Senator Plett: So we know where it is not. Of course, I would like to know where it is. They’ve had three meetings so far at second reading — April 1, April 6 and April 12 — and we don’t know when they will have their next meeting. So they have not even considered a vote yet and sending it to committee. Bill C-11 has, at least, made that step, although it also isn’t nearly far enough.

Nevertheless, here is a bill that isn’t even at committee. It has not been referred to committee, let alone had any studies. Again, we are putting the cart before the horse here, and we are studying something that we have no idea when we will get it. We have no idea what it will look like because it may well be amended, and we simply have no idea when it will even go to committee.

Would you not agree, Senator Gagné, that maybe the government should start getting their priorities right over there instead of worrying about our priorities over here? They should get their act together. They should be able to schedule these bills. This, again, is a piece of legislation that is not new to the government. As with Bill C-11, these are bills that were promised — that were presented earlier — and here we are again asking to do a study when we have limited committee time. We are asking to study something that we have no idea what the actual bill will look like when it gets here.

[Translation]

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-229, An Act to amend the Language Skills Act (Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick).

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Griffin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-228 at second reading. This bill, introduced by Senator Patterson, would eliminate the requirement that senators have a personal net worth of at least $4,000 and that all senators representing a province other than Quebec own real property worth at least $4,000.

In its present form, Bill S-228 does not fix what I would call the constitutional discrimination against all senators from Quebec and only senators from Quebec. With respect to the real property requirements, in order to become and remain a senator, a senator from Quebec must not only own real property in their province of residence, but must also own property in the district or division that they represent. I will come back to this later to explain how this could affect a potential senator from Quebec.

Bill S-228 at least has the benefit of trying to eliminate a selection criterion that could prevent a potential new senator from serving in this chamber.

I do not wish to take up Senator Paula Simons’ historical account, going back to ancient Rome, of the reasons that may have induced the fathers of the Constitution to impose economic restrictions on eligibility for the officer of senator. I will simply state that it is no longer 1867 and that, no matter how much effort it takes, it is time to put an end to constitutional criteria that are nothing short of discriminatory for those who could be called to join this chamber.

Considering the condition for entry set in 1867, it is understandable that the first senators of Canada were all rich landowners, businessmen and bankers. The goal at the time was simply to bar a certain class of citizens from becoming senators. Such a clause would not be tolerated today. The eligibility criteria for the Senate must be modernized and updated for 2022.

Let’s come back to Bill S-228. I will not dwell on the obstacles that the real property requirement creates for the First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada who continue to live on their lands. Senator Patterson clearly explained that the citizens of Nunavut like himself do not own the land on which they live and are therefore excluded from being appointed to the Senate of their country. Because the lands of Nunavut are considered to be a shared asset, this makes the vast majority of its residents ineligible for the Senate.

In 1867, the drafters of the British North America Act that created Canada were inspired by the values of the time, of course. Nonetheless, it is unacceptable that the ability to participate in the politics and democracy of a country like Canada is still governed by archaic rules written in terms that in no way correspond to our demographic reality.

The bill we are studying aims to fix certain elements, at least in part. I would like to come back to the unique situation of Quebec senators.

The Constitution of 1867 gave Quebec 24 Senate seats. However, unlike the provisions for other provinces, where a senator’s territory is the entire province in which he or she resides, a Quebec senator is appointed for a particular senatorial district, otherwise known as an electoral division.

In the other Canadian provinces, the real property owned by Senate candidates prior to their appointment can be a residence, a cottage or a plot of land anywhere in the province.

The requirement is quite different in Quebec, as the 1867 Constitution is much more restrictive for Senate candidates in that province. Their property must be located in the electoral division to which they are assigned. I remind you that the province is divided into 24 districts.

Candidates for a Senate seat who reside in their electoral division simply need to own their residence. Anyone who rents is excluded.

That is one kind of discrimination.

Senate candidates who are assigned to an electoral division located outside major centres like Montreal and Quebec City, but who do not live in that division, have a lesser problem because all they need to do is buy a piece of bushland in the electoral division to be eligible for a Senate seat.

That is just as discriminatory because it takes money to do that.

