Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, a recent PBO study looked at the effect of federal carbon pricing on the economy. It found that most households in the four provinces that are subject to the federal price on carbon are worse off financially.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Yves Giroux, noted:

Under the Government’s HEHE plan, most households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing. That is, the costs they face—including the federal carbon levy, higher GST and lower incomes—will exceed the Climate Action Incentive rebate they receive.

The PBO study is based on the current situation, and we know that it doesn’t take into consideration any new green technologies that may result in cost savings, nor does it take into consideration the overall costs of climate inaction.

Senator Gold, what is the government doing to address the concerns of Canadians about carbon pricing and to, at the same time, help educate the public on the real cost of climate inaction?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question. It’s an important one.

First of all, the government thanks the Parliamentary Budget Officer for his work. That work actually confirms that the price on pollution has a progressive impact and gives 8 out of 10 families more back through climate action incentive rebates than they, in fact, pay.

As colleagues know, pricing carbon pollution is a central part of Canada’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and drive clean innovation. It is widely regarded around the world as the most efficient policy to reduce emissions.

With regard to the second part of your question, colleague, the government has introduced a number of measures to educate Canadians on the importance of climate action, including the Climate Action and Awareness Fund, which will invest $206 million in projects that build youth awareness, engagement and action; support community-based climate action; advance climate science and technology and support academia. I also note that the government has introduced measures to support Canadians in reducing their carbon use, including the Climate Action Incentive Fund, which helps fund energy-efficient retrofits and other projects to improve energy efficiency and productivity, reducing energy use and carbon pollution while saving money.

Senator Gold: Thank you, again, for the important question. The 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan is an ambitious and, the government believes, achievable plan for Canada to reach its climate targets. The plan has been in development for months, and it includes the input of over 30,000 Canadians and, as many colleagues know, a sector-by-sector pathway.

Additionally, I note that it does provide for consultations with respect to driving down carbon pollution from the oil and gas sector. Finally, it further outlines next steps to continue delivering on those priorities for Canadians.

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold.

Last November, following the detection of potato wart in two fields, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency banned the export of all potatoes outside of P.E.I., including to the United States and the rest of Canada. This decision shocked and devastated the industry, which is a major employer and economic contributor in our province.

Last Friday, the ban was finally lifted on the export of P.E.I. table, or eating, potatoes, but not seed or processing potatoes, which is not expected to resume until at least 2023. That could mean two more seasons of losses.

Senator Gold, what steps, if any, are the federal government taking to move up the timeline on lifting the ban on seed potatoes?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, as I said in my statement, we are two weeks away from the anniversary of Canada’s worst mass shooting, when 22 innocent victims in Portapique lost their lives.

In February, I asked you about the families of the 22 victims, who had complained about the lack of information and especially the lack of cooperation over the past two years with respect to the public inquiry into the tragedy. Although the victims’ families were satisfied with the commissioner’s decision to call the killer’s widow and the police officers who participated in the operation to testify, these families had to fight for that information, which is totally unacceptable. I would like to remind you, Senator Gold, that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, a supra-constitutional statute, states in section 7 that:

Every victim has the right, on request, to information about

Have you obtained information about why the victims’ families were not part of the public inquiry even though they should have been?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for reminding us of this recent tragedy. I will have to work on getting you that information because I don’t have it right now. I will follow up.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: In my statement a few moments ago, I touched on another very important issue, namely the disorganization at the RCMP. As we know, the RCMP is responsible for policing large parts of Canada’s territory and provides community-based services that are equivalent to municipal police services.

We also know that the amount of time it took to locate the killer was partly due to this disorganization and a lack of communication. The killer was intercepted by a stroke of luck. If not for that, there could have been even more victims.

Can you tell us what the minister responsible for the RCMP, the Honourable Marco Mendicino, plans to do to strengthen the RCMP and make sure it has the response capabilities it needs in order to prevent such a tragedy from happening again?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, the NDP-Liberal government claims that even with the steady increase in the carbon tax from $50 a tonne now to $170 a tonne in 2030, Canadian households will be better off because of the rebates they will receive.

However, according to a recent report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Manitobans — even with the rebate — will be $299 in the red this fiscal year, $402 in the red the year after that, and by 2030-31 they will suffer an annual net loss of $1,145. The results are similar in other provinces, and worse in Alberta.

Leader, who got it right, the NDP-Liberal government or the independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I would like to stand on a point of order.

On Thursday of last week, when I wasn’t in the chamber, the leader of the government asked Senator Housakos a question after Senator Housakos’s very good speech given in the Senate regarding hybrid sittings — and, indeed, good arguments were made by many of my colleagues — that we needed to get back to this place and do our job here the way we were intended to.

