Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Will you take another question, Senator Prosper?

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: I would like to ask Senator Cormier a question.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Your Honour, I take the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, for a number of months now, we have been hearing the calling of these different committee reports that deal with a budget bill that we have passed in this chamber.

I find it quite unusual and quite unfortunate, but I guess that today it also provides me with the ability to speak on this particular report with respect to the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

Now, you will understand that I am trying to recall as many items in that budget bill that I can. And, of course, for some other reason, I’m also on my feet to stop this game that is going on by playing it. Some of you who are playing the game will understand what I’m doing.

Colleagues, it seems to me that the budget bill that we voted on and this particular report — we didn’t vote on it per se because a portion of the budget bill was sent to this committee, but we did vote on the entire budget and the vote was agreed to therefore the budget bill was passed.

Regarding the particular elements contained in the bill that was sent to the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, I would presume that some of that would touch on how the public policy of our nation tries to deal with the carbon emissions that we have and with the Paris Agreement that our country and all our provinces have agreed to. Also, for your information, as of July 1 of this year, all four Atlantic provinces have embarked on the federal policy to reduce carbon emissions.

Honourable colleagues, that was quite a move for the Atlantic provinces because New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador created their own provincial emissions system. The four premiers, who were all in agreement, probably saw that their provincial system was maybe not sustainable in meeting the 2030 emissions targets that they had agreed to or maybe, for political reasons, they decided, “Let’s just dump this on the federal government.”

That is the situation with respect to the issue of the environment in the budget, and the provinces — and I will speak, in particular, for New Brunswick — once they dumped their emissions targets and carbon pricing policy to the federal government as of July 1, now, all of a sudden, they want to get out of the agreement. Okay. So it’s become a political football that New Brunswickers are beginning to be quite tired of.

That being said, it doesn’t eliminate the fact that we have a national policy — and, yes, it’s true that Quebec has their own system which seems to be quite comparable to the federal one. The Province of B.C. — quite a number of years ago, in 2008; they were way ahead of the curve on that one — created a provincial public policy that is also mirrored in the current federal government policy.

Now, colleagues, you will say, “Why, all of a sudden, Pierrette, are you telling us all this?” I am telling you all of this because of the discussion we were having last week. On Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, I did 14 hours of research daily. So today I am able to stand on my feet and talk to you about public policy with respect to the environment that was included in the last budget and in the report that we have before us.

It is also quite interesting that, for instance, because this transfer from the province to the federal policy as of July 1 of this year — which is also applicable to the other three Atlantic provinces — our citizens are not really aware of how the federal tax rebate works. So during the weekend — and this is regarding the policy on the environment and the last budget — I had to inform the citizens of my area that I was in contact with about certain provisions.

I must say it was probably one of the most interesting weekends that I have had for a long time. You see, I have been representing, in particular, these farming communities for 35 years. I know them. They know me. When I was explaining to them what was in the budget with respect to the environment and the scheme that they were part of since July 1, they were quite astonished because, for the last several years, they were being told that the carbon tax was a complete tax grab. They were never informed.

You see, honourable senators, that’s the difference between myth and facts. It’s important to get the facts on paper. They were never informed that, in the federal scheme, they would be getting a rebate currently at the rate of $1.73 for every $1,000 of their entire farming income. Wow. Because they never understood that. And nowhere, at any time, did any farmers organization that they were consulting with ever tell them that fact.

I say shame. Shame. We — in this place, at least — have to be honest with our citizens, and they have to be honest and upfront with us.

So, on Friday, I put forth quite a number of policies and challenges that they had. I asked them to go back to their accountants, go back to how they operate and tell me if they are better off financially to increase their investment in their operation by the current system under which they were not told about the refundable tax credit or about a new proposed exemption.

Colleagues, in my area, 99% of farming production is potatoes. You can ask Senator Mockler, and he will confirm that. It is the same situation in P.E.I.: 99% of the farming activities in P.E.I. are potato-based.

