Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As I have stated on many occasions, and I will repeat it again, it is the position of the government that the Special Rapporteur’s mandate has been discharged in an exemplary fashion with the publication of the report. The ongoing work that will follow the report is and will be to the benefit of Canadians and our security against foreign interference.

Senator Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).

I would like to thank the sponsor, Senator Bellemare, for bringing this legislation forward. I support the principle of this legislation and encourage senators to move it to committee for further study.

I think we can all agree that increased and better collaboration between employers, employees and their union representatives is good for all, particularly as they are significant stakeholders in the Employment Insurance system.

Senator Bellemare uses the terminology “social dialogue” to define that process, and social dialogue in labour relations encompasses the process of communication between employers; employees; their representatives, such as unions; and sometimes the government on issues related to labour policies, employment and working conditions. It is based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect and the search for common goals.

The outcome is more effective and more harmonious relations where both employers and employees have a voice in the decision-making process on issues that affect them both. It takes place in various forms, including consultations, collective bargaining and dialogues between government, employers and employees.

Colleagues, I wish to draw your attention to best practices from other parts of the world. The Nordic countries have a strong history of collaboration between trade unions and employers that has produced high rates of unionization and lower levels of income inequality. In France, social dialogue between unions, employer organizations and the government is used to negotiate policies and regulations.

In Germany — a country I know well — they have requirements for employees to participate in corporate decision making. In German, this is called Mitbestimmung or “codetermination.” As researchers Bennet Berger and Elena Vaccarino from Bruegel have pointed out, codetermination is deeply rooted in the tradition of German corporate governance, and it has existed in its current form since the Codetermination Act of 1976. It has an explicit social dimension: As the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled, codetermination on the company level is meant to introduce equal participation of shareholders and employees in corporate decision making, and complements the economic legitimacy of a firm’s management with a social dimension. Codetermination is, therefore, about a democratic decision-making process at the firm level, as well as the equality of capital and work.

I think the proof is in the pudding: We know that Germany is the economic heartbeat of Europe. We know that German companies and workers have not suffered. In fact, they’ve gained because of codetermination.

Researchers have pointed out that studies from Germany’s experience with codetermination indicate that it leads to less short-termism in corporate decision making and much higher levels of pay equality, while other studies demonstrate positive results on productivity and innovation.

Colleagues, Senator Bellemare is using the spirit and the practice of social dialogue in the creation of the employment insurance council. We know that Employment Insurance is an equal proposition where employees and employers pay into the system. Therefore, it begs to reason that both should have a voice in how it is determined, how the rates are set and what the future of the system will be. I believe that this is overdue.

The bill outlines the composition of this new employment insurance council, as well as its roles and responsibilities. I agree with much of what the sponsor has included here: five representatives from labour and five representatives from employers being mandatory on the advisory council.

In addition, Senator Bellemare proposes an observing group to include Indigenous representation. I’m not entirely clear why Indigenous representation is an observing group, and why they are not in the proposed employment insurance council. I suggest that this is something the committee should study. Also, it’s not mentioned how other equity-deserving groups are included in this council. I believe that this is a factor that should be focused on in committee.

There is another part of the bill that has not received much attention in this chamber. The bill amends the Department of Employment and Social Development to pull together the powers, the duties and the functions of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission which, right now, are sprinkled throughout the act — you have to go on a fishing expedition to find them. Senator Bellemare’s bill brings some efficiency by putting them together in one place.

Included in this are monitoring and assessing the assistance provided under the Employment Insurance Act; reporting annually on its assessment to the minister, who must table it in Parliament; reviewing and approving policies related to the administration of employment benefits or support measures under the Employment Insurance Act; making regulations under this act; engaging the services of an actuary, as described in subsection 28(4), to perform actuarial forecasts; setting the Employment Insurance premium rate for each year, in accordance with section 66 of the Employment Insurance Act; et cetera.

Frankly, I’m agnostic on this list of duties, but I do believe it needs to be studied with a great deal of thoroughness at committee.

I believe this is an important bill. I think it should be sent to committee to be studied. Colleagues have already spoken about it, and I urge you to send it to committee as soon as you can. Thank you.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Manning, seconded by the Honourable Senator Batters, for the second reading of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.