Individuals offered the opportunity to become a senator for one of the two electoral divisions on the island of Montreal face a very different problem if they do not own property there. I am referring to the electoral divisions of Victoria, which I represent and which is located in downtown Montreal, and of Alma, which represents the senatorial district covering East Montreal.

Just like Senator Simons, when I was contacted about a Senate appointment in 2011, I had to scramble to find land or property I could buy to be eligible for the appointment, and I had to do it in record time.

It would undoubtedly have been easier to buy a small plot of land anywhere in Alberta, where Senator Simons lives, or even in Shawinigan. However, on the island of Montreal, or worse yet, in West Montreal, just try to find a piece of land worth $4,000 in 72 hours so you can become eligible to be a senator. Even a plot at the Notre-Dame-des-Neiges cemetery is more expensive than that.

To comply with the real property requirement for senators, I had to buy a condo on Nuns’ Island, which I do not live in. Year after year, I have to prove that I am still the owner in order to keep my Senate seat.

I certainly have no intention of making you cry over my predicament, which I fully accept, but those who would like to follow in my footsteps and become a senator from Quebec should never have to potentially be penalized because they are not property owners and they do not have the financial means to quickly buy enough real property to be eligible for a Senate seat.

In 2022, becoming a property owner in Montreal is not accessible to everyone. I would even say it is hard just to be a renter.

Now that we can all recognize that the constitutional requirements from 1867 regarding real property ownership are discriminatory, we can all make a serious effort to fix this. We can at least make a start with Senator Patterson’s Bill S-228, which would fix the problem for 9 of the 10 Canadian provinces and for the territories.

However, while we are working on this issue, we could also take serious steps to seek approval from the Government of Quebec to change the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding the eligibility criteria for senators from Quebec, to ensure that they are treated the same as senators from other provinces and territories.

Thank you.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council.

Later today, I will join the Yukon Aboriginal Women’s Council, who are hosting the Yukon’s MMIWG2S+ — Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls 2S+ — Family Gathering & Accountability Forum.

Accountability is a quality, a value, a principle of my life in politics and as a Canadian.

Today, I am rising with accountability to speak to second reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island). As senators may recall, I stood and offered the continued stewardship of this bill in the Senate when the sponsor, our former colleague Senator Diane Griffin, rose to move and speak to second reading on March 3 of this year. Today I account to our former colleague and all of you on Bill S-236.

As we heard from the recently retired sponsor and from the critic, Senator Rose-May Poirier, who spoke on April 28, Prince Edward Island has two different Employment Insurance zones, which results in a very skewed and unfair arrangement for those who live on the Island. It is this unfair arrangement, so eloquently described by Senator Poirier and Senator Griffin, that galvanized me to act.

Honourable senators, the EI divisions are in other places in Canada, including in the Yukon Territory. What stands out is how small P.E.I. is in comparison. The small size makes the current arrangement of a coastal region zone completely unfair.

In the Yukon, the capital, Whitehorse, is one region. The rest of the territory is another. This makes sense. The bulk of the population lives in Whitehorse. Whitehorse is the seat of the territorial government; the offices of the Council of Yukon First Nations, a leadership that welcomes all 14 Yukon First Nations chiefs and councillors to the leadership table; the offices of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation, the largest of the Yukon’s First Nations and a self-governing First Nation, as is the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council; and the municipal offices of the City of Whitehorse.

More than the seat of governments, Whitehorse also has a busy international airport, the Yukon’s largest hospital, and has a retail catchment area that includes the whole Yukon, Southeast Alaska and the northernmost home communities of Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, represented by my colleague Senator Anderson.

In short, the opportunities for employment are far different than the closest communities of Haines Junction — which is home to Kluane National Park and Reserve headquarters and the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations government to the west, or Teslin on the Alaska Highway in the south.

The separation of economic regions in the Yukon is understandable. The nearest other employment opportunities in a community are more than 70 kilometres away in Carcross or more than 100 kilometres in larger centres, like Haines Junction or Teslin.

Allow me to relate this economic region argument more closely to our senatorial duties and the time we spend here. The Parliamentary District, previously referred to as the National Capital Region in the Senate Administrative Rules, is “within 100 kilometres of Parliament Hill . . . .”