There is no use in the farming communities of Atlantic Canada for natural gas because we have no access.

Colleagues, that brings us back to the fundamental issues of, as I said earlier, providing our constituencies with the real facts in order for them to really respond with how the facts would impact them.

And that is just the farming community. It’s the same situation in regard to the other scheme that addresses us as consumers. It’s completely different because I — like you and our citizens — as a consumer, when we file our income tax, nowhere are we able to take all our operating expenses as a deduction. We are not a business. Therefore, there are two different schemes.

Unfortunately, maybe it was not clear in the budget and in this particular committee report, so I am taking this opportunity to maybe clarify this entire situation.

At the end of the day, the policy of the government is completely different in regard to me as an individual, the farming community as an economic sector, transformation industries like logging or others; it’s completely different in regard to carbon policy charges. When we analyze and research — and we do have a responsibility to research — if we are not capable from the outset to make that distinction —

Colleagues, I have so much more to say. Can I have five more minutes?

Senator Ringuette: May I respond to that?

Senator Ringuette: Okay, then let me phrase that in a debate manner.

It seems not very often that we get such kinds of bills; my latest recollection is about 10 or 12 years ago. Yes, I believe that probably the Legal Committee is a good committee to undertake such studies. However, I must admit that, in my mind, I look at the agenda of the Legal Committee in this debate, and I would question if it’s reasonable for this chamber to decide that —

[Translation]

Senator Ringuette: What a shame. But I suspect a colleague would also like to participate in this debate. Thank you.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Senator Bellemare, thank you again for sparking our imagination and prompting discussion about the Bank of Canada. You’ll recall that a few months ago, when the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before our committee, I asked him who he was consulting. He replied that he was consulting several Crown corporations and interdepartmental committees to gather as much information as possible.

Given the evolving nature of the economy, whether because of the pandemic, supply chains or the environment, do you think it’s a good idea for this advisory committee to be a permanent committee? Shouldn’t it instead be made up of ad hoc members, so as to capitalize on experts in whatever field the geopolitical or economic situation calls for?

Senator Bellemare: Thank you for the question. I think that this should be a permanent committee whose members serve a renewable three-year term so they have time to really get into the files. The bill states that the chosen experts must be able to demonstrate outstanding expertise in two of the five following areas: the labour market, open-economy macroeconomics, supply chains, the financial system and risk management. These are important areas of expertise from different backgrounds.

Let’s get back to transparency. In your question, the governor relies, as he said, on core inflation, a statistic whose accuracy is unknown. We’ve been told that this is a metric calculated by stripping out the most volatile components of the consumer price index, but what exactly is core inflation?

These are questions that a permanent committee could study and then explain to people, and this would build confidence around what the bank is doing.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, it’s hard to follow Senator Plett on his good days.

I have no prepared speech, but I took note of your different comments, and I feel compelled to put in my two cents’ worth.

Senator Tannas, I totally agree with you in regard to omnibus bills. You and I were from both in different partisan caucuses when our partisan leaders agreed to accept omnibus bills. That was something like 17 years ago and omnibus bills have not stopped since.

We brought up the issue at the Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee was operating and is still operating on consensus basis. We had no consensus, so we didn’t resolve the issue of how to deal with omnibus bills in the Senate.

We’re not about to tell the other place how to deal with their legislation and how they want to do it, but we are masters of our own chamber. Every year in December and June, we talk about omnibus bills. We make remarks in our different committee reports about omnibus bills. Yet we go home and then we come back, and we’ve forgotten until the next omnibus budget bill.

So, colleagues, can we agree — at least the members of the Independent Senators Group, and as per Senator Plett’s statement earlier, he would agree with us — that when we come back in September, it is going to be our first order of priority to agree on how to deal with omnibus bills, and send that message to the other place so they know well in advance where we stand, not at the eleventh hour?

That is the first issue that we’re discussing.

