Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Gold, we noticed last week that two Canadian ministers informed U.S. officials that if certain trade irritants were introduced in the United States — I am referring here to the Buy American electric vehicles tax credit — the Canadian government would take trade action against those measures.

I’m wondering why the Canadian government hasn’t taken any action against the trade irritant that has already been introduced regarding the ban on P.E.I. potatoes?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Cordy: Thank you. That was a good message for Canadians — that we should avoid travel if possible — in light of what’s happening. We understand that things can certainly change in a heartbeat, because one week we’re congratulating ourselves on how well we’re doing and the next week we’re discovering that travel will be limited if not non-existent.

Senator Gold, I guess my question then would be: Is Canada working with other countries to help develop uniform global guidelines? Because, as you rightfully said and I said earlier in my previous question, there are differences in international organizations on what they think about mixed vaccinations, and most people try to follow the laws and the rules — which, I guess, are more important than the laws — so what are the rules? And what are the guidelines? I’m curious to know if we’re sharing our information and our guidelines with international health organizations. Are they sharing their knowledge and their best practices with us?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. The impact of trade irritants on Prince Edward Island transporters, producers and all associated is as preoccupying to the Government of Canada as the impact on the auto industry in Ontario or the forestry industry throughout this country. Different problems require different responses. The Canadian government is not remaining inactive; it is simply using the tools and the channels appropriate in each specific case.

Senator McPhedran: I wish to thank Senator Gold for his assurances and wish everybody the best of the season.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: With leave of the Senate, can we revert to a question from Senator Batters? If you are opposed to leave, please say “no.”

Senator Batters, your question.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

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

Senator Martin: Thank you for making that inquiry. As we mark this fifty-fifth anniversary, I think that, at a minimum, what should be done — if it is not being done already — is a feasibility study. If there are details on the feasibility of establishing a Canadian embassy in Bulgaria, that would be very helpful. Leader, would you also check whether such a study has been conducted and, if not, is this something we could request at this time?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Marshall: Yes.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Marshall, will you take a question?

Hon. Renée Dupuis: I would like to ask Senator Marshall a question if she doesn’t mind.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Dupuis, do you wish to speak or ask a question?

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill C-6, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

She said: Honourable senators, I move that the bill be read the third time.

[English]

Senator Gold: With regard to what other plans the government may have, I will certainly make inquiries and report back.

The Hon. the Speaker: If you are opposed to leave, say “no.” So ordered.

Senator Batters, do you have a question?