatically issue quarterly advance payments of the CWB to those who qualified for the benefit in the previous year. This proposal would cost an estimated $4 billion over six years, including $68 million in administrative costs.

The government hopes to raise $635 million over five years with its new measure on hedging and short selling by Canadian financial institutions, as stated in paragraph (m) of the summary. This measure was proposed in Budget 2022 and seeks to make the tax system fair. The government is concerned that certain financial institution groups are engaging in aggressive tax planning arrangements, whereby a dividend received deduction is claimed in circumstances giving rise to an unintended tax benefit.

I thought I would also address paragraph (p) of the summary of Part 1 since we adopted Bill C-228 in April. In this section, the government will give defined benefit registered pension plans the ability to borrow additional money up to 20% of the plan’s assets. Plan administrators must continue to comply with the provisions of federal or provincial benefit standards legislation — which ensure that pension funds are administered with a duty of care, that investments are made in a reasonable and prudent manner and that the plan is funded in accordance with prescribed funding standards. However, this change will give greater flexibility for administrators in their investment and liquidity strategies.

I appreciate that I’m only scratching the surface here, but those were 5 of 17 measures in Part 1 that amend the Income Tax Act.

I’ll now move on to Part 2, which includes four GST/HST measures.

The first measure clarifies the GST/HST treatment of cryptoasset mining by providing that where a person performs mining activities — either solo or as part of a mining pool in which the miners share rewards — that person would not be required to collect tax on the provision of their mining services, and would also not be entitled to recover the GST/HST paid on inputs to those mining services.

For instance, the Digital Asset Mining Coalition appeared before our Banking Committee and National Finance Committee, and argued that this measure may have some unintended consequences and make Canadian computing companies less competitive in the international marketplace. They are calling for an exception to the GST changes being proposed to clearly state that if a Canadian company supplies its computing power to a mining pool operator who is a non-resident of Canada, the ordinary GST rules apply to them.

In our report, senators on the Banking Committee wrote:

The committee is concerned that despite the consultations held by the Department of Finance Canada in 2022 on this topic, there is still ambiguity that arises on its implementation. The committee suggests that the department consult again with stakeholders, in particular to address concerns of the Digital Asset Mining Coalition.

Minister Freeland told our National Finance Committee that:

Computing service companies and their representatives have been consistently assured by the Department of Finance that the proposed measures will not jeopardize the input tax credits to which they may be entitled per the ordinary application of the GST/HST rules where these companies are selling computer services for a fixed price — and not sharing in mining rewards received by mining pool operators.

In Part 2, the government is also proposing to clarify that payment card clearing services are subject to GST/HST. This measure is in response to a recent court decision that found that GST/HST does not apply to these types of services. It has always been understood that these services were subject to tax. The proposal being considered here is to clarify and restore the long‑standing policy that payment card clearing services are administrative in nature and, therefore, excluded from the GST/HST definition of “financial services.”

Of all the meetings I attended at our National Finance Committee and Banking Committee, I think this is the one measure that might have generated the most interest and, dare I say, the most head-scratching. Admittedly, I am also concerned about the retroactive application of the measure, but I understand the government’s rationale.

The government contends that the retroactivity of the measure is to protect GST/HST revenues, and to ensure that the court’s decision does not result in payment card issuers, such as banks who purchase these services, receiving windfall gains. The retroactivity likewise protects the providers of these services who correctly claimed input tax credits in the past and were at risk of losing them. The government expects this measure to prevent windfall gains of $195 million. I have no doubt that we will hear about this issue from other senators.

Moving on to Part 3 of the bill, this section only contains two measures. Division 1 will temporarily cap the inflation adjustment for excise duties on beer, spirits and wine at 2%, for one year only, as of April 1, 2023. As you know, alcohol excise duties are automatically indexed to total Consumer Price Index inflation on April 1 of each year. We know industry lobbied the government for this change, and the restaurant and tourism industries certainly welcome this tax freeze. You may also recall that when the indexation mechanism tax was introduced in 2017, the budget implementation act at the time was amended in the Senate to remove it but that was ultimately rejected by the House. I wasn’t a senator at the time, but it turns out the Senate may have been right five years ago.

The government is also increasing the air travellers security charge, or ATSC, by 32.85%. This is the charge paid by passengers when purchasing airline tickets that goes towards financing the costs of Canada’s air travel security system, including the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. The last time the ATSC increased was in 2010, when it rose by 52.4%. The government estimates that the charge on a return trip within Canada would increase from $14.96 to $19.87. The government expects this measure to raise $1.25 billion in revenue over the next five years. This measure will apply as of May 1, 2024.