By the way, isn’t it nice that we take on an issue, and we don’t stop after 15 minutes and wait two weeks to continue that discussion? Isn’t it nice that we entertain an issue, and we can all voice our opinions and deal with the situation?

That is another thing that we, as an independent Senate, have to start to deal with: How do we manage our discussions and how do we move forward with legislation and motions? Enough is enough of this “a little bit here and a little bit there.” Enough is enough of that.

Okay, I’m going off topic. But Senator Plett got me all energized.

The other issue that is really the crux of your amendment is in regard to the Canada Elections Act. Unfortunately, in all the discussions so far, nobody has brought forth the very important issue in regard to that. It is our primary document that creates democracy in Canada.

In order to create that democracy in Canada, political parties need funding. The names of people who fund political parties — because it’s in the Canada Elections Act — will be public and transparent, because our democracy demands that. If it is public and transparent, it is also subject to a cap; individuals are maximized per year regarding donations to political parties.

How can you ensure that Elections Canada will make sure that those maximums are respected? How can we make sure that our political parties are transparent in regard to donations? It is through the Canada Elections Act and through the transparency therein.

Why do you think the other place, so far, has not been able to deal with this issue of privacy versus democratic transparency?

I understand there will be pressure on them to deal with this, but I honestly believe that Canadians who make donations to a political party understand that the system will make their names public, along with the amount of their donations. That has been on the books for 30 years.

So that’s not the issue.

How will the political parties in the other place that face elections and need to make amendments to the Canada Elections Act be able to differentiate the personal information of their donors and the transparency of political party funding and the survival of our democracy?

Colleagues, I would definitely say that the other place cannot deal with this issue because of the four political parties in the other place — not in the time frame that you would like, Senator Tannas. It is mission impossible. I think they’re all just getting their heads around this because of the process in B.C.

Senator Tannas, I believe that your intentions are good. But this is not the place to move your intention in regard to getting this privacy issue done and, Senator Deacon, in regard to personal privacy. This is not where it will be accomplished.

The third message I want to convey — and I’m taking this opportunity to say so — is that when we send a message from the Senate in regard to the budget bill, it better not be on a Canada Elections Act issue. It better be on an issue that is concerning every Canadian’s pocketbook. Then, we will, from my perspective, be justified in making an amendment and sending a message to the other place in regard to what we think. It’s like how Senator Shugart put it when he said “disproportionate” — I agree with him.

Therefore, Senator Tannas and colleagues, I will not be voting for this motion on the grounds of my statement.

Thank you.

Senator Ringuette: Yes.

Senator Ringuette: No. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to a specific section of Bill C-47, the budget implementation bill.

In this bill, division 34 of part 4 amends section 347 of the Criminal Code in order to lower to 35% the criminal rate of interest, in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles.

As many of you know, this is an issue I have been endeavouring to fix for a very long time, nearly 10 years.

Senator Ringuette: The battle is not over.

I introduced my bill several times, but each time it died on the Order Paper when an election was called or Parliament was prorogued. I introduced it again in this Parliament. It is entitled Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), and it is currently at second reading.

When I saw Bill C-47, I thought that maybe I should withdraw my bill. However, after giving it some thought, I decided that I wouldn’t take any chances. I will leave it until it is a done deal, from beginning to end.

Whereas Bill C-47 sets the limit at 35%, my bill would tie the criminal interest rate to the Bank of Canada’s overnight rate plus 20%.

In Quebec, the interest rate limit is currently 35%, the lowest rate in Canada. That rate is similar to what is currently set out in Bill C-47.

I tied my rate to the overnight rate so that it could be adjusted based on the evolving economic situation. The past year has shown how relevant this proposal is, because the rate went from 0.25% in January 2022 to 4.75% last week. Let’s not forget that more hikes could be coming.

The rate proposed in my bill would therefore be 24.75% as of today, about 10 points lower than the rate in Bill C-47.

