Hon. Bernadette Clement: Good afternoon, minister.

[English]

My question involves municipalities. As we have seen in the last number of years, cities and municipalities are often the first responders in terms of crisis; crisis which often is related to climate change and has impact on critical infrastructure often owned and operated by municipalities.

What plans do you have to make sure that municipalities are full partners from the outset of these emergencies? If you could speak around full, clear communications with municipalities, that would be greatly appreciated.

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: As you know, energy is not within Environment and Climate Change but within Natural Resources Canada.

That being said, we have ongoing conversations with our European friends and colleagues to see how we can help them as they transition quickly away from Russian oil and gas. As you may know, we don’t have right now an SMR Canadian technology that is up and running. There’s research and development happening, but that technology is not ready to be deployed commercially and it therefore cannot be exported to other countries. But the federal government is subsidizing research and development in that sector.

If you want more specific information, you should address your question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you for that question. I saw that letter from those scientists and experts. I know and respect many of them.

That being said, we are going to need this technology, not just for the oil and gas sector, but for the cement sector and probably for the steel sector because we will not be able to reduce our emissions fast enough to avoid global average temperatures from surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.

Maybe if we had started not just in Canada but everywhere around the world — and a few countries did — but if we collectively had started tackling climate change 25, 30 years ago, like some of us have been calling for, maybe we wouldn’t need it, but we are going to need it. I do not think, and no one thinks that the federal government alone should invest in that technology.

We’ve committed to have a just transition, meaning that we are going to work with every region of this country, every sector, to help them decarbonize their operations. It includes steel. It includes cement. It also includes oil and gas. We’re not going to abandon the sector and say, well, you deal with this on your own while we’re ready and willing to help all the other sectors.

[Translation]

Hon. Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you for your question, senator. Erosion is obviously linked to rising sea levels, which is one of the most obvious and well-documented impacts of climate change.

We are working with the Department of Transport and with Infrastructure Canada to develop Canada’s first national climate change adaptation plan, which includes a section specifically on infrastructure.

Solutions do exist, and sometimes they fall within the federal government’s jurisdiction, sometimes that of the provinces or municipalities. That is why we want to work with all levels of government and other interested parties who have some knowledge of the issue in order to move towards adaptation.

It is clear that when it comes to climate change adaptation, the federal government can’t do everything. That’s why we need to work in partnership, as we are doing with the B.C. government. After the floods in that province, we created a joint committee made up of several departments, from both levels of government, that are responsible for matters related to transport, infrastructure, the environment and natural resources.

We are hoping to replicate this across the country, so that Canada is better prepared to deal with the impacts of climate change.

[English]

Senator Bellemare: My second question is about the estimated impact of hybrid meetings on the Senate and committees. If I understand correctly, our hybrid meetings and the investment in these telecommunication procedures may have led to a reduction in expenses? Does this mean it is actually costing less, not more? I would like to hear your comments on that.

[English]

Senator Marwah: Thank you for the question. I would remind the senator that the numbers that you see are from budget to budget. There are no actuals in it. The savings take place in the actuals. And there are substantial savings both last year, the year before and we expect in the coming year.

That’s why you see the numbers the way they are. The actuals are substantially lower than these numbers.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, we did call for an adjournment earlier. There was clearly some scrambling going on all morning. It hadn’t been finished when Senator Gold presented his motion.

I saw there was only one avenue open for us at that time, and that was to call for a bell so that we could continue talking about the things we had been talking about. That happened very quickly after we suspended.

