Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Will you take another question, Senator Prosper?

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: I would like to ask Senator Cormier a question.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Your Honour, I take the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Senator Bellemare, thank you again for sparking our imagination and prompting discussion about the Bank of Canada. You’ll recall that a few months ago, when the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before our committee, I asked him who he was consulting. He replied that he was consulting several Crown corporations and interdepartmental committees to gather as much information as possible.

Given the evolving nature of the economy, whether because of the pandemic, supply chains or the environment, do you think it’s a good idea for this advisory committee to be a permanent committee? Shouldn’t it instead be made up of ad hoc members, so as to capitalize on experts in whatever field the geopolitical or economic situation calls for?

Senator Bellemare: Thank you for the question. I think that this should be a permanent committee whose members serve a renewable three-year term so they have time to really get into the files. The bill states that the chosen experts must be able to demonstrate outstanding expertise in two of the five following areas: the labour market, open-economy macroeconomics, supply chains, the financial system and risk management. These are important areas of expertise from different backgrounds.

Let’s get back to transparency. In your question, the governor relies, as he said, on core inflation, a statistic whose accuracy is unknown. We’ve been told that this is a metric calculated by stripping out the most volatile components of the consumer price index, but what exactly is core inflation?

These are questions that a permanent committee could study and then explain to people, and this would build confidence around what the bank is doing.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, it’s hard to follow Senator Plett on his good days.

I have no prepared speech, but I took note of your different comments, and I feel compelled to put in my two cents’ worth.

Senator Tannas, I totally agree with you in regard to omnibus bills. You and I were from both in different partisan caucuses when our partisan leaders agreed to accept omnibus bills. That was something like 17 years ago and omnibus bills have not stopped since.

We brought up the issue at the Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee was operating and is still operating on consensus basis. We had no consensus, so we didn’t resolve the issue of how to deal with omnibus bills in the Senate.

We’re not about to tell the other place how to deal with their legislation and how they want to do it, but we are masters of our own chamber. Every year in December and June, we talk about omnibus bills. We make remarks in our different committee reports about omnibus bills. Yet we go home and then we come back, and we’ve forgotten until the next omnibus budget bill.

So, colleagues, can we agree — at least the members of the Independent Senators Group, and as per Senator Plett’s statement earlier, he would agree with us — that when we come back in September, it is going to be our first order of priority to agree on how to deal with omnibus bills, and send that message to the other place so they know well in advance where we stand, not at the eleventh hour?

That is the first issue that we’re discussing.

By the way, isn’t it nice that we take on an issue, and we don’t stop after 15 minutes and wait two weeks to continue that discussion? Isn’t it nice that we entertain an issue, and we can all voice our opinions and deal with the situation?

That is another thing that we, as an independent Senate, have to start to deal with: How do we manage our discussions and how do we move forward with legislation and motions? Enough is enough of this “a little bit here and a little bit there.” Enough is enough of that.

Okay, I’m going off topic. But Senator Plett got me all energized.

The other issue that is really the crux of your amendment is in regard to the Canada Elections Act. Unfortunately, in all the discussions so far, nobody has brought forth the very important issue in regard to that. It is our primary document that creates democracy in Canada.

In order to create that democracy in Canada, political parties need funding. The names of people who fund political parties — because it’s in the Canada Elections Act — will be public and transparent, because our democracy demands that. If it is public and transparent, it is also subject to a cap; individuals are maximized per year regarding donations to political parties.

How can you ensure that Elections Canada will make sure that those maximums are respected? How can we make sure that our political parties are transparent in regard to donations? It is through the Canada Elections Act and through the transparency therein.

Why do you think the other place, so far, has not been able to deal with this issue of privacy versus democratic transparency?

I understand there will be pressure on them to deal with this, but I honestly believe that Canadians who make donations to a political party understand that the system will make their names public, along with the amount of their donations. That has been on the books for 30 years.

So that’s not the issue.

How will the political parties in the other place that face elections and need to make amendments to the Canada Elections Act be able to differentiate the personal information of their donors and the transparency of political party funding and the survival of our democracy?

Colleagues, I would definitely say that the other place cannot deal with this issue because of the four political parties in the other place — not in the time frame that you would like, Senator Tannas. It is mission impossible. I think they’re all just getting their heads around this because of the process in B.C.