I would now like to take some time to address Part 4 of Bill C-47, which includes 39 divisions, 36 of which have been sent to eight Senate committees for their review, either in whole or in part. I want to thank them for the important work they did. Your reports have been very helpful for me in my role as sponsor.

Once again, for the sake of time and my own sanity, and perhaps even yours, I will not address every single division in Part 4. I will focus on those I feel are most important and have generated the most interest among our colleagues.

In Division 1, the government is amending the Bank Act to provide for the establishment of a single, non-profit external complaints body to ensure Canadians have access to a fair and impartial process to address unresolved complaints with their banks. Right now, there are two bodies, and banks can choose which one they refer complaints to.

The government aims to select the new body later this year upon recommendation of the Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada following a selection process led by the FCAC. Witnesses before the Banking Committee welcomed the creation of this new entity. I also believe it’s a good idea.

In our report, our committee agrees that:

 . . . switching to a single external complaints body is beneficial for consumers, but suggests that a deadline, such as one year after Royal Assent of the bill, be considered for the designation of the external complaints body . . . .

We also call for the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada:

. . . to use its powers to ensure that it is held to the highest standard of transparency and accountability and that it is fair for all parties.

Through Division 5, the government is indefinitely withdrawing the preferential Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff treatment for Russia and Belarus. This is not a controversial measure or one that has attracted much attention, but I think it’s worth mentioning in light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This measure achieves the policy objective of incentivizing importers to source away from Russian and Belarusian imports. It is worth noting that Canada was the first country in March 2022 to revoke Russian and Belarusian eligibility for Most‑Favoured‑Nation status. Many other nations have since followed suit.

In Division 6, changes are being brought to the Bank of Canada Act. As you may recall, in response to the financial market stress arising from the pandemic, the bank introduced the Government of Canada Bond Purchase Program, or GBPP, Canada’s first quantitative easing program. As a result of interest rate increases, the bank is now incurring net interest losses. According to the act, the bank must remit any surpluses or profits it generates to the government. The changes will allow the bank to retain future profits until such time as the bank’s GBPP losses are covered, which will help it exit negative equity. Australia did the same.

The next division I want to address is one I feel is quite timely. In Division 7 of Part 4, the government is establishing the Canada innovation corporation, known as the CIC. The mandate of this new Crown corporation will be to maximize Canadian business investments in research and development across all economic sectors and regions of Canada and to promote innovation-based economic growth, including working with businesses to promote the creation and retention of intangible assets in Canada. Prior to introducing the legislation, the government consulted broadly with stakeholders in the summer and fall of 2022.

The CIC will be run by private-sector experts and operate at the speed of business. The corporation will be funded through an annual statutory transfer, giving it some consistency and operational stability and the ability to establish long-lasting partnerships with the private sector. Its initial budget will be $2.6 billion over four years.

The Banking Committee reviewed this section of the bill. In my assessment of our deliberations in committee, I feel senators, including myself, want to make sure the new corporation will not repeat the mistakes of the Infrastructure Bank, which was slow to take off. As such, we suggested in our report that the government conduct an evaluation of the CIC three years after its establishment to determine whether it has been successful in meeting its mandate and to publish the results of this in-depth evaluation in its annual report.

There are four divisions in Part 4 of the bill that relate to Canada’s immigration and citizenship policies and programs.

For example, Division 17 proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to enable the minister to issue instructions to cap the number of privately sponsored refugee applications submitted by Groups of Five and a Community Sponsor.

Not having these caps in place has led to a growing application inventory and longer processing times. The government feels this measure will provide refugees and their sponsors with shorter, more predictable processing times.

The Social Affairs Committee is worried that imposing a cap on privately sponsored refugee applications as a backlog management strategy:

 . . . may have the effect of excluding some of the most vulnerable people in dangerous and high-risk situations from seeking the protection of Canada.

Division 19 will make amendments to the Citizenship Act with the overall objective of improving client service. If adopted, IRCC — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — would be able to electronically administer and enforce the citizenship program, require online applications and services and collect and use biometric information to confirm, quickly and reliably, the identity of clients and screen for criminality. The hope is that these changes will help IRCC deliver a program that is more efficient and better meets the needs of newcomers by leveraging new technologies for expedited processing. With these changes, online applications will become standard, automation and machine-assisted decision-making tools will be used to process applications faster and fingerprints and digital photos will be collected from clients.