Your honour, if it’s all right with the chamber, if the chamber would give me leave, I would withdraw the motion to adjourn and would be happy to continue debate and, hopefully, be able to hear from Senator Gold.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné:

That:

(a)pursuant to subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to review the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency that was in effect from Monday, February 14, 2022, to Wednesday, February 23, 2022, including the provisions as specified in subsections 62(5) and (6) of the act;

(b)the committee be composed of four members of the Senate, including one senator from the Opposition, one senator from the Independent Senators Group, one senator from the Progressive Senate Group, and one senator from the Canadian Senators Group, and seven members of the House of Commons, including three members of the House of Commons from the governing party, two members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, one member from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the New Democratic Party, with three chairs, of which the Senate chair shall be a senator from the Independent Senators Group and the two House chairs shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party;

(c)in addition to the chairs, the committee shall elect two vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the governing party and the second vice-chair shall be from the official opposition party;

(d)the four senators to be members of the committee be named by means of a notice signed by their respective leader or facilitator (or their respective designates), and filed with the Clerk of the Senate no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day after this motion is adopted, failing which, the leader or facilitator of any party or group identified in paragraph (b) who has not filed the name of a senator with the Clerk of the Senate, shall be deemed to be the senator named to the committee, with the names of the senators named as members being recorded in the Journals of the Senate;

(e)the quorum of the committee be seven members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present, and the chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the publishing thereof, whenever five members are present, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present;

(f)changes to the membership of the committee on the part of the Senate be made in accordance with rule 12-5 of the Rules of the Senate, provided that any new members or participating senators take the oath of secrecy pursuant to paragraph (g) of this order before participating in proceedings;

(g)pursuant to subsection 62(3) of the act, every member and person employed in the work of the committee, which includes personnel who, in supporting the committee’s work or a committee member’s work, have access to the committee’s proceedings or documents, take the oath of secrecy as set out in the schedule of the act;

(h)every meeting of the committee held to consider an order or regulation referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act be held in camera, pursuant to subsection 62(4) of the same act, and the evidence and documents received by the committee related to these meetings not be made public;

(i)for greater certainty, the chairs may move motions and vote on all items before the committee, and any vote resulting in a tie vote shall mean that the item is negatived;

(j)all documents tabled in the Senate pursuant to the act since February 21, 2022, be referred to the committee;

(k)until the committee ceases to exist or on Thursday, June 23, 2022, whichever is earlier,

(i)where applicable, the provisions contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the order adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2022, respecting senators on standing joint committees, shall apply to senators on this committee, and the committee shall hold meetings in person where necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act; and

(ii)senators, members and departmental and parliamentary officials appearing as witnesses before the committee may do so in person, as may any witness appearing with respect to any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act;

(l)the committee have the power to:

(i)meet during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;

(ii)report from time to time, including pursuant to the provisions included in subsection 62(6) of the act, to send for persons, papers and records, and to publish such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;

(iv)appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons; and

(v)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its public proceedings and to make them available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites; and

(m)a report of the committee may be deposited with the Clerk of the Senate at any time the Senate stands adjourned, and that any report so deposited may be deposited electronically, with the report being deemed to have been presented or tabled in the Senate; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: I have a question for Senator Marwah. I would like to hear your thoughts on some of the figures. I was a bit surprised when I looked at the tables.

Before that, however, I would like to hear your thoughts on the size of the International and Interparliamentary Affairs budget compared to the Senate committees budget. I thought the Senate Committees Directorate budget was larger than the International and Interparliamentary Affairs budget.

Can you briefly explain the substance of those differences? That is my first question.

[English]

Senator Marwah: Thank you for the question, Senator Bellemare. On the Senate committee budgets, they are exactly at the level they were pre-pandemic and that’s $2.3 million. Those are the numbers and the increases because, as I mentioned, we are taking back the committee budgets to pre-pandemic levels, assuming that committees will be able to operate fully and be functional for the balance of the year.

On the international and parliamentary affairs, keep in mind that those numbers are not just conferences, they include a whole bunch of other items, such as our share of the Senate of the IIA activities. As you know, we take 30% and the total cost is around $1.4 million.

Then we have ongoing employees, around 10 employees, for a total cost of $1.2 million, the contributions to parliamentary associations of around half a million. And then, of course, we have the additional conference this year of the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie of $328,000 which is going to take place, approved by Internal Economy Committee, in October of last year.