Senator Tannas, I believe that your intentions are good. But this is not the place to move your intention in regard to getting this privacy issue done and, Senator Deacon, in regard to personal privacy. This is not where it will be accomplished.

The third message I want to convey — and I’m taking this opportunity to say so — is that when we send a message from the Senate in regard to the budget bill, it better not be on a Canada Elections Act issue. It better be on an issue that is concerning every Canadian’s pocketbook. Then, we will, from my perspective, be justified in making an amendment and sending a message to the other place in regard to what we think. It’s like how Senator Shugart put it when he said “disproportionate” — I agree with him.

Therefore, Senator Tannas and colleagues, I will not be voting for this motion on the grounds of my statement.

Thank you.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to a specific section of Bill C-47, the budget implementation bill.

In this bill, division 34 of part 4 amends section 347 of the Criminal Code in order to lower to 35% the criminal rate of interest, in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles.

As many of you know, this is an issue I have been endeavouring to fix for a very long time, nearly 10 years.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Would you take a question?

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: I will be brief, Madam Speaker, and thank you for recognizing me.

This is not the first time in the last month that a point of order on this subject has been brought to the attention of the Chair. I believe that a point of order has already been raised, and Speaker Furey ruled on the subject. Perhaps some of our colleagues have forgotten that ruling.

Perhaps we simply need to remind colleagues that a ruling has already been made and accepted by everyone in the chamber. Thank you.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I wish to join all of you in extending my sincere congratulations to our new Speaker, the 46th Speaker, Senator Gagné, and wishing her all the best in this new chapter of her parliamentary life. I am even more thrilled that, after 44 years, a woman is finally serving as the Speaker of the Senate, and what’s more, she’s a francophone from a minority community.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I wish to join all of you in extending my sincere congratulations to our new Speaker, the Forty-sixth Speaker, Senator Gagné, and wishing her all the best in this new chapter of her parliamentary life. I am even more thrilled that, after 44 years, a woman is finally serving as the Speaker of the Senate, and what’s more, she’s a francophone from a minority community.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, last Friday, Senate Human Resources gave out certificates of appreciation for the first time since the pandemic. Many senators attended the event, including our Speaker, George Furey, our Clerk, Gérald Lafrenière, as well as Pascale Legault and Philippe Hallée.

[English]

It is no small feat and very worthy of recognition to devote so much to public service: 130 Senate employees from our offices and Senate administration received awards for 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 years of service. I can’t name everyone in the time I’m allowed, but I would like to congratulate those within this chamber that we see daily as we sit here and whom we seek advice from.

They include the Usher of the Black Rod, Greg Peters, 40 years of combined service; our Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Philippe Hallée, 30 years; Till Heyde, 25 years of service; Jodi Turner, 20 years of service; Adam Thompson, 20 years of service; and Shaila Anwar, 15 years of service.

It is with great appreciation that I stand here today to thank all of you for your hard work and devotion to this institution and all the work we do for this great nation.

Colleagues, most of the recognized 130 employees we do not see. They are the hard-working employees who work behind the scenes, be it with IT, finance, the minutes of our proceedings, client services, mail, printing, planning, cleaning, et cetera. I think I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say that our jobs would be impossible without you and the extraordinary support you provide every day and, more often than we may like, some nights also.

While we senators may be the face of the Senate, the staffers we work with are the brains and the soul that make this place the grand chamber of sober second thought that it is. It is our staff’s institutional knowledge, sound judgment, keen insight and unwavering support that is the strength behind us and behind this institution.

To all our staff, thank you for your hard work, your devotion and for continuing to make the Senate such a great place to work. It’s a pleasure to work with you also. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, it is fitting that, on February 14, a day for showing our loved ones that we love them and appreciate them, we should pay our deepest respects to a wonderful woman, the late senator Viola Léger, who recently passed away at the age of 92.

Viola was a senator for New Brunswick from 2001 to 2006, during which time she served on both the Committee on Official Languages and the Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. That is no coincidence since she was a staunch advocate for minorities throughout her life.

