Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of our brave veterans of the Korean War and to all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives.

June 25, 2023, will mark the seventy-third anniversary of the breakout of the Korean War. Nearly 27,000 brave, young Canadians selflessly volunteered to serve their country and fight for the freedom of South Korea from communist tyranny. Today, these courageous men and women are in their late 80s and 90s. Some, who are also World War II veterans, are more than 100 years of age. We recently lost one such hero and beloved friend, Joseph Quinn, who was 102.

Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of getting to meet and hear the stories of so many of our Korean War veterans, and I am truly honoured to know them. I have seen the pain in their eyes when they speak about what they experienced during the war: the deafening sounds of gunshots, explosions, screams and then silence; the friends they made and those whom they lost in battle; the beautiful children and desperate families living in despair and poverty — memories of the Korean War that they will never forget and that we could never truly comprehend.

Our veterans left their homes to defend a country and a people whom they didn’t know, but they understood the universal values of peace, democracy and human rights, and that is what they fought for. Their Herculean efforts and the ultimate sacrifices that the Canadians made on the Korean Peninsula surpass any amount of gratitude we can express in words.

We stand on the shoulders of those whose service and sacrifice have given us the very freedoms we enjoy and take for granted today. We live in freedom, but freedom is not free. Many paid the price for our freedom with their lives.

July 27, 2023, will mark the historic seventieth anniversary of the Korean War armistice and the conclusion of the seventieth anniversary of the Korean War years which began on June 25, three years ago. This weekend in Ottawa, I have the honour of hosting, along with Veterans Affairs Canada, the Embassy of the Republic of Korea and the Canadian War Museum, a special veterans’ weekend in honour of this milestone year. Veterans from across Canada will gather in Ottawa for this special commemoration.

Honourable senators, as time goes on, our veterans age and pass. Therefore, we must do our part now to remember and honour them.

We will remember them.

Senator Saint-Germain: We’ve had an eventful and busy end to the session. Generally speaking, we’ve accomplished what we needed to accomplish with skill, dedication and diligence, as I said earlier.

[English]

Much has happened since last September. Strong debates were held, and sometimes tensions were palpable between some of us — yes, including myself. I would like to propose that we all take this time — away from the Senate — as an opportunity to reflect on the contribution to democracy in our country, and on what we might do to better serve all Canadians. A lot more unites us than divides us. This should reflect in the way we act and work as senators.

As such, I would like to echo the comments made by two respectable departing parliamentarians in the other place — Marc Garneau and Erin O’Toole — in calling for more civility and dignity in our debates. We are not nominated to the upper house of Parliament to generate endless social media engagement, but rather to work diligently on legislation, as well as bring a complementary and added value to the work of the elected House of Commons.

Recently, we bid farewell to a Speaker and welcomed a new one. Speaker Gagné has embraced her new role, and acted with tact and efficiency. However, the responsibility to uphold order and decorum is not only for her and for our Speaker pro tempore, Senator Ringuette — it is, rather, the duty of all senators. It is, I believe, the brand of this chamber and part of what distinguishes us.

There is always a place in the Senate for different opinions — actually, that is kind of the point — but divergent views must always be expressed with respect. As so eloquently expressed by Senator Shugart in his maiden speech:

. . . whether it is what we say to or about each other, or how we learn again to listen and dialogue with others who don’t share our outlook, or how we guard the health of our institutions — we need to relearn the virtue of restraint.

And I would add this: the virtue of respect.

To my very dedicated and capable colleagues in the Independent Senators Group, and to all colleagues from all caucuses and groups, I wish you a wonderful summer. Let’s take this time to think and reflect while enjoying the good weather and relaxing. I’m looking forward to seeing all of us in good spirits in the fall. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: I rise today to speak about welcoming week in Ottawa. This week, I had the pleasure of speaking at the launch of Welcoming Ottawa Week, or WOW.

Welcoming Ottawa Week was created by the Ottawa Local Immigration Partnership, or OLIP, which aims to convey to newcomers Ottawa’s respect and genuine welcome and create diverse opportunities for newcomers to connect with the Ottawa public across the city, institutions and local organizations. This year, we celebrate the tenth anniversary of WOW.

The Ottawa Local Immigration Partnership is an impressive multi-sectoral partnership of 64 Ottawa organizations working in diverse sectors such as settlement, language, training, interpretation and economic integration. United in the mission of building Ottawa’s capacity to attract, settle and integrate immigrants, it links newcomers to employers.