Prince Edward Island is divided into two economic zones. Charlottetown is one area. There are very few areas of P.E.I. that are 100 kilometres away from Charlottetown. Some Islanders tell me that, in some instances, you may end up in the ocean if you were to travel 100 kilometres from their economic zone. Practically, those who may reside in the Charlottetown area, which includes the towns of Stratford and Cornwall, work outside of the zone they reside in. The reverse is also true: Individuals might work in one economic zone and live in another. This is the situation that prompted me to take on this bill. A completely unfair situation exists in the receipt of EI benefits on Prince Edward Island.

Honourable senators, we have heard from both the critic and the sponsor in more eloquent terms than I have used that this situation skews the EI qualifying hours and eligibility period for benefits based on residential address, even if workers are employed at the same workplace. In the impact assessment accompanying the amending regulation published in the Canada Gazette on July 2, 2014, it shows the expected effect of the change in the Charlottetown zone and how, out of a projected 6,560 EI applicants, 5,450 would have their benefits reduced by more than $2,000. Meanwhile, in the other zone of P.E.I., of a total of 15,070 projected claimants, 9,150 would see an increase of approximately $1,620 in their benefits.

Honourable senators, in a June 2016 report titled Exploring the Impact of Recent Changes to Employment Insurance and Ways to Improve Access to the Program, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made the following recommendation:

The Committee recognizes that the recent division of Prince Edward Island and each of the territories into two distinct EI economic regions has had negative consequences on the well-being of these communities, and for that reason, the Committee makes the following recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Committee recommends that the federal government reconsider the new employment insurance economic regions created in 2014, and that previous boundaries be restored.

Honourable senators, we have also looked at this issue in the Senate’s National Finance Committee. On May 25, 2021, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance heard testimony from the mayors of the three municipalities mentioned above, where the mayor of Charlottetown brought up the election promise made by member of Parliament Sean Casey to reverse the current two zones. Furthermore, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology made the following observation in a June 7, 2021 report on the subject matter of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures:

Your committee heard that the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada is aware of concerns regarding multiple Employment Insurance Economic Regions in small geographic areas, such as the two EI Economic Regions in Prince Edward Island. Your committee is concerned about inequities between these EI Economic Regions, despite the temporary relief provided by current COVID-19-related measures, and therefore suggests that the Government of Canada explore solutions to address these inequities.

Recently, we received correspondence from the Government Representative in the Senate about the review of the entire EI system. Phase 1 is concluded, and phase 2 is underway. There is no mention of the peculiar situation in P.E.I. in the phase 1 report. Considering this is a comprehensive review, it is not certain that it will include the very specific situation in P.E.I. Considering the unfairness of the current regime, I suggest the relatively simple amendments that are proposed by Senator Griffin are an elegant, worthwhile solution.

I respectfully remind honourable senators of the considerations by the House of Commons and our own Senate committees that I noted earlier in my remarks. I have listened carefully to my colleagues and observed in my relatively short time in the Senate the excellent work of the Senate committees. I appreciate their advice that, although two Senate committees and the House have made recommendations on this matter and those committees have heard from Islanders — as I have — we must be thorough in our review and examine the legislation itself carefully. That legislation is, of course, Bill S-236.

Some senators feel that the Social Affairs Committee is the best committee to conduct such a review. At the National Finance Committee — guided by our principles of transparency and accountability, enunciated at most meetings by our able chair, and having heard from witnesses like the elected mayor of Charlottetown on this issue — some of us would like to complete this review. However, upon examination of the matters currently before the Social Affairs and National Finance Committees, there is neither the time nor space, nor is there an ability to create the space, for a review of Bill S-236. Currently, there is an ability, as well as the time and space, for the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to examine Bill S-236. I have to emphasize the “currently” with respect to this study.

Colleagues, this situation has existed since 2014. It was briefly ameliorated during the pandemic with the return of cruise ships to P.E.I., the tourism season and spring planting — in short, the return of seasonal employment. This rural-urban divide that artificially and unfairly divides Islanders in their receipt in EI benefits must end. Delaying this study when there is a Senate committee eminently capable of reviewing it perpetuates the problem.