During her years in the Senate, she regularly charmed us with her insightful poems that showed us the fundamental role of culture as a reflection of Canadian diversity, united by our common values. I don’t have time, in these three short minutes, to list all of the titles and honours that she was awarded, but they were all very well deserved.

For francophones from New Brunswick, she was our ambassador, both nationally and internationally, bringing our history to life on stage in her role as La Sagouine. Off stage, it was her smile, her intelligence and life experience that shone through.

Like the star on the Acadian flag, she was for many of us a guiding star whose wisdom and dignity served to light the way for future generations of Acadian artists, like our own Senator René Cormier and many others. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Cormier, who gave an eloquent eulogy at Viola’s funeral last week. Thank you, René.

It goes without saying that, of all the roles Viola undertook during her lifetime, her performance on stage in the role of La Sagouine, from the novel of the same name written by her friend Antonine Maillet, was particularly exceptional. Every time I attended a performance, I was moved by her monologue, and the fact that she could enthrall the audience for hours, all on her own. That was just one of her many feats.

In the Senate on May 19, 2005, during her statement on the influence of culture, she said the following:

The arts play an indispensable role in our mutual understanding.

Artistic creation awakens our consciousness. It is a source of meditation, inspiration, reflection and comfort. The arts help balance us, elevate our souls, and allow us to breathe, to live. . . .

The arts define us and, above all, help us understand who we are as Canadians and what our society is all about.

Honourable senators, Viola’s statement was one of love — appropriate for us on Valentine’s Day. It shows her love for Acadia, for culture, for the arts, for Canada and for all of us who have been blessed to have known her at some point in her life.

Dear Viola, thank you so much for dedicating your life to the love of culture, and love for one another. Know that your memory will live on in our hearts.

You accomplished your life and your mission brilliantly. Rest in peace.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I must admit that after hearing the excellent speech by Senator Audette, I’m a bit embarrassed to speak. However, I wanted to talk to you about what I consider to be a personal event that contributed to the discussion on the bill respecting Lebanese heritage month.

Indeed, in our small rural region of northwestern New Brunswick, we have a Lebanese family. They’re entrepreneurs, but mostly people who are dedicated to the community, volunteers at the church and members of every cultural organization. I will never forget them.

However, I want to remind some of you here today — several of you who weren’t here 10 years ago — of an event involving a potato farmer in my great region of northwestern New Brunswick.

[English]

That potato farmer was named Henk Tepper. And Henk Tepper was imprisoned in Lebanon 10 years ago based on an extradition mandate requested by the Algerian government supposedly for a shipment of bad potatoes that was, a month after, sold to the Syrians. We have no knowledge of any Syrian who died from eating those New Brunswick potatoes.

However, since the month of May when the family came to my home and asked for my help to try to get Mr. Tepper back to Canada, I started on a journey that I never thought would bring me to so many challenges — so many personal, political challenges — in all my life. Actually, for 10 months, I hardly slept because I was going over and over in my head: What can I do? What have I missed? Where do I go from here?

The issue was that Mr. Tepper was in a Lebanese prison. And though myself and many of my colleagues in the Senate at that time made representations to our Canadian foreign affairs office and minister, there was, from my perspective, no real help provided to Mr. Tepper while in prison in Lebanon. That avenue was hardly open.

We also explored the Algerian avenue to see how we could provide proof to the Algerian government that the potatoes were not rotted. There, we bumped into another dead end because I called the senator in Algeria who was responsible for agriculture. It turned out that senator’s nephew was the Minister of Agriculture. It triggered something bizarre in my head, and I went and did all of the research for agriculture for the year before the event happened in Algeria, where I figured out that in the Algerian press there was the notion of a potato consortium in Algeria. That was another dead end.

The only option that we had was to give all the proof that we could to the Lebanese government. We managed to provide that to the Prime Minister, Minister of Justice, Attorney General and a few judges who understood the case. We did so from May going to December of that year, where myself and Mr. Tepper’s lawyer from New Brunswick went to Lebanon. Landing in Lebanon, we got the message from the Canadian embassy that we should leave Lebanon, that we had nothing to do there.

Those of you who know me certainly understand that I am more dedicated and persistent than that. The next day, we visited Mr. Tepper in his prison. Boy, he was certainly not the jolly giant that I knew the year before. But through that effort, we spent five days meeting with ministers, including the then-Minister of Tourism, who has dual citizenship. He was also a Canadian from Montreal.

