Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for the question. Canada and the Government of Canada are proud of the measures taken since the beginning of the pandemic to protect Canadians. We are proud of the ability of the government to procure vaccines and for Canada to be a world leader in its degree of vaccination. This pandemic is causing enormous frustration and difficulty for individuals and for the sectors and companies to which you refer. The government is very much aware of that. It is constantly evaluating the appropriate policy adjustments to make in light of the evolution not only of scientific understanding but the evolution of the pandemic and the wave or waves that may still come. This chamber should rest assured that the government is constantly evaluating and reassessing what its policy positions will be going forward, and announcements, when appropriate, will be made.

Senator Plett: It is sad that we can’t at least touch on the answers and say “I don’t know” if the answer isn’t known. That would be an appropriate answer.

The Leader of the Opposition in the other place said to the Prime Minister:

Prime Minister, you can’t take science and put it on the table when it suits you and take it off when it doesn’t suit you.

The Prime Minister has constantly been saying that everything he is doing is scientific. Science now says that what we’re doing is not right, and he doesn’t change. You don’t have an answer. You hardly even touch on the question. That was as bad as the minister yesterday when he didn’t even touch on the question.

Senator Gold, WestJet, Air Canada and Toronto Pearson Airport are also calling for an end to mandatory quarantines for asymptomatic travellers awaiting test results upon arrival. Leader, most families can’t afford lengthy quarantines. They don’t want to hear that the government cares about them. They want to see what you are doing to show you care about us.

When, leader? Give us a date. If not today, give us a date when we come back. When will this Trudeau government end these ineffective and costly restrictions?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I’m sorry that my answers are not satisfactory to you.

The fact remains that the government is in ongoing consultations and discussions with its scientific advisers and others. Science is not a monolithic answer. This is not Grade 3 arithmetic. There is a diversity of views within the scientific community. Science, one might say, is more of an art than a science.

That said, the government remains committed to making the appropriate policy choices based upon the best scientific advice that it receives and will announce whatever changes, if any, in due course when appropriate.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you. I will add those questions to the others.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate. My question today focuses not so much on Canadians but those who may wish to become Canadians. It’s no secret that there are massive backlogs at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. This has been going on for years. In some ways, it’s a good problem to have because it shows how attractive Canada is to foreigners. However, it is completely unacceptable that visa applications can take up to three years to process. These applicants deserve an answer, whether it’s yes or no. The least we can do is show them the respect they deserve and make a decision in a timely manner.

Last year, the government announced in its Fall Economic Statement that $85 million would be spent to hire more public servants to address the backlogs, among other things.

Can you tell us if the government has started to spend this money and if new immigration officers have been hired to help address the processing issues?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for raising this important issue.

The government continues to shift resources in this area to focus on priorities, to increase digitization of applications, to streamline its processes and resume in-person operations while, of course, respecting public health and safety guidelines.

Furthermore, I’m advised that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has already hired approximately 500 new processing staff, are digitizing applications and reallocating work amongst their offices around the world.

With regard to your question on spending of the allocated funds under the Fall Economic Statement, I have been advised that an outline for the funds has been released. Unfortunately, I don’t have an itemized list of the expenditures. I shall, however, inquire with the government and report back to the chamber with an answer.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Senator Gold, I raise this issue with you today on behalf of a Canadian couple who reached out to me and shared their experience of the barriers they faced as a same-sex couple starting their family.

During the last two elections, the current government campaigned on a promise to remove barriers for LGBTQ2+ people who wanted to start a family. These changes would also help heterosexual couples who have fertility challenges.

As well-intentioned as these promises are, they fail to take into account the realities of surrogacy and the differing family law systems across the provinces and territories.

More often than not, the intended parents cover the expenses of in vitro fertilization, IVF; and because neither of the intended parents are the “patient,” they are not eligible to claim the expenses from a tax perspective. The egg donor, or surrogate, cannot claim the expenses, as it would be claiming an expense for which they did not pay.

This requires a review of the structure of the tax credit system and how it defines a “patient” for the purposes of the tax credit.