Senator Plett: In a democratic society, the government doesn’t have to adhere to democracy.

Senator Housakos: Not this one.

Senator Carignan: There seems to be a disconnect between what this government says and what it does. Once again, one of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ recommendations is a three-year plan for the Treasury Board to rectify the situation by 2025.

Senator Carignan: There seems to be a disconnect between what this government says and what it does. Once again, one of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ recommendations is a three-year plan for the Treasury Board to rectify the situation by 2025.

Why do we need the Commissioner of Official Languages to come up with a three-year plan? Is this government incapable of governing and making its own plans to address a disastrous report on official languages?

Senator Plett: I didn’t hear the motion.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

Although I am not familiar with all of the details as to how the $2.5 million will be allocated, as I said, it will be allocated to set up the standing Indigenous table on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and to include the implementation of a Red Dress alert.

I will bring your question to the attention of the appropriate minister or ministers, but this is a very important start on which the federal government is taking the lead.

[Translation]

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to applaud the innovative and progressive work of Canada’s agriculture and processing sectors, and to highlight the red tape limiting industry’s innovations.

I recently met with representatives of Dairy Distillery, the producers of Vodkow. Many of you may be aware of this amazing and great-tasting vodka produced using dairy processing by-products. This Almonte, Ontario, business is well-known throughout Canada for its excellent spirits, but also for pivoting from making Vodkow during the COVID-19 pandemic to producing hand sanitizer, a significant amount of which they donated throughout the region and province.

This organization has taken an innovative approach to waste reduction by using dairy permeate surplus to produce ethanol. It’s innovative, progressive and an excellent addition to Canada’s economy. However, fellow senators, the government’s lack of support for innovation is clearly apparent for the Dairy Distillery and many other companies across Canada. Due to the lack of commitment to small businesses and the ever-growing changes, rules and regulations placed on Canadian business, known as red tape, Dairy Distillery has been forced to move to produce ethanol in the United States, and they are using U.S. dairy permeate surplus to produce this ethanol.

The current U.S. administration has offered significant subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, which now is costing Canadian innovation and ingenuity. Though Dairy Distillery has acknowledged there are Canadian markets to establish an ethanol production operation here in Canada, it simply cannot find a competitive avenue to exist in this country. So they’ve settled in Michigan.

Senators, I’m concerned about the current government practices. Valuable businesses like the Dairy Distillery worked to support Canadians in times of crisis — they produced hand sanitizer for us. Now, in the climate crisis, they’re producing 2.2 million gallons of cleaner ethanol each year in partnership with a dairy co-op, which is calculated to displace 14,000 tonnes of carbon. That would mean a 5% reduction in the amount of carbon produced by that co-op. The plant will be powered by methane produced in the ethanol production process as well.

This eco-friendly process aligns with the green ambitions of this country and this government, yet they are forced to move across the border, and the U.S. will reap the benefits of the 2.2 million gallons of ethanol.

Colleagues, we must continue to foster the interests of green enterprise. Climate change is real, and the Canadian government needs to take priority action to encourage businesses to establish within our country.

I thank the Dairy Distillery for its hard work for Canadians, and hope that soon there will be equal opportunity for them to innovate here in Canada. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Gold: Again, the short answer to your question is that the government is of the view, notwithstanding the motion, which is not binding on the government, that the best way forward remains that which is outlined in the Special Rapporteur’s report and the steps that are going to be taken.

With respect to your question — because there were a number of preambular statements — surely, Senator Housakos, you are not suggesting that the cultural institutions such as the one referred to yesterday by our colleague Senator Woo were in every corner illegal police stations simply because there are allegations that some activities within that large organization that has served the community for 50 years have been alleged to have been illegal, and that is what has been investigated.

It may very well be the case — though I have no information to this effect, because this is not information that the RCMP shares with the government during an ongoing investigation — that certain activities were indeed shut down and may have popped up again. We will not know until the investigations are done. Again, I think it is irresponsible, with all due respect, to categorize these as untruths or “mistruths” — whatever the term was, as Hansard will reveal — or lies, as your leader has just shared with the chamber. I think it is more accurate and responsible to await the results of the independent RCMP investigations into this very serious matter.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Senator Shugart’s wife, Mrs. Linda Shugart, and his daughter, Robin Shugart.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Yussuff: First, thank you for your question, Senator Plett.