Colleagues, if it had not been for the very tight relationship and mutual respect between Canadians and Lebanese, who understand and share our values, Mr. Tepper would have been sent to Algeria to never be seen again.

Two months after our visit to all of these Lebanese authorities, Mr. Tepper was given back his Canadian passport, put on a plane and sent back to Canada. That is my experience with the Lebanese community, and the values that we share and the friendship that we share.

I am very grateful to Senator Cordy to have put this bill in front of us. I hope that it will not be delayed. Don’t delay this for the sake of delaying tactics. It does not give you anything at the end of the day.

Coincidentally, it is before Christmas. I will be ever so grateful — and not only me. The entire northwest of New Brunswick wanted their potato farmer back in their community. It was because of the Lebanese authorities and friendship that they have with Canada. At least for me, I want this bill to be moved forward before Christmas as a sign of good will for this very decent human event that you did for a Canadian potato farmer. Let’s do this and get this passed before Christmas. Thank you.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, do not worry. I don’t intend to speak for 15 minutes, although I would like to provide you with some of my concerns.

First and foremost, I can certainly understand the frustration of our very competent Agriculture and Forestry Committee members who, unfortunately, at the time of their meeting on this bill in June, did not receive critical information. As of September, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, provided the financial consequences this bill would have on P.E.I.’s working poor. From my perspective, it is imperative that the members of the Agriculture Committee receive this bill and hear from the PBO. That is why I put forth the amendment.

Honourable senators, since my speech and the amendment that I made a week ago, I have received written letters on this issue. One stated that the PBO report “is untrue and, frankly, misleading.” Another one says that he agrees with the PBO report. Another letter received yesterday from a former witness of the committee says that the PBO report is “a flawed report from Ottawa.”

Colleagues, there’s an old saying that you can bring a horse to the trough, but you cannot make him drink. I believe this is the case for many — maybe too many. I don’t believe it is the case for the majority of my colleagues, though, on the Agriculture Committee.

The key element in the review is having the PBO as a witness. However, regarding the subamendment that we have before us tabled by Senator Black, what he said in his speech seems to indicate that he wishes to hear again from all the witnesses who testified last June:

It is imperative that the committee be able to hear from any relevant source with information on the matter who could inform the committee’s report on this bill. We cannot limit ourselves to just the PBO, given that the information that was released in September by their office is both new to us and to our witnesses that we heard from previously. It cannot be assumed that this information will not have an impact on their perspectives, given that we would return to this bill with the understanding that this report could change our perspectives as well.

That is fine, I would say.

At that one two-hour meeting with two panels of the Agriculture Committee, there were seven witnesses who were invited. Even at that number, I truly believe this could be achieved, even after reinviting all the witnesses in June, within, at most, one meeting for the Parliamentary Budget Officer and another meeting for two panels of seven witnesses. That’s two meetings in total.

I’m trying to understand this unlimited period of time. Honourable senators, I trust the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry will not want to delay this restudy and re-report, as they have an interesting and promising soil conservation study and report that I am also looking forward to reading.

Last but not least, honourable colleagues, I have received a letter from a witness at the June meeting of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I should also say that this letter is very adversarial to the speech I gave.

Honourable colleagues, if need be, I will again state in this house that I spent more than a week in carrying out research, and every word in that speech is accurate. I challenge anyone who wants to question any word or research in that speech.

That said, the letter from the witness says, “As an unelected senator, please do not deprive our P.E.I.-elected representative in Ottawa —” that would be the people in the other place, “— the opportunity to vote on this important issue.”

Colleagues, I raised this in my original speech, because my office did the research from 2015 to 2020. The P.E.I. representative in the other place could not vote on this issue because at no time was there a motion or a bill in the other place on which to vote.

Honourable colleagues, I trust your judgment with regard to the amendment and subamendment, and I also trust that the members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee will do the right thing for the Senate as an institution and, particularly with regard to this bill, the P.E.I. working poor who are facing a very unfortunate winter ahead. Thank you.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Senator, would you take another question?