Access to 15 weeks of leave is available to those parents who adopt their child following surrogacy. The government failed to understand that in several provinces with more progressive family law systems, the child born through surrogacy is not adopted. That would mean that these families would not be entitled to leave, as neither of the intended parents are the birth mother; nor would they be eligible for adoptive leave, as they have not, in fact, adopted the child.

Senator Gold, this couple’s experience is not unique. It is the same situation faced by parents starting their families through surrogacy, regardless of sexual orientation, across Canada. Mark Foley and Shelly Maynard from Dartmouth made their case public in 2019.

I know it’s not a simple issue, which is why I shared this couple’s concerns with your office in advance. I know I have provided a lot of information in a short period of time. Senator Gold, my question is this: Did you have an opportunity to raise these concerns with the responsible ministers; and if so, have you received a response?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I have made inquiries, Senator Cordy, and I have not yet received a specific response. However, the government remains committed to continuing to review and evaluate the structures in its areas of jurisdiction to take into account the rapidly changing realities of families in this country. As soon as I have an answer, I’ll be happy to report back.

Senator Cordy: Thank you for following up, Senator Gold, because things have certainly changed tremendously. I remember — and perhaps a few others on the line who may be my age will remember — getting eight weeks’ parental leave after one’s child was born. I have to tell you that it was really tough going back eight weeks after my older daughter was born, since I had been in the hospital a month beforehand.

Senator Gold, I met these young men who are expecting their first baby this month, in February. Congratulations to them. They are bringing this issue forward to help other people, because in some of these situations it’s too late for them to benefit.

In a recent conversation, one of the fathers said they were very fortunate because they are both professionals with good-paying jobs — as was the couple from Dartmouth. However, there is a gap in the law, and parents shouldn’t have to be well off to afford surrogacy. I’m not sure how many of us in our twenties would be able to afford $100,000 for the procedure. The surrogacy laws must be updated.

Senator Gold, would you please request that the government fulfill what were campaign promises relating to in vitro fertilization under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act?

Hon. Diane F. Griffin: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, proposed changes to the Migratory Birds Regulations appeared in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 1, 2019. These regulations were first promulgated in 1917 under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, but they have not been substantially changed in the years since and are in sore need of modernization.

As it turns out, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has been tasked with halting and reversing nature loss in Canada by 2030. This will be a huge challenge, indeed. There are drastic declines in some species of Canadian birds. For example, since the 1970s, two thirds of migratory birds that rely on grasslands and feed on flying insects have been lost.

Senator Gold, these changes are on the minister’s desk for action on his part, and have been there for quite some time. Will the government act to modernize our Migratory Birds Regulations? Thank you.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold.

February 1 marked one year to the day that the Burmese military overthrew the elected government of Myanmar, or Burma, and began a brutal attack on political leaders, activists and ordinary citizens. At least 1,500 people have been killed by the military in the past year.

Wai Wai Nu, a leading young human rights defender whom I work with, has set out a long list of inaction by democracies. I repeat to you her question, Senator Gold: Will Canada support a resolution on Myanmar to the UN Security Council that includes key demands such as a global arms embargo, support for cross‑border humanitarian aid and the referral of Myanmar to the International Criminal Court?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the situation in Myanmar.

Canada, as you know, condemns the convictions and other abuses, and the coup d’état particularly, in Myanmar. With regard to the specific question, I’m not aware of a decision that has been made with regard to a resolution at the United Nations. I will certainly make inquiries, and if an answer is forthcoming, I will be glad to share it in the chamber.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, last fall, an investigation by “The Fifth Estate” revealed that the office of the Minister of Immigration was aware of the urgency needed to take decisive action and bring our interpreters to safety in Canada. As early as February 2020, the Minister of Immigration was contacted by Liberal MP Marcus Powlowski. An article published this morning by the National Post revealed Mr. Powlowski had pushed to rescue Afghan interpreters weeks before Kabul fell, citing credible evidence of an imminent Taliban attack against Canadian interpreters and concerns brought to him by an Aman Lara co-founder.