Based on what I heard from many Canadians and what I’ve learned from my own research over the years, instalment loans are being granted at unreasonable, even abusive, rates that can be as high as 39%, 45% and even 59.9%, just within the 60% limit. I have seen public services charge late fees of 42%.

One area where I wanted to see lower rates was credit card interest rates, but this rate will not affect that.

Most credit cards have interest rates below 20%, but there are some, especially store cards like Home Depot, whose interest rates are around 30%. I think these rates are too high, and I would like to see them come down, but my bill targets the very high rates charged by instalment loan providers and public services, such as Bell and Telus, as anyone who checks their bill can see.

I should also point out that the government has made progress in another area I’m concerned about, namely interchange fees. There have been bills about this. Processing fees in Canada are among the highest in the world. They drive prices up, and we all pay for that. The government recently announced agreements with Visa and Mastercard to reduce these fees to, on average, 0.95%, which is a considerable improvement over a few years ago, when the rates were at 3%.

This limit is not as low as that imposed elsewhere, for example in the European Union, which set a limit of 0.3% on transaction fees more than 10 years ago.

I therefore thank the government for continuing to keep its budgetary promises in this regard.

I would also like to point out that the budget indicates — and the Minister of Finance also said it — that there would be new consultations to determine whether the interest rate should be lowered further. I am very pleased about this, because I believe that the rate should be lower than 35% and perhaps equal to the overnight rate plus 20%. Imagine that.

I will be closely following these consultations, and I will continue to apply pressure to ensure the rate is lowered.

[English]

Consumer debt is a serious and growing problem in Canada. This problem is of particular concern with respect to inflation and the rising cost of living. According to TransUnion, consumer debt from all sources has increased by 5.6% year over year to a new high of $2.32 trillion. That’s the debt load that Canadians have.

Instalment loans are down 5.76%, but Canadians still hold an average of $20,846 in debt — and these are often at the highest rates of interest. It is worrying that debt continues to climb, and measures like this — to help Canadians deal with their debt load — will not do a lot to improve or perhaps reverse this trend.

This bill also addresses a related issue that I have been watching closely: In 2006, Parliament made a major mistake. We carved out a section of the Criminal Code as long as the provinces would make the regulation. Here is the regulation that they made: The criminal interest rate was amended to exclude short-term loans under $1,500, otherwise known as payday loans. I believe that this was a mistake, and this budget has taken steps to recognize this error. The bill grants the Governor-in-Council the power to set rates by regulations for these loans.

The current rates in the provinces are as high as $17 per $100; you might think that $17 per $100 isn’t that much. As stated in the budget, the government aims to set the limit at $14, in line with the lowest rate which is in Newfoundland right now. Colleagues, $14 in interest for every $100 in loans for a two-week period is an annualized rate of 365% in Newfoundland. With the exception of Quebec, all of the other provinces’ and territories’ rate is 395%. And then we ask the following: Why are Canadians in so much debt? This is highway robbery. I’m going to hold the government to account to ensure they keep their word, do the proper consultations, take that out of the provinces’ hands and bring it back under the Criminal Code, as it should have been.

I would say that the whole section, excluding payday loans, should be removed; I support this action being taken. I hope that future consultations lead the government to remove this, carve it out entirely from the Criminal Code and bring these loans under the same limit as the current 35% — hopefully it’s 20% in the future.

After years of pushing this issue, listening to Canadians and talking to stakeholders and government officials, it brings me joy — I am honest — to see that there’s finally hope, as well as some action being taken with the promise of further action in the fall to lower these rates. This will be a great benefit to the most financially vulnerable, who often find themselves in this position through no fault of their own. And these measures cost zero dollars for the federal government.

I continue to believe that an even lower rate is a reasonable goal, but I do appreciate the government taking this action in the budget. It is long overdue, and it will help Canadians in these uncertain economic times.

I support this action by the government, and, even though it is not what I would have preferred, it is a step in the right direction. That being said, I urge the government to keep an eye on this and be open to considering further changes, as this is an issue that affects the well-being of all Canadians, which also affects us all. Thank you, once again, for listening to my speech on criminal interest rates.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Would you take a question?