Of course, this moment is the first opportunity I have had to stand on this. I want to say at the outset, Your Honour and colleagues, that I’m not seeking any recourse; I simply want to put some things on the record as a point of order. I do that now. There is no recourse required from you, Your Honour, on this issue, as far as I’m concerned.

Senator Gold asked Senator Housakos a question, and this is from Hansard:

Our Rules, which are well established, do give both the government and the opposition a veto over whether a committee request to sit, notwithstanding that the Senate may be adjourned for over a week — they can approve or disapprove. Honourable senators will know that those requests have often been disapproved.

Senator Gold goes on to say:

I’m asking whether you would agree, in light of the legitimate concerns you’ve raised about the importance of the work we do, especially in committees, and representing the opposition as the leader — at least today — that those requests should in fact be acceded to such that committees could do the work with greater time and resources.

The words “. . . that those requests should in fact be acceded to . . .” imply that you just simply approve whatever request is made.

I wasn’t here to defend myself, Your Honour. When comments like “have often been disapproved” are made, I would take that not as an accusation, but at least as an assertion that I had rather flippantly not given approval to committees that wanted to sit on Mondays after the Senate had been away for more than a week.

I had a clerk of committees do some research for me and help me with this, and I would like to put on the record that there were a total of 13 requests made for 24 different committee meetings. I approved 18 of the 24 meetings. I’m not sure what “often been disapproved” means.

For the week of January 31 to February 4 of this year, there were five committees that had originally requested to meet. I withdrew approval for three of them because they were meeting on future business only. As I explained to the clerk, I did so in light of decisions made to extend the adjournment of the Senate to limit the number of staff on site because of the convoy in downtown Ottawa. I said that, because of what we were told were dangerous circumstances for people to come to work, the Conservatives would be withdrawing approval for committee meetings that did not have any business before them. For committees with no business before them, we withdrew approval for them to sit.

The two committees that did meet with our approval had witnesses invited, so it was important that they meet.

For the week of March 21, 2021 — a year ago — I, again, did not give approval for a meeting of the Legal Committee during a break week, which was a meeting on Bill C-3, because not all the steering members had been consulted.

Your Honour and colleagues, we have seen motions brought forward here that would give committees the opportunity to meet without consultation between the government leader and the Leader of the Opposition, and that is when we would have a runaway train.

There are reasons we have had rules in this place for 150 years — rules that have actually accommodated us quite well. There is a specific reason why it has been decided that the government leader and the Leader of the Opposition decide whether committees should meet at certain times. Generally, they gather all the facts and do not just simply, 30 seconds, or a minute and 30 seconds after a request is made — as we have seen on some occasions — reply with an email that reads, “I agree.” Rather, we think this through and see whether there may be problems.

Without question, colleagues, it is a problem with translation and setting up hybrid meetings. It is easy to have meetings when we are all here and meet in person. Yes, translation is needed, but we don’t need all the resources required for hybrid meetings. There are a limited number of committees that can meet at one time. That has to be considered.

The government casting aspersions on the opposition does not help with camaraderie. It does not help us to get along, negotiate and facilitate each other’s requests, and work in the spirit of unity. Too often, I believe, one side is being accused of not listening. Senator Housakos, who was in no position to know what meetings I had approved, had not approved and why they weren’t approved, gets asked in my absence, and a suggestion is made in my absence that these requests have often been disapproved.

I take issue with that. I take issue with the fact that the government is trying to put the opposition into a defence position. That’s not the way this chamber has worked in the past. The government needs to defend what they are doing.

Even though we are called the opposition, I believe that I and leaders of the opposition before me have tried to work in a collaborative way, and we would like to continue to do that. I quite frankly think that Senator Gold has the same desires and has done the same things. But when a senator is not here to defend himself or herself, to have a question like that put forward and to have a comment like that made when it is an absolutely untrue statement, I find troubling.

But I have put it on the record, Your Honour, and I would just as soon simply let it stand for the record, that we move on and that we, including myself, all try to do better in the future. Thank you.

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, on the same point of order, if I could briefly respond for the record and for context, because context is always important.

The context last week — and I was sitting here listening to the discussion — was one in which Senator Housakos spent a considerable period of time, Your Honour, insinuating that hybrid sittings and those who are supportive of them were in some way deleterious to the effective operations of the Senate.