Those are the major items in comparison of the two categories, senator.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 5-10(1), I ask leave of the Senate to modify the motion so that it reads as follows:

That:

(a)pursuant to subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to review the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency that was in effect from Monday, February 14, 2022, to Wednesday, February 23, 2022, including the provisions as specified in subsections 62(5) and (6) of the act;

(b)the committee be composed of four members of the Senate, including one senator from the Opposition, one senator from the Independent Senators Group, one senator from the Progressive Senate Group, and one senator from the Canadian Senators Group, and seven members of the House of Commons, including three members of the House of Commons from the governing party, two members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, one member from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the New Democratic Party, with three chairs, of which the Senate chair shall be a senator from the Independent Senators Group and the two House chairs shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party;

(c)in addition to the chairs, the committee shall elect two vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the governing party and the second vice-chair shall be from the official opposition party, and one deputy chair from the Senate who shall be from the Opposition;

(d)the four senators to be members of the committee be named by means of a notice signed by their respective leader or facilitator (or their respective designates), and filed with the Clerk of the Senate no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day after this motion is adopted, failing which, the leader or facilitator of any party or group identified in paragraph (b) who has not filed the name of a senator with the Clerk of the Senate, shall be deemed to be the senator named to the committee, with the names of the senators named as members being recorded in the Journals of the Senate;

(e)the quorum of the committee be seven members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present, and the chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the publishing thereof, whenever five members are present, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present;

(f)changes to the membership of the committee on the part of the Senate be made in accordance with rule 12-5 of the Rules of the Senate, provided that any new members or participating senators take the oath of secrecy pursuant to paragraph (g) of this order before participating in proceedings;

(g)pursuant to subsection 62(3) of the act, every member and person employed in the work of the committee, which includes personnel who, in supporting the committee’s work or a committee member’s work, have access to the committee’s proceedings or documents, take the oath of secrecy as set out in the schedule of the act;

(h)every meeting of the committee held to consider an order or regulation referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act be held in camera, pursuant to subsection 62(4) of the same act, and the evidence and documents received by the committee related to these meetings not be made public;

(i)for greater certainty, the chairs may move motions and vote on all items before the committee, and any vote resulting in a tie vote shall mean that the item is negatived;

(j)all documents tabled in the Senate pursuant to the act since February 21, 2022, be referred to the committee;

(k)until the committee ceases to exist or on Thursday, June 23, 2022, whichever is earlier,

(i)where applicable, the provisions contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the order adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2022, respecting senators on standing joint committees, shall apply to senators on this committee, and the committee shall hold meetings in person where necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act; and

(ii)senators, members and departmental and parliamentary officials appearing as witnesses before the committee may do so in person, as may any witness appearing with respect to any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act;

(l)the committee have the power to:

(i)meet during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;

(ii)report from time to time, including pursuant to the provisions included in subsection 62(6) of the act, to send for persons, papers and records, and to publish such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;

(iv)appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons; and

(v)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its public proceedings and to make them available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites; and

(m)a report of the committee may be deposited with the Clerk of the Senate at any time the Senate stands adjourned, and that any report so deposited may be deposited electronically, with the report being deemed to have been presented or tabled in the Senate; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Senator Gold: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the motion before you regarding the joint parliamentary review committee that is mandated under section 62(1) of the Emergencies Act which states that a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to review “the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency . . . .”

The motion before you mirrors the one passed in the other place Wednesday evening. It is self-explanatory. It lays out the membership of the joint committee as it pertains to the Senate.

The invocation of the Emergencies Act on February 14 — for the first time in Canadian history since the inception of the act in 1988 — was historic. As the invocation of the Emergencies Act was historic, so too is the establishment of the joint parliamentary review committee to study and assess the circumstances surrounding the invocation of the act.

Because the committee is required to report to both houses of Parliament within seven sitting days after the revocation of the declaration by the Governor-in-Council, it now falls on the Senate to adopt a corresponding motion as was passed by the other place.

I ask honourable colleagues to adopt the motion expeditiously so that the committee can get to work and perform its due diligence for Canadians.

