Senator Audette: It means that what happened in the past is a question that I should ask to the witnesses when they come to the Indigenous Peoples Committee. Thank you.

Senator Mockler: We’re told the loop could go through northwestern New Brunswick. As a resident and senator from New Brunswick, I’m committed to working with all the stakeholders in the region, as well as with the Government of Quebec, on seeing this project through so that the northwest is given serious consideration as a main route. Indeed, this project worth several billion dollars will create good jobs in the region.

[English]

To the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the federal government seems to have finally discovered that the Atlantic Loop is a step in the right direction when it comes to addressing climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and North America. The Atlantic Loop will, without a doubt, phase out coal-fired generating plants in Atlantic Canada.

Leader, when will the federal government officially announce the Atlantic Loop project? Actions speak louder than words.

Senator McCallum: Dispossession of land was the most devastating action against First Nations.

In the key elements of bill, the Whitecap Dakota government would have jurisdiction over the following areas: core governance, lands and resources, regulations and programs. All of this has to do with land.

Under lands and resources, it says they would have jurisdiction over lands and natural resources management. We passed the Building a Green Prairie Economy Act before Christmas where, as the sponsor, you said the province has jurisdiction or owns the natural resources. Which one is it? Who will own the natural resources? Will it be the Whitecap Dakota government or the province?

Senator Cotter: Thank you. I didn’t hear the first part of the question, Senator McCallum. I will do my best to answer the part about land.

The land focus here is on-reserve land, which would be under the full control, in terms of resource development, of the Whitecap Dakota. There are issues that you are aware of. Whitecap Dakota feel that they received an infinitesimally small set-aside of land when the people of the nation came to Canada, and they have a land-claim agreement.

In Saskatchewan, many of those land-claim agreements have been addressed. The Treaty Land Entitlement framework agreement made significant amounts of money available to First Nations after the government shorted them on what they were entitled to a century or so ago.

I can’t say for sure that it will happen in this case, but it is not unusual for First Nations to be provided with financial resources in order to purchase land — that makes it become reserve land. If they buy land that includes subsurface resources, for example, they come to own those. That has happened across Saskatchewan and, I suspect, in some other provinces as well. I hope that’s helpful.

Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Gold, and thank you for your comments.

Last week, the minister referred to a detailed federal-provincial-territorial work plan that all jurisdictions have agreed to — which will also be the basis for formal negotiations respecting the Canada disability benefit.

As you know, in the absence of the Senate amendment prohibiting private insurance clawbacks, if the government is to meet its commitment to ensuring zero clawbacks, it will need to negotiate with 13 different jurisdictions — not only about interactions between the Canada disability benefit and their numerous government benefit programs, but also about building prohibitions on clawbacks into provincial and territorial insurance legislation.

Will you provide us with a work plan and timeline for these federal-provincial-territorial negotiations on clawbacks, as well as the role that people with disabilities will play in that timeline and work plan?

Senator Arnot: My answer to that is that the Whitecap Dakota First Nation will have control over their membership. They will make the determination themselves and not be constrained by any of the rules under the Indian Act. It is up to them. They will have self-determination in their self-government agreement. That is my interpretation of what this means.

Senator Pate: Many people with disabilities and organizations have reached out to us with concerns that these negotiations will not be completed within the tight time frames established by the bill. I’m curious if there is any information you can provide around the schedule, including the schedule for negotiations with insurance companies.

Senator Shugart: I put so much effort into writing what I had hoped to say, but it seems like I have finished.

[Translation]

Technically, my comments are in response to the Speech from the Throne at a time in our country’s history that is full of both potential and peril.

It has certainly been interesting to transition from the executive branch to the legislative branch. It has also been somewhat difficult.

Canada is facing great challenges on many fronts: social justice, environmental crises and major economic and international security threats. To survive these realities, let alone thrive, we have to be at our best. The alternative is mediocrity. There is one area in which we need to be better: governance and politics.

[English]

Last week in this place, many honourable senators spoke about the risks to democracy in our country. Today, I would like to add what I hope might be a useful contribution to those observations. I am going to speak about the idea of restraint — an idea, a discipline, that has proven essential in our constitutional and institutional development.

Come with me to our past.

In 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision on a reference from the Government of Canada in relation to the proposed package of constitutional reforms. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had negotiated with provinces on the package, and, even with best efforts, the negotiations were deadlocked. His question to the court: Would it be permissible to proceed with changes to the Constitution, given the lack of consent from a large majority of provinces? The court’s answer: It would be legal to proceed, but not constitutional. Prime Minister Trudeau took that decision and reconvened the provinces, eventually clearing the way to the furthest-reaching reform of the Constitution in our history.

I have to note — with sadness, of course — that Quebec was not included in that consensus. I also note that the inclusion of the “notwithstanding” clause in the Charter, while anathema to Mr. Trudeau, was essential in reaching agreement on the Charter as a whole — providing, as it did, a resolution of the tension between legislative and judicial sovereignty.

Honourable senators, Mr. Trudeau acted with restraint.

In returning to the negotiating table and accepting the crucial demand of the key provinces, he made the Charter possible. Colleagues, I have to ask if either of the main party leaders today would practise that restraint; after all, Mr. Trudeau had in hand a ruling of constitutional legality from the court.

Now join me in the present.

Only last fall, the Government of Ontario was engaged in a dispute with the Canadian Union of Public Employees in the education sector. Legislation imposing a contract was passed in the legislature, along with invocation of the notwithstanding clause — pre-emptively guarding against constitutional challenge. Strike action followed, as did significant public outcry. The government undoubtedly felt it was within its rights; unions and others saw the action as an assault on workers and organized labour. The issue was resolved when Premier Ford repealed the legislation.