[Translation]

The Ottawa Local Immigration Partnership is an initiative funded by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Thanks to the success of this social cooperation model, there are local immigration partnerships in 87 cities and towns across the country.

[English]

Yes, 87 cities and towns across the country use this collaborative model.

Here is the important thing about successful immigrant integration: I recall a conversation with Jason Kenney some years ago when he was federal immigration minister. He was noting proudly that Canada had retained its high immigration levels through the 2007-08 recession while the rest of the world was shutting their gates. He noted that the public support for immigration had remained high in Canada because we work on integration so successfully. Successful integration not only helps the newcomers of today but it continuously creates public support for future immigration, thus making for a more harmonious society and one that will continue to welcome immigrants.

This said, we should never rest on our laurels. We must continue to do and support the hard work, especially as there remain many gaps. As a caution, we must always be watchful of the polarization, opposition, misinformation and disinformation regarding immigration and diversity that is rampant in many countries, including the U.S., and is certainly creeping into Canadian society.

May we spend this summer thinking about how we can continue to improve this peaceable kingdom we call Canada.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Let me get this straight: After your first carbon tax, where you pummelled middle-class Canadians into the ground, forcing them to become poor, while you have had no impact on your environmental targets — you’ve hit none of them; it’s zero — you are telling me that a second carbon tax to continue your insanity in your failed policy of saving the environment — by killing poor and middle-class Canadians — is somehow a magic bullet. Congratulations — you have failed on your environmental targets; you have succeeded in setting record-high inflation; and you have succeeded in growing the number of poor Canadians in this country, as well as the dwindling middle class. The question is simple: Will your government, at least, try some of these common-sense policies that we are putting forward as an opposition, and put a pause on this second carbon tax in order to give badly needed relief to middle-class and poor Canadians who are suffering while we go on vacation?

Senator Tannas: I want to add my thanks to all staff members in all senators’ offices, the Senate Administration and, of course, those who keep us safe and secure. Without their ongoing professional support, we could not do our jobs.

I think that we are facing new challenges as we exit into post‑pandemic times, but I must say how glad I am that we are back here — and back together. You can see the richness in the debates that happened here in the chamber. I think that during the pandemic, a lot of the work that we did was transactional. We came, or we didn’t. We came in by technology, we spoke briefly, we voted and we moved on. It’s just nice to see us all back together, engaged, laughing, working together and thinking about the great questions of the world around us. I hope all of us enjoy this summer, and we’ll see you in the fall.

Thank you.

Senator Plett: This means you should brace yourselves for the impending burden of skyrocketing debt servicing costs. Thanks to this government’s reckless spending, combined with interest rate increases, we are about to witness the highest debt servicing costs in Canadian history.

From $20.4 billion in 2021, interest on the debt took a 20% jump in 2022 and is forecast at 41% growth in 2023 and 27% growth in 2024. By 2028, annual debt servicing costs are expected to exceed a staggering $50 billion, surpassing the peaks reached in the 1990s.

Allow me to quote from Scotiabank’s March 29 Global Economics bulletin, where they noted the following achievements by this government’s reckless overspending:

It has contributed to some of the inflationary pressures that represent a highly regressive tax on lower and middle income Canadians . . . .

It has contributed to a higher BoC policy rate than would otherwise be the case.

It has contributed to worker shortages as public sector jobs are up 420k since just before the pandemic and account for 51% of all jobs created in Canada over that time. No wonder businesses are struggling to find workers!!

It has contributed toward higher wage pressures . . . .

It has worsened competitiveness problems through spending that is primarily focused upon redistributive social transfers.

The bulletin closes with this:

This budget adds to macroeconomic imbalances and divides folks at a time when unity is needed to address the country’s challenges. Governments . . . are now addicted to high spending and delivering divisive jabs at certain interests. Nothing is being done about productivity and competitiveness pressures that are mounting year by year. Big spending, big deficits, big debt, high taxes, high inflation and bond market challenges are not the path to prosperity.

No, colleagues; no, government leader — that was not written by Pierre Poilievre. That was Derek Holt, Vice-President and Head of Capital Markets Economics at Scotiabank.