Senator C. Deacon: Absolutely.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette moved, seconded by Senator Petitclerc:

That Bill S-236, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island), as amended, be not read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer concerning his office’s fiscal analysis on the bill; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than November 15, 2022.

She said: Thank you very much.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, as a practice and courtesy and because Senator Plett adjourned the debate, I asked and he agreed that I speak this week and adjourn the debate in his name.

I rise today to give my remarks and hopefully bring clarity to the third reading debate on Bill S-236. I also believe that the sponsor, Senator Duncan, and our competent senator members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee are of good faith. However, new critical information has been brought to our attention.

I want to give my thanks to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer for their fiscal analysis, i.e., the impact this bill will have on the working poor of P.E.I. This bill is of interest to me because of my life commitment to fight for the working poor. This bill has a negative impact of $76.6 million on the working poor of P.E.I. over the next five years, as per the Parliamentary Budget Officer report. In fact, the merger of the two Employment Insurance zones would also merge the unemployment rate. In real numbers, as of October 9, the Charlottetown zone, with its current 5.5% unemployment rate, represents 1,800 persons, while the rural zone, at 9.6%, represents 5,600 unemployed persons as per survey by Statistics Canada.

Therefore, the number of unemployed people — mostly seasonal workers — in the rural zone is three times bigger than the one in the Charlottetown agglomerate zone. In essence, the merger, as of this month, would bring the unemployment rate to 7.5% for the entire island. At this merged rate, the 5,600 unemployed persons in the rural zone would have to work 105 more hours to qualify, while the 1,800 in Charlottetown would need 70 fewer hours to qualify.

Regarding weeks of benefits, the rural 5,600 would be receiving three fewer weeks, and the 1,800 in Charlottetown would receive three more weeks of benefits.

As these numbers are survey results ending in September, we must keep in mind that as we move to winter, seasonal unemployment increases and so does the unemployment rate, particularly for those in rural P.E.I. where the numbers are currently 3% greater. This bill penalizes, as of October 9, at least 5,600 rural seasonal workers while benefiting the 1,800 in the Charlottetown agglomerate zone.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer report of September 7 gives us the financial impact of the merger for at least 5,600 working poor, forecasting a loss in benefits for them of $76.6 million over five years. This is the first point that needs to be clear for every senator.

Honourable senators, the Employment Insurance Act and regulations are very complex in their design, with a slate of variables depending on the 62 zones’ unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted with a rolling three-month average. I am not an expert, but I certainly understand how the system works.

As per the current Employment Insurance Act regulations, the rate in the 62 zones is established by a monthly survey by Statistics Canada, as per their 2011 census zones. By law, these rates are not established by government, not by the House of Commons and not by the department.

In Annex B of the act, you will find the national chart of hours required and maximum benefits paid as per Statistics Canada’s monthly unemployment rate survey. Reality is different from what certain witnesses told the committee about how this national system works.

This is the second point that needs to be understood, and, colleagues, I can supply you with all the documents I used for this speech, if you so require.

As I was driving back to New Brunswick during our break week, I was puzzled as to why our very competent senators on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee would support this bill, so I decided to seek answers. There went my break week, but I believe it was for a just cause.

I first read the committee transcript. Very pertinent questions were asked by Senators Simons, Cotter, Klyne and Marwah. However, some witnesses regrettably and constantly said that government set the rate; that government can increase benefits; that it is an issue of fairness; that the financial consequences are minor; and that the Senate should pass the bill, send it to the other place and they would take care of it.

A document relating to the analysis creating the two zones in 2014 — eight years ago — was also provided to committee members. I want to highlight that that document in 2014 stated that creating these two zones would result in an additional cost of $1 million to the Employment Insurance program, i.e., $1 million more for the rural zone.

We are now eight years later and the situation has changed. My immediate reaction was that most of these statements do not reflect reality. Government does not set rates, as I pointed out earlier. Government cannot increase the benefits only for P.E.I. This would then create national unfairness to all workers in similar Employment Insurance unemployment rate zones, so fairness to whom?

Financial consequence is very high for at least 5,600 rural seasonal workers. As a house of sober second thought, why would we send an ill-conceived, uninformed bill to the other place when we constantly complain that they do not give enough time to the bills they send to us? To what extent are they characterizing the Senate with these comments?

