Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. With all due respect, the government is not silent. The government is taking this matter very seriously and considering possible courses of action. As I said, once debate on your bill begins, the government will make its position known.

[English]

Senator Dupuis: Do we agree, you and I, that this question deserves to be studied by the Senate as legislator, since the Supreme Court itself noted that it couldn’t rule on the change to section 43, which is ultimately in the hands of parliamentarians?

[English]

Senator Poirier: This is where I think the committee could do some work. First of all, at the moment, there isn’t even a system in place to give a voice to those who are affected by all this. There’s no one to hear them.

It is all well and good to speak with the government representatives who are here and are making the decisions, but there’s no recourse to make sure that those voices are heard. That’s where we have to start, to make sure that everyone understands. The sad thing is that many people believe that seasonal workers — I already introduced an inquiry on this subject a few years ago, perhaps before you arrived in the Senate.

There are places in the country, like New Brunswick, for example, where people work in the fishing industry, in a potato field, in agriculture or in tourism, but the season eventually comes to an end. The number of weeks of benefits they receive it isn’t good enough, especially if they have a family. We got a response right away, and everyone agreed that, yes, we need a pilot project, but we’re well beyond that now. We need to do something to fix the situation in the regions. If all seasonal work were to disappear, our country would be in a real sorry state. Thank you.

Senator Yussuff: First, thank you for your remarks in regard to your experience but also on the bill. As we know, it has been decades since we have had a major overhaul of the EI system in this country. Regardless of where you live, whether in an urban environment or a rural community, the challenges a worker faces on a daily basis are no different — what happens to them if they fall through the cracks or do not have benefits or are unemployed.

I think it is fair to say the system we have used for the last decades to try to address these concerns has not really gotten to the crux of the matter: How can we put a better system in place to recognize the reality of what Canada is?

In rural communities, it is quite normal that people work seasonally. Without those people, those industries would die. I will use P.E.I. as an example. We need people to harvest potatoes as we need people to harvest fish. But there are times when there is no work for them to do in those industries, and it is part of our collective responsibility to look after them.

I hope that many of the concerns you have raised on the bill can be addressed by the committee and that they will hear from witnesses who will be able to tell their stories. The structure that Senator Bellemare’s bill proposes will be as inclusive as it can be to ensure that all regions and all industries in this country have a seat at the table. The workers and employers are the ones who pay into the system.

Would you not agree that we can address those concerns you have raised while, equally, ensuring those voices will be heard when the new structure is created if this bill were to pass and become part of the law in this country?

Senator Forest: I have a follow-up question. How do we distinguish between a slap out of love and a spanking? How do we define that?

[English]

Senator Plett: I think that if you had been listening to my speech, Senator Dupuis, you would find out that, no, I’m not in agreement with that. We’ve dealt with this 17 times before, and each time it was rejected. I do believe in a democracy. If it is again rejected and next year somebody brings it forward — I’m only here for two more years, I only have two more kicks at this — I will oppose it the next two times, as I did the last time.

Do I agree that we have the right? No, I wish that we would kill this bill now. I’m not going to oppose it going to committee; it has been decided. I spoke today as the critic, Senator Dupuis. That in itself should tell you that I do agree with legislation being studied at committee. It will go to committee tonight.

Senator Woo: Would you take a question, Senator Downe?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Your Honour. I’m not on debate. I’m not questioning your hearing of the call for “no,” but I didn’t hear it. So I wanted you to ask the question again. Thank you.

Senator Gold: There’s no question there.

Again, it’s quite clear: There’s a big difference between an obligation to submit reports to Parliament — which is important and healthy and demonstrates good governance — and asking a minister to get involved if, in fact, the legislative framework doesn’t allow such involvement.

[English]

Senator Anderson: Thank you. In the Northwest Territories, where 100% of our children in care are Indigenous, and in Canada, where we have overrepresentation of Indigenous children, my question to you is: Has there been any thought given to the risk that the passage of this bill would give additional grounds for the removal of Indigenous children from their homes and communities as well as potential grounds for criminalization of Indigenous parents?