In its report, the Social Affairs Committee voiced some concerns regarding the use of automated and machine-assisted processing. It wrote:

Bias in artificial intelligence, automation and other machine‑assistance tools has been well documented, especially against racialized people and other vulnerable populations. . . . your committee is concerned that these tools and their sorting decisions could influence the final decisions made by officials.

The committee is calling on the government to create and implement safeguards around the use of machine-assisted decision-making tools in this program in order to avoid negatively influencing application decisions with bias. I think that is a very sound and thoughtful observation, which I completely agree with.

Several changes are being proposed to the Canada Transportation Act to enhance the sharing of information between the Government of Canada and entities involved in transportation supply chains.

In addition, Division 22 proposes to increase the interswitching limit for rail from 30 kilometres to 160 kilometres in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba on a temporary basis with the goal of enhancing competitive dynamics and providing shippers with alternatives for rates and service.

This is a new pilot project, one that builds on a similar pilot that took place between 2014 and 2017 and responds directly to a recommendation of the Final Report of The National Supply Chain Task Force 2022.

Rail companies question the value of this measure and oppose it on the basis that it may have an impact on the competitiveness of our railways with American railways. It’s a valid argument and one that I appreciate, but we must also keep in mind that this pilot project is limited to the Prairie provinces and seeks to gather data to assess the value of extending interswitching. On the other hand, representatives from the Canadian Canola Growers Association, who represent 43,000 farmers, welcome this amendment, and told us in committee that “the beneficiaries of the system would also be mining, fertilizer, forestry and consumer goods.” Our Transport and Communications Committee also reported that briefs submitted by rail transport stakeholders suggest that there is not a consensus on the extended interswitching provisions.

Division 23 is one that has many people talking, and I thank our Transport and Communications Committee for the work it conducted on the proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act to strengthen air passenger rights, streamline the process of administering air travel complaints and shift some of the financial burden from government to industry.

The overarching goal of these changes is to enable the Canadian Transportation Agency to carry out its mandate more efficiently and allow it to offset the costs of administering the air passenger rights regime through appropriate cost recovery from the industry.

These changes are in response to the challenges we witnessed with airlines and airports last year. There are many provisions in this section, but perhaps the most important one is the overhaul of the current dispute resolution process of passenger complaints.

The government explains that air passenger rights will improve because these amendments would simplify and strengthen the system by removing the complexity and ambiguity of the regime. This will be achieved by making compensation the default for delays and cancellations unless it is due to an exception that will be prescribed by regulations. This is where some stakeholders within the air travel ecosystem have expressed some reservations.

For instance, the National Airlines Council of Canada appeared before our National Finance Committee last week and called for adherence to safety to be the primary guiding principle when defining the exemptions that airlines can claim from paying compensation over and above refund and duty of care. In a written submission, NAV CANADA also asks that:

. . . safety-driven decisions resulting in delays and/or cancellations by any player in the system — including airlines — should continue to be protected from compensation requirements.

I have no doubt safety will always be the number one priority for the government, and officials confirmed this before our committee last week.

Another issue the National Airlines Council of Canada raised was the sharing of responsibility and accountability among all entities in the air travel ecosystem, while NAV CANADA seeks to be exempted from any assignation of financial responsibility for refunds or compensation. Clearly, a lot needs to be ironed out in the regulatory process, and I trust Transport Canada will consult adequately and seek industry feedback on these proposals.

Our National Security and Defence Committee looked at Division 24, which seeks to amend the Customs Act and enact some of the priorities of the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, with respect to the Traveller Modernization initiative. The goal is to enable faster border processing and improve the border experience for travellers entering Canada by, among other things, offering more automated, self-service options and streamlining identity verification.

I note the observation made by the committee that it “supports the principle of using technology to help process travellers entering Canada,” noting that the results “could be an improved traveller experience and better prioritization of CBSA resources.” Witnesses before the committee did offer some comments on four issues of general concern, namely, privacy considerations; the differential impacts on various groups of travellers; border security in general; and consultations with the CBSA officers’ union.

The changes being proposed to the natural health products in Division 27 are in response to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who found gaps in the oversight of natural health products. The government’s proposed legislative amendments to the Food and Drugs Act would extend the definition of “therapeutic product” in the act to include natural health products. This will improve Health Canada’s ability to collect information and take quick and appropriate action when a serious health risk is identified.