While strict paperwork rules and deadlines imposed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, led to hundreds of desperate evacuees exposing themselves to Taliban collaborators by rushing to local internet cafés to complete the application, Jeff Valois, who was at the time an advisor to the Prime Minister, allegedly ordered Powlowski to stay in his lane and to let professionals in the ministries handle it.

Senator Gold, in light of the growing number of blunders committed by our government, many are losing faith in Canada’s rescue efforts. Why is our government playing political games instead of saving lives?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, senator, thank you for your question and for underlining the ongoing challenges and problems that are facing those in Afghanistan.

With respect, the government is not playing political games. It is dealing with it as best it can. The government has been monitoring the situation closely. Canadian Armed Forces personnel were present in Afghanistan from early 2021 to monitor the situation on the ground. Canada was part of an air bridge with allies that saved as many people as it could throughout the difficult circumstances. The Armed Forces worked around the clock to evacuate as many people as possible for so long as conditions permitted, saving thousands of people under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

We did not evacuate as many people as we would have liked to in August. The government is committed to exercising all of its available options to evacuate Canadians and our Afghan allies via land or air. I have finally been advised that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in close contact with our allies and other countries in the region to help get as many people out as possible.

Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Gold, there is mounting evidence showing Canada’s mismanagement of rescue efforts in Afghanistan. A quick extraction force sat idly at a Kuwaiti air force base for days. A Canadian embassy staffer publicly outed an interpreter and safe house facilitator. The video shows Canadian soldiers ignoring Global Affairs Canada-approved evacuees at the Kabul airport.

There have also been reports of evacuees with perfect paperwork being turned away and of families being separated at checkpoints, leaving spouses and children behind because of trivial inconsistencies with their documents. Why is our government continually placing paperwork above saving lives?

Hon. Amina Gerba: Honourable senators, as I rise in this chamber to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne, I feel humbled by the work that needs to be accomplished, but I also feel a strong desire to help do that work on behalf of Canadians.

Before I begin, I want to recognize that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabeg, Anishinaabe, Atikamekw and Mohawk peoples. I extend my warmest greetings to them and to all First Nations, Métis and Inuit people in our country.

All Canadians should be part of the reconciliation effort, which, fortunately, is under way and must be given our support and ongoing attention.

Honourable senators, as I rise to make my maiden speech, I would like to thank my family, my friends and my business partners, who encouraged me to join you. I must also thank the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, who recommended my appointment.

I also thank Senators Marc Gold, Donald Plett, Raymonde Saint-Germain, Pierre Dalphond and Scott Tannas for their warm welcome at my swearing-in in November.

In the Speech from the Throne to open the Forty-fourth Parliament, the government emphasized the need to build a more resilient economy to ensure a better future for Canadians and Canada. In order to fully meet those goals, the government identified preserving and expanding trade as a top priority.

Honourable senators, I am pleased with these overarching goals. They are in keeping with the spirit of what I have tried to accomplish throughout my career. Over a quarter century ago, upon graduating from the Université du Québec à Montréal, I began working as a strategy consultant.

I was responsible for projects for Africa and for helping our companies expand their business to the African continent and around the world. That early experience taught me how complicated it is to do business with international partners.

As I navigated legal systems, customs and tax requirements, transportation logistics, financial and technology transfer, consumer habits and marketing channels, I quickly learned that our entrepreneurs need to know and master many ins and outs in order for their investment or commercial ventures to succeed.

I greatly admire and respect our fellow Canadians who are expanding our international trade. When it comes to the African continent, the lack of precedent, lack of knowledge about private channels and available public resources, lack of economic and business data and, in some cases, a tarnished reputation have made it even more challenging to provide consulting services that are useful to Canadian exporters. That realization inspired me to start a consulting firm called Afrique Expansion Inc. in 1995 to help make the Canadian business community more aware of the opportunities available in Africa.

Given the interest generated by our activities, especially our initial trade missions to Africa, three years later, in 1998, my husband and I started an international economic magazine called Afrique Expansion Magazine. Today, that magazine is a reliable reference work for North Americans to find economic information about Africa.

