Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Black’s subamendment to refer Bill S-236 back to the Agriculture and Forestry Committee for further study.

Listening carefully to former Senator Griffin’s speech as she moved this bill on the eve of her retirement, I acted upon instinct and proposed to take on the sponsorship of the legislation. Honourable senators, may I take a few moments to elaborate on that instinct, especially as it relates to this subamendment?

Serving as a member of the opposition in the Yukon Legislative Assembly, I was made aware of a situation with the Yukon Health Care Insurance Plan Act. Babies adopted from out of country were required to fulfill a three-month residency before being granted health care. Everyone in this chamber, especially in light of the discussions about the shortage of Tylenol, can appreciate that no parent with an ill child in Canada wants to be told they will have to wait three months or pay for that visit to the doctor or the hospital. The situation was blatantly unfair to those newly adopted children. The then health minister endured my questions in the legislature as I pestered the government to make a change.

Following my retirement from the legislature, I worked in health care registration and saw from the public servant level how complicated changes to rectify a situation can become when lawyers and legal draftspeople get involved, as described by our colleague Senator Cotter. Ultimately, the changes to the legislation to provide these adopted babies with health care, when they were finally passed, required references to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.

As if health care registration was not complicated enough, especially when you have expectant mothers awaiting the processing of their application for immigration, which was taking forever — and they were trying to prove that they were legally entitled to be in Canada — I went on to manage the adjudication of workers’ compensation claims and then to serve as the workers’ advocate.

The preamble to the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Act, as the legislation was called until this year, reads in part:

. . . believing that improvements to the workers’ compensation system are desired to ensure that the workers’ compensation system continues to meet the changing needs of workers and more adequately reflects the true costs, in both human and economic terms, of injuries arising out of the workplace and enable a wholistic approach to the rehabilitation of injured workers;

And, again, in part, the act reads:

And whereas the government has confidence in continuing to delegate to the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board the trusteeship of the compensation fund to manage it in the best interests of its main stakeholders, namely workers and employers;

This understanding that government can delegate to a board that funds be managed in the best interests of the workers and employers, a sense of fairness and the understanding of Senator Griffin’s representation of a smaller region is what motivated me to instinctively stand.

Those who have worked with me know that I believe very strongly that as a servant of the public, whether elected, hired or appointed, my raison d’être is, “How can I help you today?” That was and is why I sponsored the bill.

As part of my work at the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board prior to becoming the workers’ advocate, I also received Foundation of Administrative Justice training.

Honourable senators, after my initial review of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s costing note, which was released in September, I interpreted that the passage of this specific P.E.I. matter would devolve to a money matter, which is beyond the Senate. We cannot authorize the expenditure of money. From the work at the National Finance Committee, which also reviewed the issue that this legislation tries to fix, I surmised that this question would be resolved by the House of Commons and that, at a minimum, us adopting this bill would prompt the government to act to resolve the specific situation described in the bill. The government did resolve this situation during the pandemic, when all Islanders were able to receive the same benefits. That expired in September.

Honourable senators, just as legislation is interpreted differently, there are differing views throughout this chamber and elsewhere on the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. I have the utmost respect for every honourable senator in this chamber. The overwhelming opinion views the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report as new evidence that has not yet been reviewed by the committee. The Foundation of Administrative Justice training guides us that with new evidence, the case should be heard again.

This subamendment recommends that the Agriculture and Forestry Committee review the new evidence and that they be the master of their proceedings to determine how and when the committee should do this.

I thank Senator Black, who proposed the subamendment, and Senator Ringuette for the amendment. I offer my support for referring the bill back to committee without imposing restrictions, should the Senate so wish.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Honourable senators, I rise today on Senator Black’s subamendment to the motion that would return Bill S-236 to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for further study. Being that I am a lawyer, and given Senator Cotter’s speech on Tuesday, maybe I should stay out of this debate, but I won’t.

I am not an expert on P.E.I. Employment Insurance and the impact that one zone versus two would have on the working poor, who have been central to our conversations on this bill to date. I am, however, somewhat knowledgeable about how our committees work.

I have found that our committees do excellent work when they have the ability to hear all sides of an issue and the time to thoughtfully consider those viewpoints as they decide how to move forward with new information. For studies, that means thoughtful and impactful recommendations. For bills, it can mean amendments or observations.

I’ve sat in this chamber and listened carefully to the debate on this bill. I’ve noted the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, but I’ve also noted the letter sent to all senators and addressed to one senator in particular, which takes a different view. Senator Ringuette addressed this letter in her speech on Tuesday.

I’m not an expert on this matter. I’ve certainly not spent a week researching it, but I do believe that committees should be masters of their own destiny, and that includes being able to choose witnesses that they feel are credible and that they feel will give compelling testimony.

Unless we’re calling in a minister to answer pointed questions on something, I’m loath to support only calling one witness on anything. Much like there are two sides to every coin, there are multiple facets to every issue. Whether that means calling in labour groups and/or poverty groups from P.E.I. in this case, I will leave that to the committee to decide, but that is why I support the first part of Senator Black’s subamendment, which would clarify the ability of the committee to call other witnesses as they deem necessary.

As a former chair, deputy chair and member past and present of several steering committees, I also appreciate how difficult it can be to organize a committee schedule and get witnesses confirmed in a timely fashion. I also recognize that today is the Thursday before a break week, and it might well take some time to get the necessary agreements to issue invitations, et cetera, making the original reporting deadline of Senator Ringuette’s motion difficult — and by this I mean nigh impossible — to meet. That is why I support the second part of Senator Black’s subamendment, which would give the committee more time to do its work.

I’ll be voting in favour of Senator Black’s subamendment, and I would encourage colleagues who believe that committees should keep control of their witness lists and timelines to do the same.

Thank you.