The motion that was passed in the other place lays out the parameters and makeup of the committee. When the Emergencies Act was debated in the Senate in 1988, there was a worry that the government and the House of Commons would move to include piecemeal Senate representation. What if, it was argued by honourable senators, the House of Commons chose to include only one senator? This would be unfair to the Senate.

Today, in 2022, I’m very pleased to see that the government proposed to the house a fair and proportionate Senate representation of four out of 11 members on this important committee, including a co-chair. I was even more pleased to see the House endorse our chamber’s role with votes in support coming from three of the four parties in the House.

The motion before you provides for the fair and proportionate representation of senators from each party or group in the chamber. It is designed to uphold the basic principles of group equity and fairness by ensuring that all Senate groups have the opportunity to select a senator.

As a reflection of the principle of proportionality, the motion provides that the senators selected from the Independent Senators Group will occupy the position of Senate co-chair. The Government Representative Office in the Senate will not be seeking a seat on the committee.

As some may argue that the literal wording of the Emergencies Act, section 62(2) — which states:

The Parliamentary Review Committee shall include at least one member of the House of Commons from each party that has a recognized membership of twelve or more persons in that House and at least one senator from each party in the Senate that is represented on the committee by a member of the House of Commons.

— precludes the appointment of non-politically affiliated senators.

In advance of any argument to that effect from honourable colleagues, let me quote the Honourable Senator Perrin Beatty, then Minister of Defence, in his testimony in front of the Senate committee studying the Emergencies Act legislation in 1988.

In response to a question put by former senator John Benjamin Stewart, Minister Beatty stated:

Senator, in designing this particular provision of the bill, we did not attempt to fix what would be the absolute number of members from the House of Commons, for that matter. We did try to provide that there would be representation from each of the political parties in the House of Commons. It would also be possible, presumably, that representation of the Senate might involve independent senators. One would hope that reasonableness would apply in any case where the two houses are called together to meet with one another.

In many elements of parliamentary and constitutional procedure in the past we have resisted setting up very rigid structures which are not capable of being adapted to particular circumstances. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect there would be goodwill in a national crisis or that reasonableness would apply.

Colleagues, we have a duty to Canadians to see to it that the Joint Parliamentary Committee charged with reviewing and studying the rationale and merit of the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act on February 14 is constituted as quickly as possible. Each caucus and group can nominate one of its own without influence or dictum by the government. Senate members of the committee will undoubtedly bring experience, insight and wisdom to the committee’s deliberations.

The invocation of the Emergencies Act requires, by law, examination. The intent of the motion before you is to safeguard the plurality and diversity of voices. Former Minister Beatty himself, 34 years ago, went so far as to predict that independent senators would have seats on this committee if and when the need for its composition should ever transpire.

Colleagues, there is now a need, and I ask that this motion be approved so that the work may begin. Thank you very much.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I want to start off by thanking the Government Representative in the Senate for his collaboration today. I want to thank Senators Saint-Germain, Cordy and Tannas for agreeing to what Senator Gold now put into his amendment. It’s great when we can work together and make deals, and I believe that we have done that. I believe that the Senate, during this time over the last week, has shown the absolute need for this chamber. I would say that this chamber did a much better job on the Emergencies Act than they did in the other place.

I believe overall the collaboration here is much better than it is in the other place, and so I thank all honourable senators. I believe that the reason the Prime Minister came to his senses and revoked the Emergencies Act was because of the debate going on here in the Senate. I believe that cooler heads prevailed, and they saw the senselessness of having an Emergencies Act when there was no emergency.

However, we are tasked, as Senator Gold says, with studying this as a committee. We can say all we want that this is the way it should be — that this is the way a committee should be struck. When the act was struck, we did not have the kind of a Senate that we do now. We had a Senate that was basically made up of two political parties: the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada.

When they struck the Act, saying that there needed to be a senator in the chamber from all parties that were being represented in the House of Commons, they believed those would be the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada. It doesn’t matter what we say about the Senate now. That is what they believed at that time because that is the type of a Senate that we had.