It is also the only Canadian magazine that is distributed in some 20 African countries. To further consolidate partnerships between Canadian and African companies, in 2003, we created the Forum Afrique Expansion, which has since become the largest business networking platform for Canadian and African investors and exporters.

Held every two years in Montreal, the forum brings together 500 African and Canadian decision makers and investors, as well as heads of Canadian and international financial institutions, including the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the African Export-Import Bank.

Many heads of state and government leaders, Canadian provincial premiers, and federal and provincial government ministers have also attended the forum.

Since its creation, the forum has organized over 3,000 B2B meetings and facilitated the signing of contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars for Canadian businesses.

Honourable senators, our country does have a presence in Africa and its major institutions, including the African Development Bank and the African Union. Although our diplomatic representation in Africa may have decreased in the past few years or decades, our representatives there are still dedicated and effective, as I have had the opportunity to witness on several occasions. I was delighted with our excellent diplomats there, whose presence and work are vital to the success of our businesses.

Some of our major institutions, such as EDC, have a modest but important presence on the African continent. We also can’t forget the outstanding work being done by our trade delegates, as well as Quebec’s delegations to Africa.

However, considering the objective data regarding Africa’s evolution and the extremely strong interest that the world’s most powerful countries are taking in Africa, it seems as though Canada is sidelining itself by failing to capitalize on the comparative advantages and opportunities available in Africa today.

During the first quarter of this year, China, Russia, Turkey, the European Union and Saudi Arabia have held or will be holding summits with the leaders of Africa’s 54 countries. Trade is on the agenda for all of these high-level meetings. Other countries, such as Germany, Italy, Vietnam, the United Arab Emirates, Korea, Israel and Brazil are accelerating major collaborations with Africa’s economies.

I want to reiterate that, unfortunately, it seems as though our country is sidelining itself by failing to capitalize on the comparative advantages and opportunities that can currently be derived from the demographic, urban, industrial and technological dynamics of a continent that may have up to 2.4 billion inhabitants, 2.4 billion consumers, by 2040-50, and that is one of the three largest communities of internet users in the world, along with India and China.

According to the 2020 report of the Observatoire de la Francophonie économique, Africa represents just 2% of all trade with Canada. There is room to expand our trade with Africa and, therefore, an opportunity to grow our economy.

Honourable senators, our country’s international trade portfolio is impressive. As you know, Canada and the European Union have strong trade and investment ties. Canada is also very involved in Asia, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will enhance our economic ties with many Asian countries.

However, Africa is currently not on Canada’s radar when it comes to current and prospective exports and imports in goods and services. Why are we forgetting about Africa’s undeniable assets when seeking out trade opportunities, given that all of the world’s leading trading nations are looking to get their share of what will soon be one of the largest economic markets?

Honourable senators, Africa is a large market that is moving toward unification. Its GDP represents US$3 trillion. This market will make Africa the biggest free trade zone in the world.

By the middle of this century, one in four people will live on that continent, which will be the most youthful in the world by far. When it comes to maintaining global security and the planetary ecological balance and meeting the socio-economic needs of the human race, nothing about Africa’s affairs will escape the world’s notice. Moreover, Africa will play a key role in all global affairs. In order to be successful, Canada needs to recognize that and create a dynamic with Africa like the one it has developed and is seeking to enhance with Europe and Asia.

Honourable senators, I will make developing our relationship with Africa the main object of my contribution to advancing the affairs of our nation. That is baked into my personal and professional commitments.

Right now, I think that Canada should dedicate all of its expertise and its top institutional resources to supporting the successful implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area, or AfCFTA. This wonderful initiative will create a single market made up of the continent’s 54 countries and stimulate the enhanced international trade we are going to need.

As I stand before you, I have a dream that our country, Canada, will eventually sign a free trade agreement with AfCFTA and thus agree to include Africa in the modern economy, on the same footing as the other large economic regions of the world. This initiative would help increase trade between Canada and Africa, diversify Canada’s international trade and grow our economy.