He had a legislative majority. And, while his use of the notwithstanding clause was, in my opinion, wrong, it is there in the Constitution. But, to his credit, Premier Ford acted with restraint.

Some have suggested, by the way, that resolving the “problem” of the “notwithstanding” clause lies in referring the matter to the Supreme Court for a judgment on when and how it should be used. But surely the Supreme Court itself has a direct interest in the matter and could not be the usual unbiased arbitrator. I strongly suspect that ultimately the use of the “notwithstanding” clause can only be resolved by the application of public vigilance and governmental restraint.

Colleagues, I invite you to anticipate the future with me.

In this Parliament, we have witnessed a sea change in the composition of the upper house. If the present government is re‑elected, we can expect further evolution of the Senate. The further we get from a party-based Senate, the more entrenched will be the idea of independence and freedom of action. Taken too far, we could find ourselves with many senators effectively setting themselves up as a de facto opposition to the government. We could be left with a frequent or perpetual standoff between the two chambers, as more and more independent senators claim a right to block legislation coming from the elected chamber.

Alternatively, notwithstanding the current attention being given to foreign interference, I am convinced that our democratic institutions and process are healthy enough to give us a different government. Should that be the case, some senators may feel it is their right and obligation to oppose any legislation from the other place if it reflects a philosophical perspective with which they disagree. Given the numbers that can be projected, this could be a recipe for legislative paralysis. To be blunt, either scenario creates the possibility that this institution could be at risk of acting undemocratically — ironically, by allowing tightly held principle to trump constitutional convention and deference to the will of the elected chamber.

In either situation, we have the seeds of constitutional crisis. An essential ingredient in avoiding or resolving such a crisis will be the practice of restraint. Our Constitution is black-letter law and convention — practices developed over decades and centuries, in which the instinct to exercise raw power is restrained for the common good. Absent restraint, the convention that the Senate’s duty is to scrutinize, amend and pass legislation — balanced against deference to the chamber that most directly reflects the will of the people — is incomplete.

Honourable senators, whether it is what we say to or about each other, or how we learn again to listen and dialogue with others who don’t share our outlook, or how we guard the health of our institutions — we need to relearn the virtue of restraint.

Canada is a big, diverse country — geographically, socially, culturally, economically and philosophically. For each of us, for parties and for institutions, restraint may begin with acknowledging that our point of view — legitimate as it is — is not the only point of view.

We have benefited from restraint in this country, and, in these times, we need it again. May we all find it within ourselves to practise restraint.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Senator Arnot: In my opinion, the Whitecap Dakota people will own those lands.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Yes, of course.

Senator Arnot: Yes.

[Translation]

Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that, Senator Gold. Could you request from the government the rates at which they proceeded against CERB recipients through the CRA, as well as the rates at which they proceeded against companies that received the CERB for wages — and how much of that are they clawing back from companies and employers as well?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we were all shocked and saddened to learn of the tragedy near Carberry, Manitoba, on June 15, which left 15 people dead and others injured.

Our thoughts are with their friends and families, as well as the community of Dauphin, Manitoba, as we express our condolences for those lost, and our hopes for a full recovery by the injured.

Honourable senators, please join me in rising for a minute of silence in memory of those who did not survive this tragic incident.

(Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.)

[Translation]

Senator Pate: To my knowledge — and certainly according to our review of the testimony — no insurance company has indicated that they would plan to claw back the benefit. No province has indicated that they would not support protecting the benefit.

Senator McCallum: You are aware, then, that all of Saskatchewan is covered by treaty. It is all unceded territory, so why is it under provincial jurisdiction?

Senator Cotter: All of the territory is covered by treaty, but most of the lands that are not reserves could be described as traditional territories. You are asking a question that is about provincial jurisdiction, but the view taken — as a result of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement in the 1930s — was to transfer what Ottawa asserted it owned as federal lands into provincial lands.

The land that is governed by reserves is governed by First Nations. The lands that are traditional territories are subject to a more contentious set of authorities.

Senator Gold: I do not have that information, but I am assured by the minister that they are proceeding diligently and seriously in these negotiations. This chamber should have every confidence that the government is committed, as are their partners in the provinces and territories, to concluding the negotiations in a timely fashion so that this benefit can finally be provided to those millions of Canadians in need.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the follow-up question. I will certainly add that to the inquiries I will make.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. The government is strongly committed to its relationships with African nations. I want to point out that, when it comes to visa applications, Morocco and Seychelles are among the 13 new countries that are now eligible for the Electronic Travel Authorization program, or eTA. Eligible travellers from those African countries can request an eTA rather than a visa.

Senator Marshall: Even that explanation was helpful, but I must tell you that this isn’t uncommon. Quite often, we can’t find large numbers and exactly what they’re representing in the budget. Another example would the growth fund, which is $15 billion.

Senator Marshall: Even that explanation was helpful, but I must tell you that this isn’t uncommon. Quite often, we can’t find large numbers and exactly what they’re representing in the budget. Another example would the growth fund, which is $15 billion.

Why is the government so secretive about providing fiscal information so that parliamentarians can follow the money? With the information they’re giving us now, it’s just not possible to follow the money.

Senator Batters: Hear, hear.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As you noted, the negotiations with the provinces and territories are being done with the involvement of the disability community. There is, as you mentioned as well, a fairly large number of governments at stake, as well as an important yet diverse community of persons with disabilities.

This work is under way. The minister has given her assurance of the good faith that she’s encountering with the provinces and territories, and as those discussions progress, I have every confidence that Canadians will be updated in regard to their progress.