Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

The impetus for providing assistance to Canadians was very much a function of the rising cost of groceries, a rise that continued even when global inflation came down through the combination of efforts of the Bank of Canada, the government and the operation of our economy more generally.

It is not misleading to identify this particular assistance as a grocery rebate, because that was really what was at the heart of it.

However, what the government chose to do was to deliver it in the most efficient, effective and dignified way to those Canadians and households — half of Canadian seniors — with moderate incomes.

It would be wrong to ask people who are struggling to pay their bills to not only continue to struggle but to keep their IGA clips for their litres of milk. This is the most efficient and quick way to get it into the hands of Canadians who need it most. It is designed to help them with the cost of groceries, and this government’s position is that it would be completely wrong to demand that; we’re not talking about huge sums of money. This is a prudent and practical way to assist, in some measure, those households. Nobody believes that this will solve the problem of the rising cost of groceries, whether it is a family of one, a single person or a family of five. It is help that the government can afford to provide and is happy to provide.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Senator Gold, we are talking about the grocery rebate, and I have to tell you that on my street the other day, I saw a senior go to Canadian Tire and buy a lot of tools. They could have used their grocery rebate to buy the tools, but I was looking at him, and he looked pretty healthy to me — well-fed. I am assuming he had eaten and that he had bought groceries as of late.

Is the government going to say he should not be eating because he bought some tools, or can he use the grocery rebate to rebate the groceries he bought, the prices of which are going up astronomically?

Do they apply to the groceries that he bought?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Order.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question.

This government is of the view that Canadians make responsible choices in their lives and that it is not the business of government to tell them what to do.

It is the business of government to help Canadians when they are in need, and in this regard, the position of this government is the same as the traditional position — or at least the position of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and, I would hope, the Conservative Party of Canada of today — and that is that we trust Canadians to make responsible decisions when they are given the benefit of either assistance or tax breaks.

We trust Canadians. We know that those who are in need will use the money responsibly for their families, and in this moment in time in our country, they need help putting food on their tables.

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Senator Brazeau, would you take a question?

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for spelling that out.

Am I correct that of those five Indigenous organizations you spoke of, four are included in this bill on the council, but the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is not? I also believe that they were inserted as an amendment at one point in the House of Commons process, and then, all of a sudden, I think that amendment was taken out. Could you shed a little bit of light on that?

As well, could you tell us your understanding of the approximate number of people that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents? Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 6:54 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 2, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

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

Hon. Michèle Audette: Thank you very much for your presentation, senator. Would you agree that we are now mature enough in this chamber for the committee to get together to study important issues, like the Supreme Court decision? Not many people know that there was a time when only five organizations were recognized. Through the diversity of the First Peoples, the First Nations, I want to be represented by my own community. However, I don’t want to overshadow anyone. Our diversity is distinct, and certain things belong to each of us. The decisions we make here will have an impact on the important organizations that work with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on Bill S-201.

Before I make my points, it is worthwhile to put a little bit of background on the record.

The bill was introduced here in this chamber on November 24, 2021. The concept — in a number of bills — has an interesting history that I think bears consideration.

The bill was introduced the last time — before this time — in the Senate in the last session. It was sent to Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for study, but the committee had no meetings because of dissolution. This is the third time — maybe the charm — that Senator McPhedran has introduced this particular bill in the Senate.

What is interesting, though, is that this bill has been introduced in the House of Commons nine times through introductions and reinstatements after prorogation, dissolution, et cetera. In all of the nine times, it has made it to second reading once. That actually happened in this session of Parliament.

The House of Commons version of this bill is called Bill C-210. On September 28, 2022, the House defeated Bill C-210 at second reading by a healthy margin, 77 for and 246 against.

Again, this is the only version of this bill that made it to second reading in nine attempts in the House. All this is to say that the House of Commons has, on nine separate occasions, made it pretty clear that they are not inclined to support this idea, including defeating the proposal at second reading in this particular Parliament with these same MPs who are there now. That is some background I thought was interesting enough to be put on the record as we considered the second reading of Bill S-201.

It is also worth reminding us all that when the Senate passes a bill at second reading, it has effectively agreed to the principle of the bill and that they wish to send it to committee for further study and scrutiny. The alternative to passing at second reading is to vote no. We always have the opportunity at second reading to vote no. That would be a signal that we don’t accept the principle of the bill.

I will read from page 131 of Senate Procedures in Practice:

Debate at second reading focuses on the principle or merits of the bill. This debate is intended to address questions such as: “Is the bill good policy?,” “Is it worth pursuing further?” and “Will it be a good law?” The general issues raised in the bill, and not the specific content of its parts and clauses. . . .

It is rare for the Senate to defeat bills at second reading, but I would submit to you, senators, that if there were ever a bill that we should consider defeating at second reading, it is this one. And I will outline my concerns.