Canadians simply cannot afford Justin Trudeau’s never-ending inflationary deficits. We see it every day — the prices of essential goods such as food, housing and fuel are hitting record highs.

Now, the NDP-Liberal costly coalition’s introduction of a second carbon tax only exacerbates the problem. This second carbon tax will drive carbon taxes up to 61 cents per litre, further hiking the price of gas, heat and groceries.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average Canadian household will face an extra $573 per year without any rebate. Families in some provinces could face costs as high as $1,157. This means that the combined carbon taxes will cost Canadian families up to $4,000 each year.

Again, to quote from the Scotiabank report I mentioned earlier:

Big spending, big deficits, big debt, high taxes, high inflation and bond market challenges are not the path to prosperity.

Why do economists and everyday Canadians understand this reality, but the Liberal government does not?

Let me go back to Bill C-47.

In 2015, the Trudeau Liberals promised that they would not use omnibus bills. Again, they misled Canadians. Bill C-47 is as omnibus as an omnibus bill can be. It is 430 pages long, with 681 articles covering more than 60 different measures touching laws that have nothing to do with the fiscal and budgetary policy of the government.

Our Senate committees have pointed this out: Several measures in Bill C-47 should have been stand-alone bills. By putting so many different policy changes in one bill, the government is skipping proper scrutiny and debate on them. The Liberals rightly called this out in 2015. However, after eight years in power, they are still using this legislative “trick,” as they called it then.

By the way, in the same paragraph of their 2015 platform, the Liberals promised not to use prorogation “. . . to avoid difficult political circumstances. . . .” They broke this promise when the heat was on regarding the WE Charity scandal. I am eager to see whether they will do that again this summer to avoid scrutiny over their countless ongoing scandals.

Another thing worth mentioning is the use by the Trudeau Liberals of retroactive tax measures. Traditionally, this a territory where governments don’t go.

Taxpayers have the right to organize their affairs in order to reduce their tax burden. However, to do so, they must know what the rules are. Changing the rules of the game retroactively is unfair and is a very slippery slope. If a government starts doing that on a regular basis, we can predict that some insiders will learn about the coming change and will adapt, whereas other folks will just pick up a retroactive tab because they were not informed.

Furthermore, the government makes it more and more difficult to get all the information on its spending. Senator Marshall has decried this tendency for years now.

In his April 13 report on the budget, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said:

This lack of transparency presents challenges for parliamentarians and the public in scrutinizing the Government’s spending plans, as well as reconciling between previously provisioned amounts and their announcement.

The Hill Times published an article on this recently. More than $30 billion of spending could not be scrutinized by Parliament. As is so often the case with the Liberals, one is left wondering: Is it because of their incompetence or because they want to hide more sinister news?

On March 29, The Globe and Mail called the budget a fiscal fantasy, saying:

. . . the Liberal budget is built on a cloud of sleight-of-hand projections and the hope that Canadians are suffering from collective amnesia. . . .

Sustaining the fantasy of Liberal prudence depends on Canadians acting like memory-challenged goldfish, forever surprised by each turn of the fiscal cycle.

I hope that senators will not suffer from amnesia, will not act like goldfish and will join my colleagues and me — not whipped, Senator Deacon, but who believe in fiscal responsibility. I hope you will all join me in voting against Bill C-47.

This is a flawed bill. We should defeat it and send the government back to the drawing board. But there is another reason for the Senate to defeat this bill: what is not in it. Forcing the government to come up with a new budget bill would give them a chance to address some issues that were not covered in Bill C-47.

First, the BIA hardly addresses the many challenges that Canada faces and that I outlined at the beginning of my speech. One thing that breaks my heart is that for young Canadians — like my grandchildren and your grandchildren — the dream of owning a home will probably remain that: just a dream. The Trudeau Liberals don’t have an answer on housing.

“This budget ignores the housing crisis,” was the assessment of economist Mike Moffatt with the Smart Prosperity Institute. In a detailed analysis of Budget 2023, Moffatt declared that most of its references to housing “were re-announcements of past measures and progress updates on yet-to-be-implemented measures . . . .”

Absent were any proposals to free up federal lands for home construction, measures to cut red tape for new builds or even tax credits on building materials.

There is no plan for our Armed Forces. Every NATO country seems to be able to reach the 2% threshold for military expenses except Canada. We, colleagues, are the freeloaders of NATO: happy to make speeches on the importance of defending democracy, but unwilling to make the effort. We should be ashamed.

