Senator Plett: Disinformation.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the government leader. I think you are misunderstanding the Senate’s historic powers. The power of the Senate goes beyond simply passing government bills. The Senate must also hold the government to account, conduct studies and produce reports. Right now, because of the pandemic, the committees are sitting half as often as they did in the past. Committee time slots have been slashed by 50%. Bills are now being introduced in the Senate before they are passed by the House of Commons, and this undermines the work of committees, which are supposed to investigate and hold the government accountable. Do you really believe that the only role of the Senate is to pass government bills?

(1550)

Senator Gold: That is not what I said, so my answer is no. I said that the primary and fundamental role of the Senate is to examine government bills and, in that regard and in that aspect, to contribute to Canada’s legislative process. As I have explained, I do not and will never deny the importance of the work that is done in committees. However, the fact that government business must be given priority is recognized by all senators in this chamber.

Senator Carignan: Waiting is not the only role of the Senate, leader. When we are not busy with bills, the traditional role of the Senate is to conduct inquiries, to monitor, to audit, and to undertake substantive studies on all sorts of topics. The inquiries seek to hold the government to account because the only counterbalance chamber, the only check and balance that exists in Canada with respect to the content of a bill, is the Senate. We are the only ones who have this power; even judges do not have power over the content of a bill. They have power when a bill is inconsistent with the Canadian Constitution, but not within the jurisdiction of the federal government. That’s where you misunderstand the role of the Senate. You think that because we are not seized with government bills we have nothing to do. We have a lot of do. We have inquiries to do, leader.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, I would like a more precise answer. In the time we have left before we rise for the summer, pre-study or not, do you believe, after you have heard in the last parliamentary session that this legislation needs a robust and thorough review — that was the consensus from a large number of our colleagues in the chamber — that there is an expectation that we can get this done in the short time left?

The last question I have, just to add to the debate, is this: Can you tell us clearly what is the urgent public need for this legislation to pass so quickly that it requires pre-study?

Senator Gold: I choose not to hear that. It is still a minority Parliament, and although there is an understanding on supply and confidence, that does not mean that the government is free to move things forward at its will. It does not have a blank cheque from any of the opposition parties, including the NDP.

But, I digress, and experienced parliamentarians know this.

But to your question, Senator Tannas, you may be right. I think it is moving into the committee because of some understandings that were ultimately reached.

But the point still is this: Bill C-11 is to a large degree subject to changes that were made to Bill C-10, which has been before Parliament for some time now. This is not a new bill. It is not a new issue. The same forces that are rallying for and against Bill C-10 are marshalling their arguments as we speak.

We know what the issues are, and it is the appropriate thing for us to dig in now to be able to determine to what degree Bill C-11 addresses some of the concerns that were raised so that we can be in a properly informed position, not only to share our views to the other place while it is still in committee or otherwise being debated but also to be ready for a focused, sensible, rigorous study and debate when it arrives here.

No, I think it would be inappropriate to wait. Now is the time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there are still a number of senators who wish to ask questions. The procedure here is that when the Speaker stands, senators will please take their seats. I would ask you to keep your questions short and to the point, which is debate on Motion No. 42.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Putting in place certain programs, like the changes to the tax regime, does take some time as experienced senators and experienced Canadians will understand. That is not to say that the government is not putting into place measures to try to address the issues and provide assistance within a shorter time frame.

Many of these measures are set out in Budget 2022 in an effort to double the number of homes built in Canada over the next decade, rapidly increase the supply of affordable housing and ensure that homes are actually used by the families who purchased them. That’s why the government is investing $4 billion in the new Housing Accelerator Fund to help municipalities speed up construction to create 100,000 new units. That is why the government is investing $1.5 billion to extend the Rapid Housing Initiative and create an additional 6,000 deeply affordable housing units. That’s why it’s advancing $2.9 billion in funding under the National Housing Co‑Investment Fund to build and repair up to 22,000 units, and why the government is creating a $500-million cooperative housing development program to expand cooperative housing.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my next question is, again, for the government leader, and it’s a follow-up to a question I asked last year about Sean Bruyea, a veteran who was personally attacked in The Hill Times newspaper in a column by Minister Seamus O’Regan. I asked this last year, leader. I hope you have an answer by now.

In January 2020, the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman recommended engaging a mediator to work toward improving the relationship and communication between Veterans Affairs Canada and this particular veteran. Seventeen months ago, Minister MacAulay responded positively to this recommendation. However, I was recently informed that departmental officials are still stonewalling this recommendation.

Leader, I asked you about this case last June and have received no response, neither written nor otherwise. Can your government confirm that mediation is still not in place? I hope it will be a yes or no answer. If so, what possible reason is behind the delay?

Senator Carignan: Mr. Leader, I would like to quote paragraph 57 of the 2014 Reference re Senate Reform, in which the Supreme Court quotes itself in the Upper House Reference. Paragraph 57 reads as follows:

[i]n creating the Senate in the manner provided in the Act, it is clear that the intention was to make the Senate a thoroughly independent body which could canvass dispassionately the measures of the House of Commons

When we do pre-studies, we are studying measures drafted by public servants, not measures adopted by the House of Commons, but that is not our role. You are absolutely right when you say that, if we follow my logic, which is based on the fundamental reasons the Senate was created, we would not do pre-studies. I completely agree.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I couldn’t have said it better myself either. Oh, I did say it myself.