Earlier today, we heard senators speak of the need for urgency in referring other bills to Senate committees for expeditious review. I do not suggest that this issue is of national urgency. I do suggest it is urgent to Islanders, our fellow Canadians, and that the tools exist for senators to address this matter expeditiously. Today, I ask that we do so.

Senators will recall that I often stand and say that I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you. Today, my grateful journal reminded me to be authentic and true to what drives you and to use this passion to do good for the people, places and spaces around you. I believe I have been authentic today in my passion for seeing fairness for the Islanders in their receipt of EI benefits. With the passion that I have for the Senate doing good work, I would respectfully ask for us to support the passage of Bill S-236 today and its subsequent referral to the Agriculture Committee.

Mahsi’cho. Gùnáłchîsh. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Simons:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the Canadian assisted human reproduction legislative and regulatory framework and any other related issues deemed relevant by the committee, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than October 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you so much for this very useful information. I understand from your previous exchanges, including the one with Senator Batters, that in some cases, a pre‑study has yielded very interesting results for the subsequent study of the bill, in two ways.

In some cases, the message sent by the pre-study has resulted in amendments to the bill in the House of Commons. One case that comes to mind is the example given by Senator Batters.

In the case of medical assistance in dying not so long ago, that is, about a year and a half or two years ago, the Senate committee conducted a pre-study of Bill C-7 that did not deal with the substance of the technical details of the clauses, but rather the broad principles and thrusts of the legislative expansion.

Following the pre-study, the committee tabled a lengthy report in the Senate, which subsequently studied the bill thoroughly, drawing on the lessons learned from the committee’s pre-study. The Senate then proposed no fewer than five or six amendments, several of which were adopted by the House of Commons.

A pre-study does not mean that there will not be an in-depth study later. I understand that the government may see pre-studies as a way to speed up the subsequent study, but there is no incompatibility between a pre-study and a later substantive study that is enriched by the first.

I also understand, from what Senator Batters was saying, that the pre-study sometimes even helps enrich the debate in the other place, so pre-studies can have a positive impact.

Is that what I am to understand from the exchange between you and Senator Batters?

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Dalphond, for providing the answer in your question. I would add, as I indicated in my speech, that a pre-study does not preclude or replace a study if one is necessary.

Often the pre-study is on substantive issues and complex bills. You gave the very important example of medical assistance in dying. Canadians had different points of view, all of them justified, on a moral issue that was often the subject of disinformation and that deserved clarification that went beyond partisanship.

The answer is yes. A pre-study allows for in-depth discussions on principles and substantive issues and helps enrich a later study.

[English]

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the motion before us, which would authorize the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to conduct a pre-study of Bill C-11. My comments today are brief.

Bill C-11, sometimes called the online streaming act, is a substantial bill that will essentially take the regulatory framework we now have over broadcasting and apply it to online undertakings. Numerous stakeholders and interests are involved, including cultural producers and creators, the legacy broadcasters in television and radio, online streamers, social media platforms and many others.

Many of us will remember this bill’s predecessor, Bill C-10. That bill was referred to the House Committee on Canadian Heritage for pre-study on February 1 and for regular study on February 19 of last year. That committee held 30 meetings before returning the bill to the House for third reading in mid-June.

Over those four months, that committee heard from numerous witnesses and proposed many amendments. The process involved significant debate of the issues but was contentious, messy and overly political. Indeed, significant changes to the bill were introduced late in that process at clause-by-clause consideration. Unfortunately, it was too late to call any witnesses representing the interests that would be materially affected by those changes.

That bill then made its way to our chamber, completed second reading and was referred to our Senate Committee on Transport and Communications on June 29 of last year. My Independent Senators Group colleagues on the committee and I were willing to work over last summer to examine the bill in committee in response to the expressed urgency in passing this bill, but that offer was not taken up. As a result, the Senate conducted no committee work on that bill, which died on the Order Paper when the election was called. Its successor, Bill C-11, has now completed second reading and has just been referred to committee in the other place. That committee held two meetings this week but has not yet taken up Bill C-11.