The first one is the practicality of it. We have a limited amount of time in committees to study private members’ bills, so I question why we would spend time studying a bill on a subject that has already been defeated in the other place on this exact same topic with the exact same MPs sitting in their chairs in the House of Commons.

There is a legality question as well. If we pass this bill all the way over there, it would likely be ruled out of order, because there is a concept of something called “prior question.” You can’t ask the same question again in the same session of Parliament. So it’s at least likely that the Speaker would rule the bill out of order and we would have wasted a bunch of time — committee time, debate time — on something that the House would send back to us saying, “We have already considered this. What are you doing?”

Third is the principle. I believe the subject matter of this bill is not one that the Senate should be initiating. It deals with elections to the House of Commons, and we should reserve ourselves to sober second thought on matters that pertain to federal elections. It is, in my mind, disrespectful for the Senate to proactively seek change to election processes for members of Parliament, but that’s my opinion.

Again, given that the very elected colleagues who populate the House of Commons right now have recently rejected this proposal by an overwhelming majority, I think they would question our respect as well.

Colleagues, it gives me no pleasure to present such a negative position on a bill proposed by one of our honourable senators, but there are situations, I think, where we as a Senate need to take some decisive action on matters like this. I know that Senator McPhedran would like to see this bill come to a vote. In fact, she has been asking, through scrolls, over the past number of months as to when we might be ready to vote on the bill. I am ready to vote no on this bill whenever it pleases the Senate to call the question, including today. Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of April 25, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, introduced in the House of Commons on April 20, 2023, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;

2.in addition, the following committees be separately authorized to examine the subject matter of the following elements contained in Bill C-47:

(a)the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy: those elements contained in Clauses 118 to 122 concerning cryptoasset mining in Part 2, and Divisions 1, 2, 6, 7, 26, 33 and 37 of Part 4;

(b)the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources: those elements contained in Divisions 20 and 36 of Part 4;

(c)the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans: those elements contained in Subdivisions A, B and C of Division 21 of Part 4;

(d)the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade: those elements contained in Divisions 4, 5, 10 and 11 of Part 4, and in Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4;

(e)the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: those elements contained in Divisions 30, 31, 34 and 39 of Part 4, and in Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4;

(f)the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs: those elements contained in Division 24 of Part 4;

(g)the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: those elements contained in Divisions 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35 and 38 of Part 4; and

(h)the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications: those elements contained in Division 2 of Part 3, and Divisions 22 and 23 of Part 4;

3.each of the committees listed in point 2 that are authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-47:

(a)submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 2, 2023; and

(b)be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting;

4.as the reports from the various committees authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-47 are tabled in the Senate, they be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting, provided that if a report is deposited with the Clerk, it be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting following the one on which the depositing is recorded in the Journals of the Senate;

5.the aforementioned committees be authorized to meet for the purposes of their studies of the subject matter of all or particular elements of Bill C-47, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto; and

6.the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to take any reports tabled under point 3 into consideration during its study of the subject matter of all of Bill C-47.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: I have a question. How can this be considered the same question if this question has not yet been raised in the Senate Chamber? Given that the Commons is where this matter has been raised and not here, are you concerned that the Senate applying a procedural tactic that should be determined by the House of Commons in the event this bill makes it there would cause a dangerous precedent and interfere with the jurisdictional boundaries that stipulate that each chamber is the master of their own domain?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would you take a question, Senator Tannas?

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Housakos. I ask for leave of the Senate that, following my intervention, the balance of his time to speak on this matter be reserved.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

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

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise to also speak in support of Bill S-244, Senator Bellemare’s bill proposing an Employment Insurance council. I believe the thoughtful measures this bill contains will play a key role in reforming Canada’s Employment Insurance system. This bill will help create a more resilient, adaptable, responsible and practical social safety net for Canadian workers.

The EI system was established in Canada in 1940. The federal government used to be one of the financial contributors to the program alongside employers and labour. However, in 1990, the federal government’s financial contributions were eliminated as the fund became self-financing. That is to say that the entire cost of the program is now shared between employers and employees. The system continues to be administered through Employment and Social Development Canada. I note this so that we understand how little feedback and involvement businesses and employees have in the design of Canada’s EI program.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought to light where our social safety nets and service delivery systems underperformed, albeit in extraordinary circumstances — I will give them that. Canada’s EI program was one of those safety nets that failed to live up to expectations. The system was not equipped to deal with the sudden decrease in labour force participation caused by the pandemic. As our country grappled with the situation, the EI system struggled to provide benefits for those who needed them the most. The federal government stepped in to respond to the urgent economic needs of Canadians by implementing the temporary Canada Emergency Response Benefit, also known as CERB, which provided financial support to employed and self-employed Canadians directly affected by COVID-19. Applicants received $2,000 for a four-week period, or $500 a week.