So we now have a different type of a Senate, and we just simply decide to interpret what these people back in the 1980s wrote. Be that as it may, we live in — as they say — new and interesting times.

I’m always troubled when our government leader here refers to how they voted in the other house and always forgets to talk about the numbers of votes and the debates.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservative house leader in the other place came forward with a very, very reasonable amendment to what the government was proposing. The government had proposed that the two smallest groups in the house take the co-chairs. They did it for one reason and one reason only. They were trying to exclude the Conservative Party of Canada from being one of the co-chairs there. It was evident. Nobody can deny that. They did a good job of that. They browbeat Jagmeet Singh as the Prime Minister did with his threat of a confidence vote. Here again is something the leader failed to mention when he talked about how the other house had voted. He failed to mention that a minority Parliament threatened an election if another group would not support his demands.

Last night, the other place voted down our house leader’s amendment. Not with all the parties; with two parties. The Bloc — bless them for it — were given a co-chair position by the governing party, and they were willing to give up that co-chair position because they thought the right thing would be that the Conservatives have at least one co-chair. They were prepared to give up their co-chair position so that the Conservatives in the Senate could then have the co-chair.

For the Bloc to give that up obviously took a little bit of doing. That isn’t being mentioned here. What isn’t being mentioned here is that we have a government in the other house that is trying to take away the rights of a party that got more votes in the last election and in the election before than any other party. Yet, they’re not supposed to have a co-chair position. Why? Because the government is afraid of what is going to come forward if all of sudden the Conservatives have too many people and too much power in a committee, which they should have as the official opposition.

Let me tell you, colleagues, we are going to accept this motion — this amendment — on division, but we will accept what Senator Gold has brought forward because I really believe Senator Gold has done his job in trying to reach an amicable solution. I appreciate him for that. As I said, I appreciate the three other leaders collaborating and saying they agree that we should have that.

I do not believe we’re getting what we should be getting, but listen, you don’t always get what you think you should be getting or what’s fair. In this case, that is my belief.

I don’t want the words that I am saying here about the other place to be a reflection of what I believe in this place. I believe we did a good job. I believe we did a great job on both sides of the debate. I listened to senators on both sides of the debate, and we had good arguments here. At the end of the day — as I said — I believe the Prime Minister was reading the tea leaves and said, “I’m better off withdrawing this before I get 45 or 46 senators all of sudden voting the wrong way in the Senate.” We’re going to take credit for that. Whatever you say, you can’t take that credit away from us.

I can stand here and say it’s us. I can stand here and say it was Senator Wells’s speech or my speech that turned the tide, and we’ll take credit. We’re politicians. Justin Trudeau can come along and tell us why he actually did it. Until he does, we’ll take the credit, colleagues.

Having said that, thank you Senators Gold, Saint-Germain, Cordy and Tannas for your collaboration here today. I think it goes a long way in showing how we want to work together, but I do not want anybody to believe that for one second I accept what the Liberal Party of Canada and the government tried to do in that other place and, as a matter of fact, got away with it.

On that note, I do apologize to you, Senator Gold, that I cannot vote in favour. However, we will allow this to go on division.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Senator Plett: Certainly.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I wanted to ask Senator Plett if he would be willing to accept a question? Thank you.

On the theme of you don’t always get what you want, my question is: Do you interpret, in particular, Senator Gold’s reference to the former Minister Beatty, at the time of the act, and whether you interpret the current situation as excluding any possibility of an independent, non-affiliated senator to be considered for membership on this committee?

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

March 3, 2022

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 3^rd day of March, 2022, at 3:43 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Bill Assented to Thursday, March 3, 2022:

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement) (Bill C-12, Chapter 1, 2022)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Griffin, for the second reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

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

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: I will continue from where I left off.

With Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada, as proposed by Senator Black, we are celebrating our local food, but it is also an occasion to strengthen our bonds with our neighbours.