There is no long-term plan to pay for all those candies the Liberals are throwing at their NDP allies. How will we pay for the dental plan, the childcare plan and the soon-to-be-announced pharma plan? No idea. I guess the plan is to borrow more money to pay for this. Maybe Justin Trudeau will ask us all to use our credit cards and help him. Remember that, in just one year, the cost of the dental plan has doubled. What will it be in five years?

Justin Trudeau also has no plan to fight inflation, no plan for reducing government spending and no plan for returning to a balanced budget. As Canadians are running out of money, Justin Trudeau is running out of ideas.

But even more worrisome is that it is evident that this government has zero solutions for the long-term prospects of the Canadian economy. Because of dismal productivity, poor business investment, labour scarcity and the need to shift to a lower-carbon future, the Canadian economy is expected to deliver very weak economic growth.

David Rosenberg, founder of independent research firm Rosenberg Research & Associates Inc. said this earlier this month:

This was the fourth consecutive decline in Canadian productivity and the 10th contraction in the past 11 quarters. The year-over-year trend is minus 1.8 per cent, or twice as bad as it is [in the U.S.] . . . .

He continues:

And get this: the level of productivity was lower in the first quarter of 2023 than it was in the first quarter of 2017. Nice legacy for the Justin Trudeau government.

The 2023 budget and Bill C-47 are silent on how this government intends to meet those challenges. It looks like words like “productivity,” “investment” or “growth” are foreign to the Trudeau Liberals. They are so busy redistributing wealth and virtue signalling for their target demographics that they forgot to do their job entirely: to create wealth and make sure everyone is better off.

We all know Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault want to kill not only the oil and gas industry, but all other exploitation of natural resources. The mining and forestry industries are under attack, just like oil and gas. How will they replace these jobs? Oh, that’s easy: We will have green jobs.

The thing is, Joe Biden has decided that all those green jobs should be in the U.S. So much for his buddy Justin.

Biden’s hilariously named Inflation Reduction Act will give U.S. green energy developers about $400 billion of American taxpayers’ dollars, simply through tax credits. That is C$540 billion that we have to compete with.

Minister Freeland said it herself: We are engaging in a “race to the bottom.” And we are close to winning that race, colleagues.

As Bill Robson, CEO of Canada’s C.D. Howe Institute, said:

On the green tech stuff, I do have a problem with us being in a bidding war with the United States . . . They’re also in this kind of “tomorrow doesn’t matter, let’s spend for today” mood with all their subsidies.

We have already seen this in action with Volkswagen and Stellantis in Ontario. We are talking about over $30 billion of taxpayer money for these two businesses. This is not the total investment in so-called green jobs. It is just for those two companies.

What it means is that Canadian taxpayers will be paying twice for green energy: once through the federal carbon tax, and a second time through tax credits and other subsidies. U.S. citizens don’t pay a carbon tax. And, adding insult to injury, the U.S., without a national carbon tax, met its greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2020, which Canada — with the same target — failed to meet. U.S. emissions were down 20% compared to 2005 levels in 2020, and Canada’s is only 9.3%.

And what if we are making the wrong bet? What if a better battery technology appears in five years? What if cars are no longer electric but propelled by hydrogen? All that money will be gone.

Justin Trudeau has decided that Canada would fight climate change with taxes and subsidies. I don’t think we are going in the right direction, colleagues. The Trudeau government has never met a single carbon emissions reduction target in all their years in power — not a single one. These are targets that they adopted from the Harper government.

Remember that, in a report tabled at COP 27, the United Nations ranked Canada 58 out of 63 nations on environmental issues. Canada is back, as Justin Trudeau claimed at the Paris Conference. Canada is back, way back, in fifty-eighth position.

Carbon taxes are going up, that’s for sure. The problem is that our carbon emissions are also going up. We all see the devastating effects of climate change: the forest fires, the floods and the extreme weather. But to think that there will be fewer of those events if you force Canadians to pay more taxes is preposterous. And when Steven Guilbeault is called out about that, all he can do is call his critics climate deniers.

Let me quote the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the son of our former Speaker, the very Liberal Andrew Furey:

I take great exception to the federal minister always forcing this into a dichotomous issue “either you believe in exactly what we say or you don’t believe in climate change.” That’s completely illogical, it’s a false dichotomy, it’s a false dilemma, and it’s as insulting to us as it is simplistic.