Senator Ringuette: Thank you. I’m looking at the clauses that you want to amend, and these clauses refer to the New Brunswick Official Languages Act, which is a provincial act, and to Manitoba, which also has a provincial act.

In fact, I wish Ontario also had an act recognizing the francophone minority in Ontario. If that were the case, we could have referenced it in Bill C-13 as well.

Senator Loffreda, as far as your issue with references is concerned, I understand that you have concerns, but I don’t see how this reference would be any different from the reference, in the same clauses, to language rights for the people of New Brunswick.

[English]

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: I will be brief, Madam Speaker, and thank you for recognizing me.

This is not the first time in the last month that a point of order on this subject has been brought to the attention of the Chair. I believe that a point of order has already been raised, and Speaker Furey ruled on the subject. Perhaps some of our colleagues have forgotten that ruling.

Perhaps we simply need to remind colleagues that a ruling has already been made and accepted by everyone in the chamber. Thank you.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I wish to join all of you in extending my sincere congratulations to our new Speaker, the Forty-sixth Speaker, Senator Gagné, and wishing her all the best in this new chapter of her parliamentary life. I am even more thrilled that, after 44 years, a woman is finally serving as the Speaker of the Senate, and what’s more, she’s a francophone from a minority community.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I wish to join all of you in extending my sincere congratulations to our new Speaker, the 46th Speaker, Senator Gagné, and wishing her all the best in this new chapter of her parliamentary life. I am even more thrilled that, after 44 years, a woman is finally serving as the Speaker of the Senate, and what’s more, she’s a francophone from a minority community.

Senator Ringuette: In the interest of efficiency and to give other senators a chance to make their statements, I will be brief and will not repeat all of the good things that were said about you today.

Madam Speaker, as the Speaker pro tempore, I want to reiterate my support for you in this chamber so that we can fulfill our mandate of sober second thought for the well-being of all Canadians.

In short, Madam Speaker, as usual, we need to roll up our sleeves, particularly on Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, which I believe is necessary for our communities.

I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator LaBoucane-Benson for her promotion to the position of Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate my support in ensuring the proper functioning of the Senate and respect for our individual and collective responsibilities in this chamber.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, last Friday, Senate Human Resources gave out certificates of appreciation for the first time since the pandemic. Many senators attended the event, including our Speaker, George Furey, our Clerk, Gérald Lafrenière, as well as Pascale Legault and Philippe Hallée.

[English]

It is no small feat and very worthy of recognition to devote so much to public service: 130 Senate employees from our offices and Senate administration received awards for 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 years of service. I can’t name everyone in the time I’m allowed, but I would like to congratulate those within this chamber that we see daily as we sit here and whom we seek advice from.

They include the Usher of the Black Rod, Greg Peters, 40 years of combined service; our Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Philippe Hallée, 30 years; Till Heyde, 25 years of service; Jodi Turner, 20 years of service; Adam Thompson, 20 years of service; and Shaila Anwar, 15 years of service.

It is with great appreciation that I stand here today to thank all of you for your hard work and devotion to this institution and all the work we do for this great nation.

Colleagues, most of the recognized 130 employees we do not see. They are the hard-working employees who work behind the scenes, be it with IT, finance, the minutes of our proceedings, client services, mail, printing, planning, cleaning, et cetera. I think I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say that our jobs would be impossible without you and the extraordinary support you provide every day and, more often than we may like, some nights also.

While we senators may be the face of the Senate, the staffers we work with are the brains and the soul that make this place the grand chamber of sober second thought that it is. It is our staff’s institutional knowledge, sound judgment, keen insight and unwavering support that is the strength behind us and behind this institution.

To all our staff, thank you for your hard work, your devotion and for continuing to make the Senate such a great place to work. It’s a pleasure to work with you also. Thank you. Meegwetch.