We are encouraging you to support your local food markets, your local farmers, because they are integral to our communities. What better way to spend a Saturday morning picking up fresh produce for the week, a prepared meal for the day and, by doing so, supporting your community.

It is important to strengthen the bond between farmers and Canadians, because when we need them, they are there for us. And so, to show our appreciation for what they do for us, a day like the one Senator Black is proposing is an excellent way to say thank you to them. In a time where we as a society are trying to be greener and more environmentally friendly, supporting local food is one way that we can also support our local environment.

According to a study by the Columbia Climate School, buying local food could reduce the average consumer’s greenhouse gas emissions by 4% to 5%. But more importantly, according to the same study, small farmers already adopt environmentally friendly practices. They often rebuild crop and insect diversity, use less pesticides, enrich the soil with cover crops and, most importantly, produce tastier food.

Finally, I want to share a bit more about the local in my community. By living on New Brunswick’s east coast, our local food is more from fishing, as we have a lot of fishing communities. So on the first day of the lobster fishery in the spring, a lot of people gather at the wharf to see the boats off for the first time in the season. Around Mother’s Day weekend, the tradition is to have lobster; it coincides with the first harvest. At the centre of this tradition in my community is the lobster. It is one of the many examples of how food brings people together. It creates bonds between us and gives a strong sense of belonging.

Honourable senators, local food keeps local land in production, local money in our community, often costs less and builds community relationships. Let’s take a moment to recognize the crucial contribution local farms make to our communities and have a food day every year to thank and support them. I support this bill and urge senators to send it to the committee for further study. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Griffin, for Senator Black, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.)

Hon. Diane F. Griffin moved second reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island). This will be the very last time I speak to a bill in this chamber during my tenure as a senator. This bill serves as a coda for my Prince Edward Island advocacy but, more importantly, it serves as an opportunity for senators to champion a cause for Canada’s smallest province.

Last spring, I spoke to Senator Gold’s inquiry on the 2021 federal budget to bring the Senate’s attention to the flawed policy of two Employment Insurance regions in Prince Edward Island. The 2021 Budget Implementation Act entrenched in statute this unnecessary division of my province. Since 2015, the vast majority of Islanders have repeatedly called for change under the simple mantra of “one island, one zone.”

The division of P.E.I. into two economic zones creates a fundamental unfairness for workers, especially those who live in the Charlottetown zone but work outside the capital region. For example, this February, workers who lived in the capital region had a minimum of 14 weeks of benefits, while those who lived in the non-capital region had 20. Many folks who work for the same company will have widely different benefits simply because of an arbitrary dividing line of where they live.

Senators, I am thankful for your collective support last spring, and especially to Senator Mockler in his capacity as the chair of the National Finance Committee for inviting the mayors of Charlottetown, Stratford and Cornwall to speak to this issue during the committee’s pre-study of the BIA. In a sign of bicameral advocacy, our proceedings inspired Green Party MP Elizabeth May to move an amendment to the House of Commons Finance Committee to unify Prince Edward Island into one EI economic region. Although Elizabeth May’s efforts did not secure sufficient votes to pass, the entire episode brought new information to light.

The government provided several reasons why it could not support the amendment to the BIA last year. The first was Employment and Social Development Canada’s antiquated computer systems, which operate the EI program. At the time, officials indicated that it was not possible for the EI system to have a single EI zone for seasonal workers and two zones for regular EI applicants. Further, in the ministerial briefing binder, the government said that due to temporary COVID measures artificially increasing unemployment rates, a change in the spring of 2021 was not warranted as the two regions were de facto temporarily the same.

Honourable senators, those temporary measures have expired and this bill would solve the computer system issue by amending both the Employment Insurance Act and the regulations at the same time. It would further prevent the federal cabinet from making regulatory changes to P.E.I.’s EI zone without future parliamentary approval.

For over seven years, the federal government has promised Islanders a return to one EI zone, and this change has often been premised under the framework of a larger review of the EI system. Most recently, ESDC indicated in December 2021 that the review is ongoing, but there was no mention of changing the EI regions.