We have on the table a motion to send this bill to Senate committee for a pre-study. I have serious concerns about this. In my view, a pre-study is not a substitute for proper Senate study of a bill. Over the last few weeks, Senate committees have been engaged in pre-studies on a number of bills, including Bill S-6 and Bill C-19.

I have been part of some of these deliberations, and I offer some of my observations about this process. First, the participants have been excellent. The committee chairs have done an excellent job. The witnesses have made solid arguments regarding the bills on the table, staff have worked hard and senators have asked pertinent questions.

However, in my view, the process has been unsatisfactory. Typically, government witnesses present the bill and take questions, followed by other witnesses who offer a critique of the bill or propose changes to it. In some cases, their suggestions for change cannot be adequately assessed. We want to know: Are they practical changes? Do they fit with the goals of the bill? Are they doable? Are they good ideas? These questions come up after the witnesses testify, but often these questions remain unanswered in this process; that is what I have observed. Often there are time limitations to this process, and that is one of the reasons why some of these questions cannot be addressed, but in other cases, proposed changes from witnesses that do seem desirable cannot become amendments to this bill, because this is not possible with our pre-studies.

My concern with Bill C-11 is that I fear we will be doomed to this inadequate process and its shortcomings and that we will not conduct the proper investigation we need on Bill C-11, and we have no assurances that a regular committee study would follow from our pre-study. With Bill C-11, the ideal process, in my view, would be for us to take into account all the learnings from the House of Commons committee, their proceedings and their report, and build from there.

Let’s look at their witnesses, the issues arising from their work and the arguments that have been made, and let’s go forward from there. Of course, amendments may result from their process as well, which a pre-study here would not have and, therefore, could not consider. We wouldn’t have them in a timely fashion, and therefore, we couldn’t consider them. Remember Bill C-10, and how that bill was significantly changed very late in their process.

Honourable senators, during the pandemic over the past couple of years, the number of our Senate sittings was cut back dramatically, our scrutiny of legislation was reduced, with minimal review of so much legislation, and our committee work was curtailed. I look forward to returning to a better and more thorough process as we go forward.

In the end, colleagues, when it comes to Bill C-11, I am looking for assurances that a regular committee review process will take place. Even if a pre-study is undertaken, we should and must commit to this. If committees are indeed the masters of their fates, as we learned yesterday, I will be seeking the views of committee colleagues over the next several days for their commitment to a fulsome process.

But there is more than just that. We also need assurances that the committee will have the time it needs to do its work. When I hear about the urgent need to pass a bill, I can’t help but wonder whether we will really have the time to review a bill. If we keep hearing about the urgent need, it most certainly raises questions about whether we will be given the time.

Honourable senators, let’s do this properly. Thank you very much.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of the thrust of Senator Simons’s inquiry regarding municipalities in Canada. I will speak to five themes in my remarks. So that the thread will not be lost — and particularly not lost to me — I will announce them as I get to them. The five themes are identity; history; economic and social influence; autonomy and subsidiarity and community.

You will be familiar with speakers whose remarks proceed from the sublime to the ridiculous. Today I will try to do the opposite; that is, I will start with the ridiculous and try to move to the sublime. Wish me luck.

I have two stories about identity. In September 1971, I had taken the train from Saskatoon to Halifax. It was my first day of law school at Dalhousie University. I was sitting in the student lounge. My future friend Senator Wetston was probably there, but I didn’t know him at the time. Indeed, I knew no one. I was extremely insecure and unsure of myself.

Another student walked over and introduced himself to me. He said, “Hi, I’m Jim McPherson.” I introduced myself and he then asked where I was from. I replied, “Moose Jaw.” And he said he was from Lunenburg. He said, “We have many traditions and ways of being in Lunenburg, and I am sure you have many traditions and ways of being in Moose Jaw; but,” he said, “one of the traditions that we don’t have in Lunenburg is that we don’t go around with our flies down.”

I run the risk in telling this story that you will only remember that punchline and in future check whether my fly is down. But I’d like you to remember a different point, at least for today.

