Senator Gold: Thank you for your supplementary question. As I indicated, the CPPIB is an independent institution, and part of its effectiveness and long-term stability requires that it be independent. However, the government has and will continue to consider the many different ways it can support Canadian businesses and is grateful for the senator’s continued advocacy on this issue.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate. It won’t surprise you, Senator Gold, to know that I am returning to the Port of Montreal issue. I remain extraordinarily concerned that we made a mistake in this chamber and failed to do our duty.

I have, through internal documents read to you, evidence — what is evidence to me — that COVID was not the main concern and cannot be put forward as a way to justify a section 1 overruling of workers’ rights. You have responded that it was multi-factored, and I agreed. You talked about the economic impact. I’d ask you rhetorically what strike or lockout doesn’t have an economic impact.

In fact, this issue was reviewed for a year and a half by the Canada Industrial Relations Board in examination of the employer application for this to be declared essential work and to prohibit a strike. Their reasons were 82 pages long.

It has been stated many times by the board in the past that essential services’ right to strike and right to lockout are protected by code. They go on to say that this clearly is not a situation where these jobs are essential services. Could you respond on that point and tell us why the government then decided it had Charter-free access to use return-to-work legislation?

Hon. Fabian Manning, pursuant to notice of May 10, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate, no later than September 16, 2022, a report relating to its study on Indigenous rights-based fisheries, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

He said: Honourable senators, I move the motion standing in my name.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Boisvenu. The veterans’ situation is troubling. I will inquire with the government and try to provide an answer as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, I do not have any information on the subject at this time.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question and for pointing out that of which I was not aware, that the senators on the committee feel somehow that they are not being treated equitably. I encourage the senators on the committee to work with their counterparts to address that directly, and I will certainly make inquiries so that I can be better informed as to the circumstances you describe.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): With respect, of course they can be, and I will explain why. The government consults with and takes advice from the situation on the ground from all relevant sources, and being informed by what is on the ground is different than responding to a request.

I am aware, of course, of what the commissioner said in response to our colleague’s question. I am also familiar, as colleagues are, with her statement on a previous occasion that it was absolutely necessary to allow them to do what needed to be done to remove the illegal protest from Ottawa.

They are both correct, and the government acted as it responsibly should, because they are answering different questions, as I am trying to do to the best of my ability here.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As the government has acknowledged on many occasions, and I will do so again, the government is aware that some aspects of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit program ended up causing unintended and negative consequences to those who received it. I was not aware of — so thank you for pointing out — the disproportionate impact on Indigenous communities and recipients. The government has been working and will continue to work with those who are experiencing such difficulties in an effort to make ends meet. I will certainly take these concerns back to the government and hope for an answer in due course as to what other measures may be taken or contemplated.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. At the meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs we learned that roughly between 3,000 and 5,000 veterans do not have housing. Two years ago, the Trudeau government announced the launch of a program that would accelerate the construction of affordable housing for the homeless and would help get them off the street and away from drugs.

I asked the minister the question last week and he was unable to tell me when the program will be implemented. Yesterday, I asked the Veterans Ombudsperson the same question and she told me that the minister had no information to share on this matter.

When will the government take care of veterans?

Senator Boisvenu: Why did Veterans Affairs not spend $634 million in 2021? It ended the year with $634 million in unspent funding, even though there are 11,000 benefit applications being appealed and applicants have not had any news. That is not to mention the 5,000 homeless veterans roaming the streets. Why did the government not spend the $634 million?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, Senator Boisvenu. I will add this to the inquiries I will make with the government.

[English]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, on February 22, when we were debating your government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act, you were asked if you were aware which levels of our national security apparatus or others were consulted and listened to when the government was considering invoking the Emergencies Act. You replied:

. . . the government was informed by all of the law enforcement and intelligence services upon which it relies in matters like this.

Senator Gold, is the RCMP included among those law enforcement agencies that the government relies upon in matters like this? If not, why not?

Senator Plett: Well, of course, that didn’t even touch upon the question I asked.

Leader, I don’t know what you or your government think “collaboration” means. It’s not just debating here in the chamber. The Oxford Dictionary definition of collaboration is, “The action of working with someone to produce or create something.” What the Trudeau government did regarding Bill C-69 was “impose,” to “Force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place.”

Leader, in 2019, the government of your own province wrote to the Senate’s Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee to say:

While Quebec conveyed its concerns to the federal government, there was no real government-to-government dialogue on Bill C-69 . . . .

Leader, if there was no dialogue on Bill C-69, how is that collaboration? If provinces and First Nations had to take your government to court to be heard on Bill C-69, how is that collaboration, leader?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question concerns the government leader’s response to Senator Tannas on Tuesday regarding the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Alberta that the Impact Assessment Act, formerly Bill C-69, is unconstitutional.

Leader, you said:

The government worked with provincial and territorial governments when developing the legislation to ensure that their views were considered and that jurisdictional responsibilities were respected . . . . Working collaboratively with provinces . . . .

I repeat the word “collaboratively.” You end that sentence by saying, “. . . supports a single impact assessment process for major projects that considers all project impacts.”

Leader, who exactly did your NDP-Liberal government work collaboratively with on Bill C-69? Alberta? Saskatchewan? Ontario? The Woodland Cree First Nation? The Indian Resource Council? They all opposed Bill C-69 in court and won the case. So where was the so-called collaboration, leader?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, the fact that the government engaged not only with provinces and stakeholders but also that the bill was the subject of vigorous debate here does not mean everyone has to agree at the end of the day. Clearly they don’t. The government remains convinced that the bill was carefully crafted to affect areas of federal jurisdiction and is confident that its use will be upheld on appeal.

Senator Gold: In the development of Bill C-69, the Government of Canada took into account the interests of all stakeholders and of Canada in ensuring that there is a proper, efficient and effective process for overseeing the environmental impact of major projects.

The government believed and believes it was acting within its constitutional jurisdiction, a shared jurisdiction between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures, and remains of that view.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Gold, Peguis First Nation, Manitoba’s largest First Nation, has had six major floods in the last 18 years from the Fisher River. Over 3,000 people have been affected and 700 homes evacuated. This mass displacement occurs every couple of years.

There is some important context here, leader. In 1907, the residents of the community were moved from prime farmland just north of Winnipeg to the flood plain of the Fisher River, so this frequent occurrence is caused by this movement.

Could you tell me what the federal government is doing to provide some permanent prevention to the major floods that happen every couple of years, and also what the government is doing to help people who have been affected by the evacuation of their homes to rebuild their homes and lives?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Gold. Will the government provide some permanent solution to the constant flooding in the area?

Senator Gold: Again, the government is working with its partners and with the First Nations community. I’m advised that the Red Cross has been activated. It’s coordinating the evacuation of community members affected by severe flooding, and Indigenous Services Canada is providing funding to the First Nations for emergency flood response.

I do not have information about what measures might be taken or could be taken to provide a more permanent solution to this problem, which is a recurring one. I will certainly make inquiries and respond back.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): With pleasure. Thank you, senator.

Chief Peguis was one of five chiefs who signed an 1817 treaty with Lord Selkirk. This was the first land treaty signed in Western Canada. The largest First Nation in Manitoba is the Peguis First Nation, named in honour of Chief Peguis. This is the same community, unfortunately, currently facing the crisis of flooding in Manitoba, which was referred to in Senator Wells’ question.

(For text of Delayed Answers, see Appendix.)