The climate change policy of the Trudeau Liberals is not about climate change; it is about taxing Canadians. It is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. And in answer to Joe Biden’s policies, the government has introduced a second part: a corporate welfare plan.

Canadians are now giving massive amounts of money to foreign multinationals, hoping to recreate the success of the car industry in Ontario. Given the track record of this government, you will allow me to be nervous about these bets.

Colleagues, remember that the brains behind these bets are the same brains behind the other failed environmental policies of the Trudeau government, and the same brains that saddled Ontario with a ridiculous energy policy for which taxpayers will be paying for years to come.

Several senators — on debate on Bill C-47 or in committee — criticized this bill and the economic policies of the Liberal government. Well, colleagues, it is time to put your vote where your mouth is. You know this bill is broken beyond repair. You know the policies of this government are driving Canada into a wall. Stand up with us. Vote against this bill.

I am speaking about those senators who I know see themselves as fiscally responsible. I am especially speaking to senators who were appointed as or even elected as and who say they are Conservatives. Use this message. Use this vote. Stand up for Canada. Send a message to the government: Enough is enough. Get serious. Show us you’re fiscal Conservatives, show us you’re Progressive Conservatives, and show us that you care about Canada.

If Bill C-47 is defeated in the Senate, the government will not fall. There will not be an election, but the government will have to do better. And chances are we will be back here in three months with a new and improved BIA.

I want to conclude with one last rant and a message of hope. I am sick and tired of the government not taking responsibility and acting as if they are just extras in a movie. Just like my good friend Senator Gold during Senate Question Period, they huff and they puff every time someone points out one of their numerous failings. They claim they are not responsible for anything. They Blame Stephen Harper, Donald Trump, Pierre Poilievre, the provinces in general and each and every premier in particular. Sometimes they blame Canadians themselves, as some of us may not be as enlightened as the Liberals would like us to be. They will explain that it is because of the international situation or a decision taken elsewhere. They deflect with, “What about them?” They lament, “We did not have time to address this issue in eight years.”

Colleagues, Canadians have had enough. The Liberals — specifically, Justin Trudeau — must take responsibility. They have been in power for eight years, and with the help of the NDP, they can do anything they want. The Liberals control the House of Commons. They have a supermajority in the Senate and on the Supreme Court. The public service is as obedient as it always is when the Liberals rule. No minister would dare question the leader’s position.

So what is the problem? Why can’t they offer us a plan? As I said earlier, they have no vision. They forgot why they want to be in power, other than to enjoy their perks. They have no idea about what to do, except when a communications person comes out of a focus group with a new gimmick. They are not briefed by their staff. They don’t read their emails. They don’t question the bureaucrats. This ship is drifting, colleagues, and there is no one at the helm.

Thankfully, there is an alternative, and I’m going to suggest it to you right here. Here is my message of hope: Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives will make Canada work. We will bring home lower prices by ending inflationary carbon tax 1, carbon tax 2 and deficit spending that drives up inflation and interest rates. We will bring homes people can afford by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits. We will bring back to Ottawa the common sense of the common people. But first, colleagues, we must defeat Bill C-47 and force the government to do its job. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable colleagues, technological change is accelerating. The benefits, disruptive effects and risks are spreading faster and deeper than ever before. Each month, we learn of another emerging technological advancement.

Many are large global experiments in real time that our regulatory systems are entirely unprepared to manage. But we have to find a way. Deep fake videos and photos can be created for a few dollars, but cause lasting harms. Cybersecurity threats and autonomous vehicles are just the tip of the iceberg.

What to do? We regulate in decades, and these technologies are changing each month.

Governments currently do not have the legislative or regulatory processes or capacity to catch up or keep up with these increasingly rapid changes. So here are two initiatives that I think offer some hope.

One was inspired by MP Michelle Rempel Garner when she proposed the formation of a new Canadian Parliamentary Caucus on Emerging Technology, which I am delighted to co-chair along with MPs Brian Masse and Anthony Housefather. You are invited to join other interested parliamentarians to learn from experts about the implications of artificial intelligence, blockchain technologies, quantum computing and the increasing use of personal data. As we rise soon and take a well-deserved break from the legislative agenda, we have to face the uncomfortable fact that technology will not pause.