When it came to identifying ourselves, both Jim and I referenced the town or city we were from — where, essentially, our identities started.

Here’s a more serious story: I served for a number of years as the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs in the Government of Saskatchewan. During the first year in the position, I was invited to make a presentation to the provincial cabinet and the premier. I wanted to make my first point regarding isolation; that is, the two solitudes that existed and, in my view, still exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and people in Saskatchewan, and to communicate something that had bothered me for years.

I handed out to each cabinet minister and the premier a Saskatchewan highway map and asked them to locate on the map the village of Herschel, Saskatchewan. Everybody found it within seconds. It was the home of my then-minister Bernie Wiens, a village of perhaps 30 people.

I then asked them to find “IR41.” There followed much confusion. I gave hints. We eventually got there: IR41 is the Poundmaker Cree Nation, a community at that time of 1,041 people with an historic and honourable name in our history. I have a portrait of Chief Poundmaker in my office. But our highway maps dignified this community with a number, and not even a name. To the credit of Premier Romanow, he immediately pointed to the Minister of Highways and said, “fix this.” He understood that our identities are deeply connected with our communities.

We identify with our communities. We take pride in them. Our communities matter. Their health and prosperity matter today more than ever.

My next theme is history. In 1867, Canada was a predominantly rural country. Nearly 85% of Canadians lived in rural areas. Ottawa was a town of 18,000. Our biggest city, Montreal, had a population of 107,000; and Toronto, 56,000. In case you are wondering, Moose Jaw, in 1867, had a population of zero. It didn’t then exist.

Towns and cities were not unimportant in 1867, but they were not what they are today. It is not surprising, therefore, when the British North America Act, 1867 was written, civic leaders were not at the table and matters of local concern were assigned not to these relatively insignificant towns and cities, but to provinces. And as we have seen only too clearly in recent court cases, towns and cities — essentially the creations of provinces — even as large as Toronto are sometimes left to the whims of provincial inclination.

Today we see a complete reversal of that picture. Residents of urban areas now make up over 80% of the Canadian population, a percentage that has been rising almost uninterrupted for decades. The town of Ottawa, that 18,000-person town, is now home to 1,017,000 people. Toronto’s population, that 56,000‑person place, is now 2.794 million people. The city of Moose Jaw, I’m sure you are anxious to know, is the home of 33,655 wonderful people.

Now, on to economic and social influence. Our towns and cities are nothing like the communities of 1867. They are much larger, more dynamic, more central to our culture and more engaged in the delivery of services to our citizens. Urban centres are now more than ever engines of our economy. There are a few highlights to emphasize the point.

The City of Saskatoon operates the largest bus service in Saskatchewan. The budget of the City of Toronto is $13.53 billion. In Toronto there are over 800,000 businesses. It is home to 38% of Canada’s business headquarters and a $364 billion economy which represents 20% of Canada’s GDP.

Remarkable as that seems, urban Canada continues to grow and prosper, despite its modest status constitutionally as creatures of the provinces, an historical curiosity of 105 years’ standing.

As we hear from civic leaders and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on a regular basis, it is a challenge for them. For example, the revenue backbone of our Canadian municipalities is property taxes. They account for 32% to 60% of the municipal revenue depending on the city and the province.

It often feels to me that the two key revenue sources for my city of Saskatoon are property taxes and parking tickets; sadly, I contribute to each.

More seriously, we need to take these issues seriously in a principled and long-term way.

The next theme of my speech is subsidiarity. One of the governing principles in the establishment of our country was that of subsidiarity; that is or was that functions performed effectively by subordinate or local organizations — here, I invite you to think of towns or cities — belong more properly to them than to the dominant central organization. Here I invite you to think of the provincial or federal government.

This was the central basis upon which, in the assignment of powers in the Canadian constitution, matters of a so-called local or private nature were assigned to the so-called subordinate organization at that time — the provinces, but not towns or cities.

When one thinks about the present, however, if we were to design a governance regime for our country on the basis, among others, of the principle of subsidiarity, we would be likely to provide much greater responsibility and autonomy to our urban governments.