I think a number of us sat here listening to that discourse and were rather offended by it. I know I certainly was. Some of the senator’s remarks signified to the public that senators were in some way shirking their responsibilities to Canadians. It’s not a stretch to say that. I’m not reaching to say that. I’m not digging deep to say that. That was the nature of the comments made — that somehow those who support hybrid sittings were not living up to their responsibilities.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This chamber and people on all sides of it, in the context of hybrid sittings, have given of their best, have processed government bills, processed government business and processed private members’ business; have made important statements; have been productive in every sense of the word; have lived up to their constitutional responsibilities. Suggestions to the contrary were, frankly, deeply offensive to many of us in this room. Actually, that’s one of the reasons that I’m grateful for the opportunity to comment on that right now.

Senator Housakos was certainly not speaking in the spirit of unity and commonality that Senator Plett exhorts us to do today. If that had been the case, perhaps those remarks would have been more evenly balanced. It was negative, it was critical and it was far from collaborative.

Your Honour, thank you for the time to say this. There was very little mention made of the health concerns associated with the reasons for hybrid sittings, for the devastation across this country and to people across this country, the devastation to relatives of some people in this chamber, the devastation to one particular person in this chamber who is no longer with us. That’s the backdrop to hybrid sittings.

Senator Dean: I stand by my word. Please do not interrupt me, Senator Plett.

Senator Colin Deacon pointed out to us that there were other reasons to confront the possibilities and virtues of hybrid sittings, which related to the benefits of the use of digitization and digital technology for productivity that could contribute to the savings of costs as we do our work in this place, that could contribute to those who worry about their health as they travel from the coasts and to those who may, over time, be concerned about the environmental impact of long-term travel.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo moved second reading of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.

He said: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to be the sponsor of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, and to speak to it at second reading.

Bill S-6 has been introduced in this chamber so that we can thoroughly study it on behalf of Canadians. I’d like to thank all of you in advance for your wise counsel on this bill, and I look forward to our collective deliberations.

[Translation]

Businesses are the backbone of Canada’s economic success. They create the goods, services and wealth that have made our country so prosperous. As we emerge from the pandemic and look ahead to the economic recovery, Bill S-6 will help Canadian businesses by ensuring that the regulatory system evolves to keep pace with changing technologies and that it reflects today’s realities.

[English]

This bill will make regulatory processes simpler and easier to navigate, moving paper-based or in-person processes online and ensuring Canadian regulations keep pace with international trends.

Specifically, Bill S-6 proposes to modify 29 acts through 46 amendments and it applies to 12 departments and agencies.

While the immediate impact of each proposal is relatively modest, all the proposals aim to eliminate legislative irritants and to reduce the overall administrative burden that have become barriers to innovation and economic growth. What’s more, all of the proposals are cost-neutral and the associated risks are low to non-existent.

Taken together, these amendments represent meaningful change to the federal regulatory system and the need for continued commitment to its modernization.

[Translation]

Before I get into the details, allow me to provide some information on how this bill came about.

[English]

To begin with, the process to modernize regulations is part of the mandate of the President of the Treasury Board of Canada. In her mandate letter from the Prime Minister, Minister Fortier is asked to continue regulatory reform efforts in collaboration with her cabinet colleagues. This includes improving transparency, reducing administrative burden and harmonizing regulations that maintain high safety standards and improve the competitiveness of Canadian businesses.

The bill is meant to be a recurring legislative mechanism that allows the federal government to address overly complicated, inconsistent or outdated requirements and to keep the regulatory system relevant and up-to-date. It is designed to address legislative challenges raised by businesses and all Canadians through consultations and targeted regulatory reviews. Business stakeholders, including the Economic Strategy Tables and the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, have emphasized the importance of regularized mechanisms in order to review and update Canada’s regulatory system.

In addition, the External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness, made up of business, academic and consumer stakeholders, has recommended that there be continued efforts to reduce the administrative burden of regulations and to ensure that they are “future proofed,” which means keeping pace with changing technologies and business realities.

By amending laws that are too inflexible, too specific or simply outdated, this bill is an important reminder of the need for ongoing regulatory review and legislation that stands the test of time.

The bill does just that, and it also helps address irritants in regulatory processes, ensuring that our regulatory system evolves with the times.

This bill is a key part of the government’s plan to improve the regulatory system. Initiatives supporting regulatory reform were announced in four successive budgets beginning in 2017. In the 2018 Fall Economic Statement, the government announced that starting in 2019, it would introduce annual legislation to ensure that the regulatory system evolves with changing technologies and reflects the current realities, challenges and opportunities faced by business.

Accordingly, the Budget Implementation Act 2019, No. 1 included a regulatory modernization component that modified 12 pieces of legislation. That bill included measures to digitize paper-based processes; enable innovation through regulatory sandboxes that allow exceptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products; and to make rule changes in consideration of zero-emission vehicles.