The natural health product sector is not pleased with these changes, but as the government explains Health Canada has seen evidence of industry non-compliance with the Natural Health Products Regulations, resulting in health and safety risks. This is occurring at a time when Canadians are using these products more frequently.

For example, the Canadian Health Food Association advances that Health Canada did not properly engage with stakeholders and feel these changes are being rushed, although they remain hopeful there will be an opportunity for meaningful stakeholder engagement during the regulatory process. As they put forward, a proper consultative approach ensures that decisions regarding regulations for natural health products are well-informed, balanced and in the best interest of Canadians.

I am confident the government agrees, and that Health Canada will engage adequately and fairly.

In Division 28, the government is proposing to ban the testing of cosmetics on animals in Canada, prohibit false or misleading labelling pertaining to the testing of cosmetics on animals and prohibit the sale of cosmetics that rely on animal testing data to establish the product’s safety, with certain exceptions. These exceptions will ensure that existing cosmetic products remain on the market and that the proposed ban would not interfere with other legislative regimes in Canada where animal testing is still needed to demonstrate safety.

Health Canada’s ban is modelled on the European Union’s ban. Canada would join 41 other countries in enacting this measure. I’m sure our former colleague Senator Stewart Olsen would welcome this measure as she had been a vocal advocate for animal rights and introduced a bill to prohibit cosmetic animal testing some time ago.

Division 30 is worth mentioning because it introduces a reasonable grounds to suspect standard to the Canada Post Corporation Act to address a Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador decision. It also gives me an opportunity to refer to the report from our Legal Committee. I would like to read an excerpt from the report:

The committee notes that the restrictions on the ability to open mail are stricter for Canada Post than other private carriers operating in Canada . . . these rules prevent police from searching and seizing any letter or nonletter mail that is in the care of Canada Post.

The report goes on to say that the proposed changes in the budget implementation act do not address the issue of trafficked contraband, particularly fentanyl, using letter mail through Canada Post, and senators are calling on Parliament and the Government of Canada to give urgent attention to addressing these concerns. I know one senator who might already have a solution to this issue.

Division 31 will amend the Royal Style and Titles Act and give our new king a different Canadian title than his mother had. Unlike Queen Elizabeth, King Charles’s royal title in Canada will have no reference to the United Kingdom and no reference to his role as defender of the faith.

Division 32 is one I am quite interested in, which deals with the Canada Growth Fund. Our National Finance Committee looked at the Canada Growth Fund last fall as part of the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, Bill C-32. Many questions that were left unanswered at the time are now being addressed. The big novelty is that the government has decided to entrust the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, or PSP, with the management of the assets of the Canada Growth Fund and to deliver on the fund’s mandate of attracting private capital in Canada’s clean economy.

Division 32 will also increase the amount that the Minister of Finance may requisition out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to acquire shares of the Canada Growth Fund, up to $15 billion in total. It’s worth mentioning that the fund will be independent from the government.

The Canada Growth Fund will use investment instruments that absorb certain risks in order to catalyze private investments in low-carbon projects, technologies, companies and supply chains. PSP was chosen so the Canada Growth Fund will be able to move quickly and begin making investments in the near term.

In response to my question during our National Finance Committee, the Minister of Finance explained that to provide concessional financing properly for the green transition to happen at the speed and scale that is necessary, we need investment professionals. As she put it:

That is, people who have a long background doing this and who do it every day. . . . That is why PSP, which makes professional investments every day, has been charged with this responsibility.

She went on to say that with having PSP manage the fund:

. . . the people of Canada and the Government of Canada will have access to truly world-class, professional investors, putting our money to work.

When I spoke to Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, in June of last year, I explained how it’s so much easier to distribute wealth than attract and create wealth. I called on the government to come up with a plan to address our lacklustre productivity and growth performance. Twelve months later, I feel the Canada Growth Fund, along with the Canada Innovation Corporation, are part of solutions to this problem.

I appreciate the government is making these targeted investments. If properly managed, these billions of dollars that will be injected into our economy have the serious potential of stimulating growth, increasing business productivity, improving our competitiveness and helping us transition to a net-zero economy. I am hopeful these two entities will work with all relevant partners in ensuring their success.