Are we being asked to close our eyes and ears and abdicate our responsibilities?

After reading the committee meeting transcript, I had a conversation with the Parliamentary Budget Officer who did the report on the financial impact of Bill S-236. She confirmed and sent the historical data from the department’s yearly report used and the projection for five years, as per the PBO labour market outlook.

There are no mistakes in the report. It is what it is, and that is $76.6 million less in benefits over five years for the working poor as opposed to the $1 million given at committee by the document or a comment from a witness who said it was merely a rounding of numbers.

Also, at the meeting the witnesses never told the committee members that in 2021 the minister and government announced a major review and modernization of the Employment Insurance program, starting with a one-year consultation process, which ended last July.

I followed up my PBO conversation with calls to both the Commissioner for Workers and the department Director of Employment Insurance Policy, Pierre Laliberté and George Rae, respectively, both witnesses at the committee. My question to both was, “Are you aware of the PBO report and the loss of $76.6 million in benefits with Bill S-236?”

Mr. Rae said the PBO report was “consistent” with the department findings, and Mr. Laliberté said he was somewhat aware of these numbers.

So I asked, “Why did you not say so to the committee?”

Both answered that the question was not asked.

Senators Marwah, Cotter and Klyne did ask the questions to the first panel, where one witness replied, again, that it was a rounding number. The same question, however, was not asked to the second panel, and I cannot identify by the transcript if the second panel witnesses were listening to what was happening at the first panel. I do believe they could have found a way to talk about their financial findings also.

My second question to them was, “Why did you not indicate that a major review and modernization were under way for the EI program?”

Again, both answered that the question was not asked.

Senator Simons asked why the Senate should be involved in micromanaging the EI program. It was the perfect time for these witnesses to indicate the major review undertaken. Both witnesses confirmed to me that they are very much involved in the yearly consultation process, as per my conversation with them.

I asked Mr. Rae why there was such a big difference between the 2014 department estimate of $1 million and today’s $76.6 million. Let’s just say, colleagues, that I was not impressed with his answer.

I also asked Mr. Poirier why he seemed so frustrated about the two zones. He answered that it is because he believes that all EI zones should better reflect the local conditions, and many other areas in the country, particularly in Quebec, should be divided into more zones. He has been making that recommendation for many years without support from the department. In other words, his frustration is not particularly the 2 zones for P.E.I. but that we should have more than 62 zones.

Colleagues, the EI Act and regulations are clear. The EI zones are nationally based, as per Statistics Canada census units. Statistics Canada creates these units to better reflect the quality of data they can provide. Statistics Canada is by law the central survey and data gathering agency for the whole of government.

A core argument at committee was Riverdale Road, where one side is in one zone, and the other side is in another zone. This has nothing to do with the EI program. The Riverdale Road issue is one created by Statistics Canada’s general census of 2011. That prompted the 2014 regulations separating the capitals from rural areas in P.E.I., Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, bringing these agglomerate capital zones on the same footing as all the other provincial capital zones.

Knowing that Statistics Canada personnel are easily accessible and sensitive to concerns, it is most probable that this thorn could have been corrected between 2015 and 2020 with a few meetings — I would add a cup of coffee to that — before the census units were used in 2021 for the ten-year general census. Not with a sledgehammer bill that is in front of us.

Another argument at committee was working in one place and living in another. The entire national EI program is based on where you live in accordance with Statistics Canada survey methodology as per postal codes, i.e., where you live.

Now, I understood that critical facts and information was not disclosed to the members of the committee, resulting in this bill being in front of us for third reading. Honourable senators, I cannot support this bill. I cannot endorse that we would knowingly now remove $76.6 million — colleagues, there are more very important facts. Could I have five minutes?

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Would Senator Duncan answer a few questions?

Senator Duncan: Yes, I will try.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to pay solemn tribute to our late Queen, Her Majesty Elizabeth II, who passed away September 8 and was laid to rest yesterday in London as millions of grieving admirers looked on. Canadians are among these admirers and rightly so.

As a little girl, I would go to sleep dreaming of princesses and queens, believing that they lived in a magical fantasy world. I later realized that they were not fairy tale characters, but a segment of our society living under the constant scrutiny of a public that sometimes had unrealistic expectations.