Last month, the announcement of this caucus received a lot of positive response and tremendous interest. Our vehemently non‑partisan caucus of parliamentarians hopes to better understand the issues and learn from regulators, industry experts and international bodies.

The second initiative offering hope emerged from debates led by Senator Woo’s sponsorship of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization. As our committees studied and we debated this bill in the chamber last spring, some practical opportunities emerged as to how we could alter how we regulate at a federal level.

One idea was to create a whole-of-government framework to guide both the consistent use of regulatory sandboxes and the use of standards as a method for updating regulations while continuing to provide the necessary protections to citizens.

Regulatory sandboxes enable regulators and innovators to learn from one another, and incorporating standards as being equivalent to regulations provides a way for us to start to keep up while still using robust processes that engage innovative new entrants, incumbents, academics and regulators. Treasury Board is currently examining these opportunities, which is good news.

Canada can become a trusted leader in the deployment and use of innovative technologies in the future, but it requires our parliamentarians and regulators to keep trying new approaches and to not let past practice prevent us from implementing best practices.

Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Martin: A National Bank of Canada report from earlier this month showed the average mortgage payments as a percentage of income in Canada are just under 61%. In Toronto, it’s 82.8%, and in Vancouver, it’s a whopping 94.9%. Again, this report came before the Bank of Canada increased rates to the highest level in 22 years. Canadians were already carrying the highest household debt in the G7. Now, many families are facing a crisis, as their mortgage payments could increase by up to 40%.

Leader, that number is not a partisan talking point. It’s taken from the Bank of Canada report released in May. How can you possibly say the Trudeau government’s economic strategy is a success, as you recently claimed?

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

Senator Gold: It’s an important question. This initiative was only launched a few months ago, in February 2023. I imagine it is somewhat premature to fully evaluate the initiative. The government remains fully committed to working, listening to feedback and continuing on improving the services that are offered to Indigenous persons and organizations across this country generally and through this program.

Senator Carignan: Thank you for your answer. I’m glad you’re letting the chamber know that you misspoke that day. I also learned of your misspeaking from the press.

Do you often misspeak? When you do misspeak, perhaps it would be best to notify the chamber right away rather than waiting two months to tell the press?

Senator Gold: I’ll answer that frankly and with all due respect for the Chair: No, it doesn’t happen to me often, and every time it does, I own up.

Senator Gold: I’ll answer that frankly and with all due respect for the Chair: No, it doesn’t happen to me often, and every time it does, I own up.

[English]

Senator Tannas: But we do good work together, and we do actually have fun. It is a pleasure to be a part of such a good group of people. We are all united in caring deeply for this institution and for the country.

I would like to pay tribute to the new Speaker. Your transition into the position has been flawless. In fact, it’s hard to believe that you are new to the job.

Senator Gold: I have resisted, and I will continue to resist, being sucked into these kinds of simplistic and partisan talking points. The short answer is that this is not a serious response to a global environmental and economic crisis. The country would be served better — at least in this chamber, if not in the other place — with serious policy alternatives instead of simply repeating talking points for the benefit of your Twitter feed.

Senator Gold: I’ll answer that frankly and with all due respect for the Speaker: No, it doesn’t happen to me often, and every time it does, I own up.

[English]

Senator Tannas: I would also like to thank our tireless Speaker pro tempore for the terrific work that she does in supporting the chair.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 7:10 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, September 19, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer. How is the department measuring the success of the service? Are Indigenous entrepreneurs providing the department with feedback to help improve the service? Do we have performance indicators and targets in place in order to evaluate the success and effectiveness of the navigator service and manage the results and not only its funding and activities?

Senator Gold: My responses to your earlier question and to this question are not responses to “partisanship.” It’s simply to provide an accurate economic analysis. The fact is that mortgage rates are a function of not only interest rates but also house prices or the amount that one pays.

Canadians are suffering with higher interests rates and facing challenges with affordable housing, but as I have said on many occasions, that is a function of many factors that have nothing to do with the government’s monetary or fiscal policy.

The government has provided assistance to individuals in this country and is providing support for the building of more low-cost housing. It is simply incorrect to attribute the increasing share which Canadians unfortunately have to pay to sustain their mortgages to government spending alone. It is a function of far more market forces and others than anyone can fairly see.

[Translation]