As you know, the courts have ruled in regard to minimum sentences. The government reflected that in regard to its action. But, in regard to the current average sentence for smuggling and convictions, on average those who are convicted serve eight years of their sentence. As you know, and as I said in my speech, the government has signalled, again, that it will increase the sentence for those smuggling guns into our country.

There are many things that the government is doing to deal with firearm infractions at the community level — including how we can prevent young people from adopting habits where they associate with individuals who might persuade them into gun crime. The government has dedicated a lot of resources to ensure that we can achieve that. They’re working in many border communities to stop smuggling, as well as raising awareness and support for police officers on the front lines to ensure that we don’t have illegal guns in our country.

I think those efforts need to continue as long as necessary because criminals who want to smuggle illegal firearms into our country will continue to do so. We have to find ways to combat that, and work to strengthen legislation. This bill offers us some direction to ensure those things can happen, but, at the same time, it is about supporting our front-line officers who are doing their best at the border, and other areas, to ensure they can catch these people, and ultimately put them in the legal system, so that we can try them and ensure they serve sentences for the behaviour that they are involved in.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Ibrahima Socé Fall, Dr. Anthony Solomon and Alison Krentel. They are the guests of the Honourable Senators Boehm and Kutcher.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. Look, it is a challenge in government to work across departments. From my experience in the last three and a half years, I can attest to the fact that on many policy fronts there are three, four or sometimes even a larger number of ministers who are mandated to work together on this, which is a serious attempt to not be trapped in silos. The government is attentive to that and, in my experience, is in fact doing that. I will certainly bring this to the attention of my colleagues in the other place to reinforce the point that you made, which is a totally valid one.

With regard to what we can do in the Senate, the Senate can do many things. We are the masters of our own house. That includes, if the Senate so wills, launching a study on this and providing some input, guidance and reflections to the benefit of this and any future government.

Senator Yussuff: With pleasure, my friend.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The Government of Canada has a great deal of respect for the commissioner’s recommendations. That is his job and he does it very well. The government will take into consideration all his recommendations to ensure that the situation improves.

However, again, Bill C-13 contains very important changes and improvements that intersect with your question, and I hope that the bill will receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

[English]

Senator Batters: Would Senator Dalphond take a question about that intervention?

Senator Plett: I would like to hear the motion.

Senator Plett: That was on debate, Your Honour.

Senator Batters: Did he say “no”?

Senator Dalphond: No.

Senator Plett: Thank you. I want to make one comment about sport shooters. Of course, I will be making my own speech on this in the next little while, if the government leader doesn’t decide to put closure on it before we get to it next week.

I do want to make a comment about sport shooters. In fact, allowing sport shooters to continue, as this bill — you’re right — does, is a little bit like saying you can play hockey, but we will start hockey at the NHL. Nobody below NHL level can play hockey. That’s what this does. We can still have the Olympic shooters, but we can’t have the amateurs training to come up. Now, you’re right, the bill addresses the fact that we want to deal with this, but it’s not dealing with it. This is, again, the government saying, “Trust us. We will deal with this.” But it’s not in the bill, Senator Yussuff.

Right now, the way the bill reads, you can go to the Olympics and be a sports shooter but you cannot practise going up to the Olympics. So how many people will we have in the Olympics if we cannot train them?

I have one final question, and I thank you for your indulgence, Senator Yussuff. But you do state — and you said it again:

. . . fundamentally, for me, this bill is about striking a fair balance between the right of Canadians to safe communities and the privilege of Canadians to own certain types or models of guns for hunting and sport shooting. Finding that balance is no easy task.

I do agree with you. Finding that balance is no easy task. But based on the criticism that this bill has received from all sides, I would say that the government has actually destroyed a balance that previously existed, Senator Yussuff.

The bill is opposed by most provinces. It is opposed by hunters and sports shooters, even though you say sports shooters will be able to continue. It has been opposed by police witnesses who have appeared on this bill and have said that it will do nothing to stop the illegal guns on the streets. The criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association has said that the red flag provisions in the bill simply duplicate powers that already exist to seize firearms from persons who may be a danger to themselves or others.

So, Senator Yussuff, what do you or what does the government actually believe it has accomplished in the face of all of this opposition?