Now, we are not going to rewrite the Constitution to restructure this modern reality through constitutional means, but there are other ways. Many have reflected on how this might be done. I don’t have a magic-bullet answer, but it must be based on a recognition — and partnerships on the part of the federal and provincial governments — to achieve organized, structural and stable modernization of the legal and governance authorities for towns and cities, as well as stable, long-term access to fiscal resources, to enable our cities to deliver so many government services critical to our citizens. This should include long-term fiscal framework agreements — not so much piecemeal but long-term fiscal framework agreements. It should include structured access to new revenue sources. It could include new authorities for our cities.

Let me provide one example, which we discussed at the Agriculture and Forestry Committee a short while ago with Mayor Braun of the City of Abbotsford. I served for a few years as Saskatchewan’s deputy minister of municipal affairs. As I mention these different positions, you might be thinking, “This is a guy who couldn’t hold a job,” and you might be right.

In my first year there, we rewrote The Cities Act of Saskatchewan to give cities the status and authority, within limits, of “natural persons” — essentially turning the grant of governing authority upside down. Rather than granting only specific powers, The Cities Act gave urban municipalities in Saskatchewan sweeping authority except where specifically limited in the legislation.

There are many other ideas out there to strengthen and vitalize our cities from wiser commentators than me.

My last point is about community. All of these ideas, and many other possibilities, are proffered to strengthen our communities — and it cannot be overstated how important that is for us, for our communities and for our country.

I am reminded of remarks delivered in a slightly different context by my friend John Whyte but which I think are relevant to this important conversation, particularly in terms of what governments can and must do together to build our society and country. Mr. Whyte once said, more eloquently than I could ever do:

A nation is built when the communities that comprise it make commitments to it, when they forego choices and opportunities on behalf of a nation, . . . when the communities that comprise it make compromises, when they offer each other guarantees, when they make transfers and perhaps more pointedly, when they receive from others the benefits of national solidarity. The threads of a thousand acts of accommodation are the fabric of a nation. . . .

In conclusion, let me say simply that we at all levels of government owe to our municipalities acts of accommodation — acts that benefit us all and that, woven together, comprise the fabric of a wonderful nation. Thank you, hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

(At 5:34 p.m., the Senate was continued until May 31, 2022, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, it is with delight, affection and gratitude that I rise today in the Senate of Canada to honour and pay tribute to my colleague, my dear friend, accomplished and innovative community development leader, creative educator and all-round good guy Gord Cunningham on the occasion of his retirement today from his role of the Executive Director of the Coady International Institute.

Gord Cunningham has had a career and a life of many accomplishments, be it his role with the Wabigoon Lake First Nation helping to establish their successful wild rice export company, with Calmeadow’s First Peoples Fund and Calmeadow Nova Scotia and then the past 25 years with the Coady International Institute, where he has had pioneering roles in the areas of microfinance, asset-based citizen-led development and community economic analysis. He co-edited a very influential book with Dr. Alison Mathie entitled, From Clients to Citizens: Communities Changing the Course of their Own Development.

Gord has worked locally in Nova Scotia and across Canada with First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities, and has worked in Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and the U.S.

As he retires from the Coady International Institute, he leaves a powerful network of 10,000 community leader alumni in 130 countries around the world, all working locally to make the world a better place.

Honourable senators, I was Gord Cunningham’s boss for almost 25 years at Calmeadow in Toronto and then at Coady. Together, we loved to work with people to make things happen. Colleagues, Gord Cunningham would give you the shirt off his back and, in my case, he actually did. He is humble, generous to a fault, loyal, dedicated, extremely well-informed, a lot of fun and, honestly, one of the most intelligent people I have ever met.

Colleagues, one of my favourite Gord-isms is, “We are surrounded by insurmountable opportunities.” This outlook is how Gord works, leads, plays and inspires.

In closing, I want to wish Gord Cunningham a happy and healthy retirement, exploring and enjoying those many opportunities awaiting you, Marilyn, Marshall, Oliver and Elin in your next chapter. Gord, the world is a much better place for you being in it, and I know I join thousands of people across Canada and around the world in thanking you for your professional contributions and the gift of your friendship.