In a June 2021 report, the House of Commons Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, chaired by Charlottetown MP Sean Casey, issued a separate recommendation that ESDC, “reinstate a single Employment Insurance Economic Region for Prince Edward Island within 12 months.” Eight months have now passed with no response from the government.

Honourable senators, in the best of times it is difficult for matters impacting P.E.I. to be satisfactorily elevated for a decision at the federal cabinet level. I only have to remind you of the ongoing pleas by both farmers and the Government of Prince Edward Island for more direct involvement by the federal government in ending Canada’s self-imposed P.E.I. potato export ban. As is often the case, the ever-growing House of Commons gradually lessens the influence of P.E.I.’s four members of Parliament.

Local politics also frustrates a return to one EI zone. P.E.I.’s westernmost riding of Egmont is the only riding exclusively outside of the Charlottetown zone. It is understandable for any MP of any political stripe representing Egmont to defend the status quo, as it could result in a reduction of benefits for their constituents. This lack of unanimity of Island MPs has complicated a return to one zone. Cabinet does not wish to cause political turmoil and thus far has not taken action despite multiple electoral promises to do so.

This issue may not be the most important issue facing the country; however, it is important to the renter in Charlottetown, to the recent immigrant in Cornwall and to the seasonal worker who lives in Stratford but works at a fish plant outside of the area. Therefore, this issue is important to me.

Why is this bill before us in the Senate? As stated much earlier today by Senator Plett, the Senate is free from the day-to-day burden of electoral considerations. We can examine the return to one Employment Insurance, or EI, zone in more detail in committee and amend the bill to ensure a proper coming-into-force alignment with Economic and Social Development Canada computer systems. If the Senate chooses to send this bill to the House of Commons, it will, for the first time, force the other place to consider the idea of one EI zone for Prince Edward Island via an up-down vote, without the need to balance other national priorities.

I strongly support Senator Pate’s goal to have Prince Edward Island serve as a pilot for guaranteed livable income. But until that day arrives, EI is very much the social safety net of Islanders — not by choice, but by necessity. Consequently, there is a moral obligation to do what we can in Parliament to ensure that Employment Insurance is fair for all Islanders.

Honourable senators, as I mentioned earlier today, it is a privilege to have served with you over the last five and a third years. It is my hope that Bill S-236 can serve as a reminder of this important P.E.I. issue long after my retirement.

Prince Edward Island is the smallest province, but it is also an equal partner in Confederation. I encourage any of you in this chamber to help champion this important provincial cause, with the goal of sending the bill to the House of Commons. It is a way for the Senate to serve one of its constitutional roles of giving a voice to regional interests, especially for regions with smaller populations. Thank you.

Senator Pate: Thank you very much. Before I ask my question — which you sort of answered, but sometimes I can be a bit slow, so I will make sure I clearly understood — I want to take this opportunity to say a few words.

In addition to your golfing, birdwatching and hosting of incredible dinners of goose and lobster, to your incredible collegiality and your kind and generous offers for all of us to come and visit — which, as you know, I have taken you up on several times — I want to thank you for the incredible work you have done historically in P.E.I. When I visited there, I realized that it was you who had developed all of this recycling that led the country in many ways and led many of the environmental initiatives. That was fantastic, and then to see the work you have done in your local community, but also provincially, regionally and now nationally. It has been such a privilege and honour to be your colleague for the last five years, and I know I share that sentiment with everyone else in this place.

I wanted to confirm, just to be clear. You’re very keen, I think, and my question is this: Are you hoping that Charlottetown and P.E.I. will now be the birthplace of yet another incredible national rollout that could be a plan for the country and one that illustrates the brilliance of Prince Edward Island to have led the way in demanding a guaranteed livable basic income?

Senator Griffin: Thank you for the question. Yes. The premier and the legislature have unanimously endorsed the concept of elimination of poverty by working in collaboration with the federal government to institute a guaranteed livable income. Prince Edward Island would be the test spot to run it out, work out the kinks and then — to use a Senator Deacon phrase — scale it up to the rest of the country.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]