Rest assured, I am not related to royalty, but I do admit to greatly admiring Queen Elizabeth II, this mother, grandmother and great-grandmother who did not flinch in the face of the strong winds that occasionally shook Buckingham Palace.

That is why I was so charmed by this grand lady. To me, she seemed like a great-aunt who was living abroad so she could carry out her family and professional responsibilities. This great-aunt always showed up for our meetings, the biggest moments of our lives in Canada, and, on each occasion, we revelled in her presence, her smile, her sense of humour, her displays of deep affection, and her support for our dreams and our future.

This great-aunt and great lady was a strong, poised, engaged and dynamic leader. She was caring and compassionate, especially with respect to the greater Commonwealth family she served for 70 years with unimpeachable devotion. Even in her final days, she reached out to Canadians to express her condolences following the deadly tragedy in Saskatchewan.

She nobly saw our nation through some difficult times, and we in turn gave her our support and devotion when she was going through trying times, as one would expect from a family member or close friend.

I had obviously not yet been born when this great-aunt and great lady ascended the throne in 1952, but since then, her influence has inspired thousands of women from multiple generations to take on leadership roles. The fact that I am paying tribute to this great-aunt and great lady in French today is also a testament to the profound affection she showed to French Canadians across the country through her command and use of French during her visits.

Although I never met the Queen, all of her qualities renewed my affection for her and made me feel she was indeed part of the Canadian family.

Like you, I join all Canadians in offering my deepest condolences to the members of the Royal Family, and I thank them for supporting Queen Elizabeth II throughout her years of service to Canada.

We will remember Queen Elizabeth II fondly. God save the King.

[English]

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: I have the distinct honour to rise today on behalf of the Independent Senators Group to pay tribute to our late colleague, the Honourable Yoine Goldstein.

When Prime Minister Martin appointed Senator Goldstein to represent the Quebec senatorial division of Rigaud in 2005, he reaffirmed his commitment to revitalizing the institution of the Senate.

From that point on, for the next four precious years, our institution benefited from the professional excellence of Senator Goldstein, an internationally renowned and outstanding jurist who raised the calibre of our debates and speeches, both in committee and in the chamber.

[English]

But the framework for the enduring legacy of our dear colleague was laid out in a statement he made in this chamber. On April 5, 2006, in the first session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament of Canada, the Honourable Senator Yoine Goldstein did not speak of policy. He made no allusion to politics. Instead, he spoke directly to future generations of Canadians — both native and immigrant, Jew and gentile. He spoke directly to all of us, calling on us all to be our better selves.

Sixteen years have already passed, but his words resonate today louder than ever. The wisdom of a great mensch from Montreal bears repeating. Today, I feel I could do no better service to the memory and legacy of our beloved colleague than to quote him back into the official record of our nation.

He said:

Honourable senators, tolerance is a passive state. While it reflects mere acceptance of differences, acceptance or tolerance of differences is not enough. Our goal is to instil a realization that diversity in our society is a significant value, that diversity is to be celebrated, that diversity is to be actively valued and not merely accepted.

He went on to say, “. . . the celebration of diversity, the celebration of differences, as fundamental, positive societal values and not causes of division.”

Honourable senators, today we live in times of increasing uncertainty. Social media has made us hypervigilant and critical of one another. Economic downturn looms ever closer on the horizon.

Yoine Goldstein lived his faith and imparted his values of tolerance and conciliation to any and all. We will remember him best by acting in the spirit of his legacy. Let us carry ourselves with charity of spirit. Let us stand in solidarity with those suffering a conflict not of their making. Let us bring collective relief to those facing social and economic hardships. Let us be steadfast in our intolerance of intolerance and discrimination.

To the memory of the Honourable Yoine Goldstein, let us say, “Mazel tov, dear Yoine.” May the wisdom you imparted to the generations educated by The Tolerance Foundation, now known as ENSEMBLE for the respect of diversity, and your call to conciliation resound louder than ever. Thank you for your service.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank his beloved widow, Elaine, and his son and daughter for sharing his precious time with us in the Senate and with all Canadians. Thank you.