Honourable senators, please join me in applauding this remarkable Canadian leader, Gord Cunningham. Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Dasko for her comments. I ask a question, because I’m looking for somebody to answer the question.

This is an important issue, Bill C-11. It is something that has not been addressed by successive governments now in over 25 years. Why is this suddenly considered in the public interest? Why is it that this has not been presented to us by this government in the last seven years? The last time we heard about it, other than what we’re going through right now, was the end of last May, early June. We were sort of forced to push this through as quickly as possible.

I agree that this is an important issue. We all agree that it requires a robust, thorough debate and review. What would be the public interest urgency to get this done in a matter of two or three weeks, come hell or high water?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The importance of search and rescue and the equipment necessary is well known to the Senate through the study done by the Fisheries Committee, with Senator Manning as chair. I had the pleasure of participating in that study.

Honourable senators, the Government of Canada has made significant investments and continues to do so to ensure that our air force members have the equipment they need to keep Canadians safe.

To give you a few examples, we have augmented our strategic airlift and refuelling capability through the Strategic Tanker Transport Capability project, procuring 88 fighter jets to replace our CF-18 fleet, acquiring 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters and 16 new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. The government is committed to ensuring that the Royal Canadian Air Force has the capacity and capabilities that it needs.

Senator Gagné: Thank you for the question, senator.

That is a small part of the study, a fairly limited part compared to all the changes that are being made to the Official Languages Act. I think that the policy has to be discussed in a broader context, and that is why it keeps coming up, with questions about how that policy will be developed within a very specific legislative framework.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. It is simply not the case that the welfare of Canadians with disabilities is not a priority. Quite on the contrary.

The speed with which we all saw CERB introduced was in response to a global pandemic, and we all, as parliamentarians, did our part to make sure that Canadians, including those with disabilities, received the help they needed through those early and uncertain times. The provisions and the disability benefit to which you refer are important policy matters that are under active study by the government.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question, Senator Carignan.

I think our pre-studies are done with just as much care. Let me point out that we have been in a pandemic for over two years now. That has to have influenced government legislation, the work of the House of Commons and our own chamber’s work. I feel that these pandemic times are exceptional and make it hard to compare anything to how both houses of Parliament have operated in normal times over the past few decades.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, the Royal Canadian Air Force currently has 13 Cormorant search and rescue helicopters that provide search and rescue for our entire country. We recently lost one in a crash at 9 Wing Air Force Base in Gander.

In August 2019, the former Minister of National Defence announced plans to purchase at least two more Cormorants and upgrade the entire fleet of aircraft. However, a recent answer to my question on the Senate Order Paper shows that, almost three years later, there are no active plans to follow through on this promise, and the Department of National Defence is aiming to make a decision this calendar year.

Leader, why is your NDP-Liberal government again failing to provide the men and women of our air force the equipment they need to fulfill their search and rescue operations as promised in 2019?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government does not intend to be the long-term owner of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, and the government will divest its ownership in a way and at a time that benefits all Canadians. The government, indeed, announced that no additional public money will be spent on the project and that Trans Mountain Corporation would secure the necessary funding from third-party sources to complete the project.

I’m advised, colleagues, that the corporation has now secured third-party financing with a group of Canadian financial institutions, and this will be used to fund the project construction costs. As part of this process, the government is providing a loan guarantee to the participating financial institutions, and this is a well-known practice for projects of this size. It does not reflect any new public spending.

This project is in the national interest, and it will make Canada and the Canadian economy more sovereign and more resilient. In that regard, and in all respects, the government remains committed to having good energy projects that fit in with our climate plan.

Senator Galvez: This is now the third letter from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Canada is late submitting its twenty-first to twenty-third combined periodic report to the committee, which was due last year. Does the government plan to respond to these letters and fulfil its reporting commitments?

Senator Gagné: I completely agree. I also believe that, seeing as we have a very complex bill dealing with a quasi-constitutional law that has not been reviewed for over 30 years, along with the experience and content we’ve been able to gather from the 300 witnesses who appeared and the more than 70 briefs we received, all with very specific recommendations, I think we are in a position to have a second look when we receive the bill for the second, or even third, time.