In the meantime and in order to prepare, Canada could develop a policy to support Africa’s production of goods and services, similar to the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, which was enacted by the United States in the early 2000s. It would no doubt also be beneficial for us to review the economic strategy created by Washington last year called Prosper Africa, which focuses on accelerating investment and trade between Africa and the United States.

Honourable senators, enhancing our economic and trade relations with African countries, their regional economic communities and their continental free trade zone would certainly enrich our economy. It would also lead to greater political and diplomatic support for our international initiatives. We have needed that in the past, and we will need it again in the future.

Esteemed colleagues, through legislation and meaningful action, we, as legislators, can make things happen and participate in cultural, social and economic change.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to pursue these goals in this chamber with you and in solidarity with all of the Canadians we have the privilege to serve.

Thank you for your kind attention. Asante.

(On motion of Senator Gagné, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Cotter:

Whereas on October 21, 1880, the Government of Canada entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Syndicate for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway;

Whereas, by clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the federal government agreed to give a tax exemption to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company;

Whereas, in 1905, the Parliament of Canada passed the Saskatchewan Act, which created the Province of Saskatchewan;

Whereas section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act refers to clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway Contract;

Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed on November 6, 1885, with the Last Spike at Craigellachie, and has been operating as a going concern for 136 years;

Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the Province was established in 1905;

Whereas it would be unfair to the residents of Saskatchewan if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, casting that tax burden onto the residents of Saskatchewan;

Whereas it would be unfair to other businesses operating in Saskatchewan, including small businesses, if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, giving that corporation a significant competitive advantage over those other businesses, to the detriment of farmers, consumers and producers in the Province;

Whereas it would not be consistent with Saskatchewan’s position as an equal partner in Confederation if there were restrictions on its taxing powers that do not apply to other provinces;

Whereas on August 29, 1966, the then President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Ian D. Sinclair, advised the then federal Minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, that the Board of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had no objection to constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption;

Whereas section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, on November 29, 2021, adopted a resolution authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of Canada;

Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the annexed schedule.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1.Section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act is repealed.

2.The repeal of section 24 is deemed to have been made on August 29, 1966, and is retroactive to that date.

CITATION

3.This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Saskatchewan Act).

Senator Gold: Thank you for this question. I too spent a lot of time studying the court’s reasons. The answer is no. As the Government Representative, I believe, and the government believes, that it is important for the Senate to join forces with the elected members in the other place and those in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan to resolve this issue and quickly and efficiently correct what I would refer to as a “historic anomaly,” if I may use that expression.

One of the reasons for the Senate’s existence is to defend the regions’ interests and ensure that there is not an unjustifiable inequity in the treatment of the regions. No one here sees a problem with doing this. That said, you know me, and if senators wish to take more time to debate the matter and obtain information, I will respect that. I am not here to insist that we proceed before you’re ready.

Allow me to suggest that, ultimately, we are seized with a relatively simple matter. Given that our role as unelected officials is one that places constraints on us in relation to monetary constraints, and given the unanimous support of Saskatchewan’s elected officials and the members of the House of Commons, this is appropriate.

I hope that answers your question.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

[English]

Senator Gold, I know that our office has been working with the government to try to get timely answers to some of the questions that were posed to you yesterday, for which further information was requested. I am asking this question so that you are afforded an opportunity to put some of these matters on the record for the benefit of our colleagues.

[Translation]

Senator Gold, would you be able to provide us with this information?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her question. The answer is yes.

[English]

I am happy to report that I have indeed sought answers and clarifications in response to several questions posed by honourable senators yesterday. With your indulgence, I will provide these as well as a short recap of the essential facts.

As you know, in 1880, Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway company reached an agreement that included a provision known as clause 16, which exempted CPR’s mainline from certain federal, provincial and municipal taxes. It is important, honourable senators, to note that this exemption only applies to that line and not to the totality of CPR’s enterprise. The exemption was then incorporated by reference in section 24 of The Saskatchewan Act, as well as into the statutes creating Alberta and the statutes extending Manitoba’s borders.