Senator Gold: — looks forward to the constructive engagement of the opposition parties to chart a path forward.

[Translation]

Senator Gignac: Thank you, Senator Gold. I understand that CPP Investments is independent of the political power, and I respect that.

In my opinion, Canadians have the right to know more about the nature of the investments that their retirement plan is making abroad. That would help us to validate not only the carbon footprint of those investments, but also their tax footprint and democratic footprint, given that they’re being made in many countries that don’t really respect the rules of law, human rights and tax fairness. Senator Gold, don’t you think it is time for the Minister of Finance to require CPP Investments and other public sector pension plans in Canada to provide more information and to be more transparent about their activities abroad?

Senator Plett: Thank you very much for that question, and I think that you make a wonderful point. But I’m the critic of this bill so I have not given that any consideration. You would have to ask Senator Kutcher at an opportunity or maybe at committee. But I think that you make a very legitimate point in what you said, Senator Anderson, and that should be considered.

Senator Batters: Senator Omidvar, your Recommendation 2 talks about “targeting populations that are currently overrepresented in Canada’s suicide rates . . . . ” In that short list, your committee included “persons with mental illnesses.”

Senator Batters: Senator Omidvar, your Recommendation 2 talks about “targeting populations that are currently overrepresented in Canada’s suicide rates . . . . ” In that short list, your committee included “persons with mental illnesses.”

Senator Omidvar, another fact noted in that 2010 commercial I mentioned was that 90% of those who die by suicide have mental illness, so it’s not a subset of suicide deaths in Canada. This is nearly the entire group of suicide deaths in Canada.

Why did your committee include that in your targeted demographic list?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Batters, I understand what you’re saying. Mental health is likely an underlying cause for suicides, regardless of which population they are in. I take your point, but I believe the committee did recognize the importance of mental illness as a condition, and we’ve noted it in the recommendation.

If you have not found it to your satisfaction, in retrospect, I wish you had been called as a witness; that would have helped. Hopefully, the next time we study this matter, we will remember to do so.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

Senator Downe: Yes.

Senator Plett: Again, as I said to Senator McPhedran, the courts have decided that. They have come out with it. You and I do not need to decide that. The courts have decided it for us.

Senator Plett: Again, hiding the cost. Why not just answer my question? Why not get the information? Answer the questions you are asked. You say that we are partisan and that we are frustrating to you. Yet, you refuse to answer any of our questions. You do not even come close.

On May 24, Minister Guilbeault promised the four Atlantic premiers that he would provide them with information in two weeks, leader, about how much of a burden the Prime Minister’s second carbon tax will be on their people. Those two weeks have come and gone, yet the provinces are still looking for answers from the Trudeau government. Leader, July 1 is just around the corner. Minister Guilbeault must know how much the second carbon tax will cost Canadians — or does he? Is he simply flying by the seat of his pants? Why hasn’t he had the courtesy to provide the information to the premiers, as promised? Why don’t you have the courtesy to give us the answers?

Why hasn’t your government had the sense to cancel this punitive and inflationary carbon tax?

Senator Plett: Yes.

[Translation]

Senator Wells: Understood, Your Honour. As I wait for the motion to be returned to me, I will explain to Senator Dupuis and, of course, to all our colleagues that there was agreement that the bill be referred to the Agriculture Committee as the lead committee and to the Energy Committee as the secondary committee. In the note that was given to me it said the Finance Committee, but I know there was agreement that it would not go there.

If you’d like me to read that section again, I’d be happy to do so, Your Honour. I’ll read the three sections.

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, if Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, is adopted at second reading:

1.it stand referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry;

2.the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill; and

3.the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to take into account, during its consideration of the bill, any public documents and public evidence received by the committee authorized to study the subject matter of the bill, as well as any report from that committee to the Senate on the subject matter of the bill.

Colleagues, as I said, the Finance Committee was removed from the original draft, and the agreement that we have with all parties is that it be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, with, obviously, assistance — more than assistance — from the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.