That was helpful, but the CERB did not solve the problems with EI. While the pandemic was perhaps the most recent example of the system failing to work for those who need it most, in truth, it has operated for decades without fully considering the realities of the changing labour market. In a recent op-ed published in the March 25 edition of the Toronto Star, Senator Bellemare argued that the government’s decision to create the CERB was a necessary response to an unprecedented crisis, but that the need to have to create the program at all highlighted long-standing problems and inefficiencies with our EI system.

Many papers and reports have been written on this subject, among them the 2021 House of Commons report titled Modernizing the Employment Insurance Program. Here are some of the issues that report identified: inadequate eligibility criteria that excludes many workers; long wait times for benefits; a lack of support for workers in non-traditional employment arrangements such as the gig economy; inadequate training and education programs that may not equip workers with the skills needed for emerging industries; inflexible maternity and parental benefits and insufficient support for caregivers. The report concluded that the program:

. . . no longer reflects the realities of today’s labour market and is not well-positioned to respond to sudden labour market disruptions, such as those that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. . . .

Our long-term resilience requires a more flexible and responsive EI system that can meet the needs of Canadian workers and employers, regardless of their location or industry. We need a system that can adapt to changing needs and the ever‑increasing demand for new skills and education. A flexible and functional Employment Insurance program will undoubtedly be a crucial component of Canada’s preparedness for future crises that may disrupt economic activity. It could provide financial stability to workers who have lost their jobs due to a crisis or due to the impact of automation and AI — artificial intelligence — replacing repeatable jobs. It could, or should, also promote fiscal recovery by continuing to stimulate the economy, support social cohesion by reducing the social and economic impacts of a crisis and provide support to vulnerable groups such as low-income workers, women and marginalized communities.

The federal government, seemingly in agreement with this argument, recently reached the end of extensive consultations aimed at modernizing EI for the post-pandemic period. However, it is Senator Bellemare’s belief, which I and many others share, that to create a resilient and adaptable system, reforms and new solutions must be informed by a continuous dialogue where there is an exchange of ideas and information between government, employers and employees. The main difference between consultations undertaken by government and continued social dialogue is that consultation is usually a temporary event aimed at gathering information for a specific purpose, unlike continued social dialogue, which is an ongoing process of engagement aimed at building relationships and promoting mutual understanding, which leads to building trust and promoting transparency.

Continued social dialogue is the most conducive to fostering long-term collaboration between stakeholders and policy-makers. Continued social dialogue involves regular meetings, consultations, negotiations and other forms of engagement to ensure that policies reflect the needs and interests of all stakeholders across dynamic and diverse regional economies. In the case of EI reform, continued social dialogue is crucial because it allows us to take a holistic approach to the issue. We can involve all stakeholders in these discussions, listen to their concerns and develop solutions that are practical, effective and sustainable. For example, by involving employers in the discussion and by identifying ways to provide more training and support to Canada’s diverse workforce, we would effectively reduce the need for EI in the first place.

Involving the labour force in the discussion will identify ways to also improve access to training and education which, in turn, will help workers find new employment quicker than otherwise — contributing to their household finances and our economy, as well as the tax base and shared prosperity.

Furthermore, continued social dialogue helps to ensure that policies are fair, inclusive and effective. When all parties feel that they have been heard and that their needs have been considered, they are more likely to support reforms and to implement them successfully.

Senator Bellemare’s bill seeks to address the imbalance between employers, employees and the EI regime itself. The bill takes a holistic look at the system, and recognizes that for the reform to effectively address the challenges that Canada faces, the government must treat employers and workers as true partners in finding and implementing solutions. The bill proposes to create a council that would act as an advisory body to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, or CEIC, which is the commission that oversees and sets policy for the Employment Insurance program. This new council would be comprised of an equal number of labour and employer representatives. It would be co-chaired by the Commissioner for Workers and the Commissioner for Employers, both of whom sit on the CEIC. It would not alter the membership or structure of the CEIC itself, but would be an advisory council that could provide advice and make recommendations.

The rationale for creating this advisory council is to give labour organizations and employers a formal structure to provide feedback to the CEIC on matters related to Employment Insurance. Currently, many labour groups and organizations that represent employers feel that they do not have enough opportunity to provide the CEIC with the necessary feedback, which underscores the need for this new advisory council.

This bill is being supported by labour groups, including Unifor, the Canadian Labour Congress and Canada’s Building Trades Unions, among others. On the employer side, it is being supported by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, among others.

Honourable senators, this bill seeks to address one of the key issues with the Employment Insurance regime: It doesn’t work as well as it should for both employers and labour. Continued social dialogue can help us develop a more flexible, responsible and sustainable EI system that can meet the demands of all employable Canadians. It can also help to build consensus and trust between different stakeholders, and ensure that the reforms are implemented and embraced successfully.

Establishing a council such as this one is a positive step that will benefit the entire system. For that reason, I support Bill S-244, and I respectfully ask all colleagues to support this initiative in its speedy referral to committee. Thank you. Hiy kitatamîhin.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).