Senator Plett: Answer the question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, senator. As we mature as a country — and as our relationships with Indigenous peoples, communities and leadership evolve — it’s important to know that there are more important interactions that will and should take place. I don’t know the specific answers to your questions. I’ll do my best to find answers, and I’ll report back as soon as I can.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I will have to make some inquiries on the government’s position regarding the recommendations. I will get back to you with an answer shortly.

Senator Carignan: That reminds me of a song by Francine Raymond, “Y’a les mots.” Words, just words.

If what you say is true, why set off a witch hunt to scare public servants and prevent them from reporting this government’s wrongdoings?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The government believes that people who disclose serious wrongdoing must be protected. The law provides a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoing in the workplace and protection for acts of reprisal. I’m told that public servant disclosures expose an average of 10 wrongdoings per year. Whistle-blowing legislation is one option people can use in the case of harassment, discrimination, labour grievances and privacy complaints. The government has enhanced training, report follow-up, and policies on workplace harassment and violence. Budget 2022 includes funding for a review of the act, which I’m told is to begin later this year. The government would be happy to provide more details about the review then.

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak briefly to Senator Ringuette’s amendment on Bill S-236 regarding P.E.I. Employment Insurance.

As you all know, Bill S-236 was studied earlier this year at the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry during which we heard support for changes to the existing system of two Employment Insurance zones that divide Prince Edward Island.

On September 7, months after the Agriculture Committee completed its study of Bill S-236, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published a costing note on the matter that raised new concerns for members of this chamber.

Honourable colleagues, at this time, I would like to share that, before and after Senator Ringuette’s amendment was introduced, I heard from members of this chamber that they would be willing and interested in sending this bill back to the Agriculture Committee in order for the committee to conduct a comprehensive review of the information that is now available before we send this bill to the other place.

Colleagues, given this understanding, I do believe the amendment should be revised. Thus, I would like to propose a subamendment. Before I do so, as chair of the committee, I feel it is necessary that I address several matters of the original amendment and its impact on the proceedings of the Agriculture Committee.

As we heard, Senator Ringuette’s original amendment would see the committee hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and report back by November 15, 2022. This first clause is understandable, given the PBO’s direct role in the release of their costing report and its subsequent impact on this bill. However, the committee may also be interested in hearing from additional witnesses who may not have had all the facts when we heard from them last spring.

It is imperative that the committee be able to hear from any relevant source with information on the matter who could inform the committee’s report on this bill. We cannot limit ourselves to just the PBO, given that the information that was released in September by their office is both new to us and to our witnesses that we heard from previously. It cannot be assumed that this information will not have an impact on their perspectives, given that we would return to this bill with the understanding that this report could change our perspectives as well.

With that in mind, I ask that this chamber consider the impact this amendment would have on the committee and, in fact, the ability of all Senate committees to determine their own proceedings and call witnesses beyond that of the PBO.

While Senate committees do take direction from this chamber, I believe it is crucial that they maintain the ability to make their own decisions and call witnesses beyond those recommended to allow for well-rounded deliberations.

In that same vein, I am also concerned with the clause in Senator Ringuette’s amendment which details that the committee must report back by November 15, 2022. We all know that the calendar of the Senate is fluid, and we must remain flexible. In order to accommodate a comprehensive effort to examine the new information that has come to light, I believe it is prudent that the committee be able to determine its own timeline to report back on this bill, with the understanding that we will do so in good time to ensure that Islanders are not further impacted by the stalling of this bill any longer than needed.

Let me be clear: I am not trying to stall this bill in any way. To that end, I believe it would be best to remove the second clause entirely to ensure that the Agriculture Committee, and any other Senate committee impacted by such a motion in the future, will be able to conduct its work within a time frame that reflects the amount of work necessitated by the committee itself.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Hon. Robert Black: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion in amendment be not now adopted, but that it be amended by:

1.adding the words “additional witnesses, including” between the words “to hear from” and “Parliamentary Budget Officer” in the first paragraph; and

2.by deleting the final paragraph.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Your time has expired, Senator Hartling, and Senator Boisvenu wishes to ask a question. Would you like to ask for five minutes to answer?

Hon. Pamela Wallin moved the adoption of the report.

Hon. Senators: Yes.

[Translation]

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Senator Hartling: Yes, I would.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?

It is moved by the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bovey, that this bill be read a second time. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?