Moving on to Division 34 — which, I’m sure, Senator Ringuette was happy to see included in the budget implementation act. This division will lower the criminal rate of interest from the current 60% effective annual rate to 35% annual percentage rate. By lowering the criminal rate of interest, Canadians who use high-cost credit products will face lower interest charges.

As our Legal Committee advances in its report:

. . . having a clear and consistent criminal rate of interest that is set at a reasonable level to protect Canadians from unfair or otherwise problematic lending practices —

— is of the utmost importance, particularly because economically marginalized individuals must often resort to these lenders “. . . and are likely to remain trapped in cycles of debt.”

With Division 35, the government is supporting seasonal Employment Insurance claimants by investing approximately $147 million over three years to extend the current temporary rules that provide up to five additional weeks of EI regular benefits, for a maximum of 45 weeks. This measure, available in 13 targeted EI regions, is being extended to October 26, 2024.

This temporary policy was first introduced in 2018 and has been extended ever since. Senators on the Social Affairs Committee are looking forward “to the development of a more permanent solution.” About 60,000 workers are expected to benefit from this extension.

Division 37 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit until April 30, 2024. A similar authority was granted to the minister during the pandemic, which was never used but is being sought again considering the recent developments in the global financial sector.

Some have argued that this measure sends the message that our banking sector is unstable. Rest assured, colleagues, our banks are healthy and stable. This is only a precautionary and temporary authority just in case something would happen.

As officials told our Banking Committee:

Canada’s banks are very well regulated, they are resilient, they are robust, but there has been some turmoil in the U.S., and the minister thought it would be prudent to have a temporary measure put in place.

The government feels this measure is necessary to provide consumer confidence in the banking system, and I would offer that the authority would likely not be used.

The last division I wish to address is Division 39, which proposes to establish a uniform national regime in relation to the use, collection, disclosure and retention of personal information of federal political parties by amending the Canada Elections Act. It’s worth noting that political parties already have privacy policies in place that include six specific elements.

When the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the Legal Committee, he indicated that these new requirements improve transparency about the handling of personal information held by political parties, but the legislation does not impose any minimum standards, nor does it provide any oversight mechanisms to verify whether parties are complying with their policies or any sanctions for non-compliance.

In its report, the committee reminds us, “The amendment creates a framework for a potential future regime. It does not actually establish any such regime.”

I appreciate some may feel the division is not robust enough and does not go far enough, fast enough. So I would urge the government to make this a priority and not delay any further. I expect we might hear something about it from our colleagues.

In conclusion, honourable senators, these were, in a nutshell, some of the measures contained in Bill C-47. As I indicated at the outset, limited speaking time only allowed me to scratch the surface of the bill’s content — and I am content to have scratched the surface of the bill’s content. Forty-five minutes of speaking takes a toll on you, too. I am sure most of you are disappointed I was only able to address about half of the measures in the bill, but I trust you have read all 430 pages of the bill and feel adequately informed and well equipped to vote in favour of Bill C-47.

Before I wrap up, I wish to make two final points. First, as you may know, the bill was amended in the other place. Of note, you will recall that the two main provisions contained in Bill C-46, which we adopted last month, were also included in Bill C-47. These two measures — the $2-billion health transfer to the provinces and territories and the $2.5 billion for the one-time increase to the GST credit, also known as the Grocery Rebate — have effectively been removed from the BIA through coordinating amendments.

Second, I also wish to convey my disappointment once again in the nature and size of budget bills. I’m sure many senators will agree with me that non-budgetary measures should not appear in budget implementation acts. In fact, through their Bill C-47 pre‑study reports, committees have voiced similar frustrations.

As the Transport and Communications Committee wrote:

Having no clear connection to the government budgetary policy, the committee hopes that, in the future, such content —

— meaning changes such as those included in Divisions 22 and 23 —

— would be introduced in separate legislation.

Our Legal Committee feels the same way and emphasized that “amendments to criminal laws should be introduced in a separate bill to allow for thorough study.”

I appreciate this is a long-standing practice, and this is a recurring theme we hear year after year, but omnibus bills are not optimal. Some measures, like the new act to create the Canada innovation corporation or the changes to the air passenger complaints process or the amendments to the Citizenship Act probably deserve their own legislation. Nevertheless, I still think our committees did outstanding work and properly examined the subject matter of the bill. They heard the concerns of many affected stakeholders and received dozens of written briefs.

Thank you once again for the excellent work.

In closing, honourable senators, Bill C-47 is a good bill. As an independent senator with no ties to the governing party —