Yesterday in my office, when my staff and I did a bit of a debrief in the afternoon, we got on the topic of arguing with oneself. I said I like arguing with myself; I win all the arguments. That’s what I heard here today, you arguing with yourself, because you seem to know exactly all the reasons why we would get up and tell you why we didn’t agree to it. So thank you, at least, for preparing our notes for us. We appreciate that.

Since you’ve been quoting a bit, let me quote one person here myself, honourable colleague, in this chamber before I ask you a few questions. I’ll start with reading the quote:

. . . the use of pre-study in this chamber is occasional where the appropriate circumstances present themselves. Obviously, that has been more regularly on budget matters.

That was said by none other than the former government leader in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, on May 30, 2018. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Senator Gold, you had some numbers on previous governments. Let me ask you whether you know the exact number of nonfinancial pre-studies that the Harper government did in the nine and a half years that they were in government — half of those, by the way, in a minority government, not a majority as you alluded to — versus the four and a half years that the Trudeau government had in all of but the last six months in a majority government. Let’s forget about what father Trudeau did; let’s just focus on those two governments. Do you have the numbers on non-financial pre-studies?

Senator Richards: Thank you.

After Bill C-69, I think I know what the other place thinks of the amendments we put on a bill. But if this pre-study does give this bill a legitimacy it doesn’t deserve and if it is anything like Bill C-10, who decides what Canadian content is? There are always gatekeepers who believe they have the idea of identity priorities. That, in itself, is dangerous to anyone who believes in artistic independence. I believe solely in artistic independence, and I think the gatekeepers will always be there. This bill supports not real independence but the gatekeepers who decide what Canadian content is. Will you answer that, sir?

Senator Tannas: Our job is to deal with items before us when they come before us. Could you just give us a bit of rationale around why this is our problem? Thank you.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. On April 30, 2021, during the Committee of the Whole that was studying the bill to provide for the resumption and continuation of operations at the Port of Montreal, I asked the Minister of Transport a question.

The union representatives had told us that the strike had been called in response to what they perceived as provocation on the part of the employers. They also complained twice in their presentation during the Committee of the Whole that the real decision makers were not at the bargaining table and that they were not speaking with the right people.

I wanted to know whether the minister felt that there was an element in these difficult negotiations, which had been going on for years, that concerned the specific governance structure of the Port of Montreal. In response, the minister said that they were in the process of reviewing the port structure and that they were studying a proposal to modernize how ports are governed. He said that they were always looking for ways to enhance the governance structure.

Senator Gold, can you tell us where the Minister of Transport is on his review of the governance structure of ports in Canada? Can you tell us whether consultations have been held, what consultations are coming up and who is participating? What deadline has the minister set for completing this review?

Senator Dupuis: Thank you for that partial response. I would still like to know the minister’s timeline to address this issue.

A review is being conducted, as are consultations, but I would like to know if he can table the list of agencies consulted, the comments received and, most importantly, the timeline for completing the review.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Last week, for the first time since COP26, political leaders and responsible ministers gathered in Copenhagen to discuss the implementation of the landmark Glasgow Climate Pact agreement. The ministerial meeting in Denmark has reignited momentum for political cooperation and urgent action on the Glasgow commitments. It has also kickstarted ambition leading up to COP27, which will be held in Egypt in November.

Senator Gold, could you tell us where Canada is on its commitments to implement the Glasgow Climate Pact and other agreements made at COP26? Where are we actually on track, where are we falling behind and where might we be ahead of schedule?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for the question.

Canada considers climate change a global challenge requiring a global solution, as your question properly implies.

In that regard, Canada is taking a leadership role on the international stage to tackle climate change, including reaffirming our support for the Global Methane Pledge and Canada’s objective of reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector and committing to ending deforestation by 2030, amongst other initiatives.

With respect to the specifics of your questions, I’ll seek clarification from the government and report back to the chamber.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, an article published in La Presse on May 11 was entitled “Mieux vaut être riche pour tomber sur le chômage,” or “you better be rich if you end up unemployed.” I am not the only one to talk about this problem. The article begins as follows:

With the unemployment rate at an all-time low, Ottawa is certainly not overburdened by EI claims. However, it can take four, even five months before a claimant gets their first payment.

Employment Insurance may indeed be complicated, but nothing justifies such wait times. According to La Presse, officials even suggested to claimants that they sell their possessions to make ends meet. That is appalling.

I join my voice to those who are calling out this situation. EI is an insurance, not a social assistance program. Contributors who are entitled to EI should not have to show that they are destitute. This problem is not related to the future EI reform but rather to the application of the current legislation.

What urgent measures is the government planning to take or has taken to require Service Canada to pay the benefits that the unemployed are entitled to receive in a dignified manner and on time, meaning within 28-days, without having to call their MP?