To better answer the question posed by Senator Simons yesterday, the clause 16 exemption also exists in Manitoba and Alberta, but they are not at issue today. To be more precise as it relates to Senator Simons’s questions on outreach by those provinces, I’m not aware of recent overtures made by the governments of Alberta and Manitoba to the federal government of late. However, it is possible, in the long history of this issue, that there may have been some in the past. At this stage, what I can say is that the federal government would, of course, be willing to engage with either province should they wish to pursue a similar change through their own parliamentary procedures.

In 1966, the federal government reached an agreement with CPR. Under the 1966 agreement, CPR would forego exemptions in the Prairie provinces and support constitutional amendments to that effect. However, the Constitution was not amended to reflect this. As you will know, the Constitution had not, at that time, been repatriated, and the question of how to amend the Constitution was far less clear — or easy, more accurately — than it is today.

To answer Senator Dalphond’s question, the 1966 agreement is, in fact, written. It is in the public domain. It is a letter from Mr. Sinclair, which was introduced and read into Hansard on September 8, 1966.

Senator Ringuette asked about the exemption as it relates to federal taxes. By virtue of section 241 of the Income Tax Act, I can’t disclose specific federal taxpayer information. However, having said that, I can confirm that CPR is not legally exempt from federal tax, as confirmed by the Federal Court last fall, and that CPR has generally paid federal taxes, including income tax.

As to the existing litigation and which governments are involved, in answer to Senators Dalphond and Dupuis, I can specify the following. First, separate claims were brought by CPR against the federal government and the Government of Saskatchewan. These claims are distinct and are before different courts. Second, CPR filed a claim in the Federal Court against Canada, asserting an exemption from federal tax, claiming federal taxes paid and seeking a declaration that would preclude the Crown from collecting federal taxes going forward. The claim was made on constitutional, statutory and contractual grounds.

Last fall, the Federal Court decided that CPR is not exempt from federal taxes. CPR has appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court claim is not directed at Saskatchewan. The constitutional amendment we are contemplating does not engage the Federal Court claim.

CPR, as I mentioned, has appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, but it should be noted that it is no longer making its claim on constitutional grounds. As it pertains to the federal government, clause 16 was never constitutionalized.

Further, in 2008, CPR filed a separate claim against Saskatchewan before the Saskatchewan courts, asserting the clause 16 exemption, as it relates to provincial tax, claiming provincial taxes paid and seeking a declaration that would preclude Saskatchewan from collecting provincial taxes going forward. That case is ongoing, and final arguments have been scheduled for May 2022. It is in the Saskatchewan case that CPR is claiming over $340 million from the people of Saskatchewan for taxes it has paid over the years — $340 million. Obviously, senators, $340 million to a population of 1.2 million people is quite substantial, to say the least.

CPR is making that claim based upon the vestigial clause that we’re being urged by all Saskatchewan legislators — all of them — and all members in the other place to remove from The Saskatchewan Act and the Constitution.

In short, the constitutional amendment that we are considering today deals only with the Province of Saskatchewan and it does not involve CPR’s ongoing claim against the federal Crown before the federal courts.

Finally, it should be noted that similar separate claims have been made against Manitoba and Alberta. However, these proceedings have been halted until a final decision is rendered in the Saskatchewan case.

With this additional information and the additional perspectives, we will be hearing soon from the seconder of this motion, Senator Cotter, and I hope we can move ahead swiftly. This is a clear opportunity for us in the upper chamber to stand up for a region of our country in a spirit of cooperative federalism. Colleagues, let us join the unanimous voice of the other place and respond positively to the request made by the elected representatives of the “land of living skies.”

Senator Gold: I thank the honourable senator for the question. I will respond in two ways. First, with respect to the 1880 contract, the details are found in several places. I will try to find the text and make it available to senators.

However, it should be noted that in 1880, there was no federal tax. At the time, the taxation system we know today did not exist. At the turn of the 20th century, the Government of Canada introduced several taxes in a wartime context, and CPR paid those taxes. That is why, notwithstanding the wording of clause 16 of the contract, every stakeholder has always understood that the main issue of the situation that concerns us and that concerns Saskatchewan has to do only with provincial taxes.