The current Bill S-6 would have arrived in Parliament sooner but for the COVID-19 pandemic. It was, however, foreshadowed in Budget 2021 in which the government committed to table in Parliament the second Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill, which is Bill S-6.

Let me now turn to some of the key amendments proposed in this bill.

There is a change, for example, to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act that would allow the CFIA to deliver services and for businesses to interact with the agency using electronic means rather than having to rely solely on paper-based transactions. This will reduce the administrative burden for businesses and allow them greater flexibility in their interactions with government.

In addition, there are amendments to the Canada Transportation Act that would allow for new mechanisms to integrate changes more quickly to international safety standards. This would ensure that our transportation sectors are meeting the most up-to-date safety standards, keeping pace with changes in technology and innovation. The Standards Council of Canada, on whose board I served for a number of years, examined 34 Transport Canada regulations in 2021 and found that 41% of the standards referenced in those regulations are outdated.

There are also changes to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to enable information-sharing to help administer any federal or provincial law for permanent and temporary residents. This would support collaboration between federal departments, provinces and territories and enable faster processing of applications to address labour market needs. Did you know that 50% of permanent residency applicants already have temporary residency applications approved and, hence, have already provided much of the information needed for their PR applications? This is not trivial, because some forms require the applicants to address more than 100 questions.

There are other amendments, for example, to the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act to simply change the term “annual return” so that it doesn’t create confusion to stakeholders.

Colleagues, if you are thinking what could be so confusing about the term “annual return” and asking yourself if it isn’t just the tax return that companies have to file every year, the answer is that it is not. If you figured that they were one and the same, you would be among the thousands of Canadian business owners who have been confused by this nomenclature.

In fact, the annual return that is referenced in the Corporations Act and related acts is not the same as the tax return that is administered by the CRA. Rather, it is an annual submission to provide updated information about the entity, shareholders, directors and officers. Not filing this information for a number of years can result in a company being dissolved, as well as expenses to revive the company.

A simple, possibly innocent, error due to confusing nomenclature can result in significant consequences, and the proposed amendment in Bill S-6 seeks to eliminate the likelihood of such errors.

Adding clarity through these amendments would reduce the risk of active corporations becoming dissolved because they did not file.

I would also mention the amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to allow the use of different sampling methods to verify electric and gas meter measurements. Electric and gas meters are used by utility companies in residential and commercial properties to track energy usage for billing purposes. Allowing greater flexibility in the sampling and testing approach would help ensure that Measurement Canada — the agency responsible for regulation — only samples what is required to verify accurate readings, saving time and money.

There are also amendments to the Fisheries Act that would clarify that fisheries officers have the authority to use alternative measures in response to minor violations, which is an authority that was unclear in the existing legislation. This change could not only reduce the number of lengthy and costly court processes but also ensure that small violations don’t result in criminal records and the stigma and barriers that can come with it.

The use of such alternative measures has been supported by the fishing community and by Indigenous groups. In fact, all of the proposed amendments come from either the advice of multi-stakeholder groups that are involved in ongoing consultations or targeted regulatory reviews, or from the recommendations of our very own Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I have been a member of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee almost the entire time that I have served in the Senate, and I’m very pleased for the recognition that this bill gives to the important work of that committee.

Perhaps next time there is committee selection, there will be a rush of applicants to join the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee.

Since the amendments are both disparate and quite technical, I will not be able to address all of them in this speech nor likely even to address all of the questions you may have on very specific items in the bill, which is why I think the best place to study the specific amendments is in committee. I would encourage us to send the bill to the relevant committees as soon as possible so that they have sufficient time to do their work.

Honourable colleagues, these are just a few of the amendments included in the bill, but I think they give you a sense of the breadth and the potential impact of having it passed.

Looking ahead, the Treasury Board Secretariat is already considering proposals for the third Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill. A key theme of this next round of modernization will be how it might contribute to the response to COVID-19 and recovery efforts to that end. Businesses and all Canadian stakeholders will have the opportunity to share their views on improving the regulatory system. A consultation will take place this fall to collect ideas for potential amendments to be included in subsequent regulatory modernization bills.

Let me add that because this is meant to be an annual exercise with an Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill introduced each year, passing this Bill S-6 as a stand-alone bill will help establish a precedent for future bills and, I hope, establish the commitment that Parliament has to ongoing improvements to our regulatory system.

Colleagues, in addition to the Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill exercise, there are other ongoing initiatives to modernize our regulatory system. For example, there is a process of targeted regulatory reviews to reduce barriers to economic growth and competitiveness, and to advance novel regulatory approaches to support innovation.

Federal regulators are also implementing regulatory road maps for two rounds of reviews. Some of the areas of focus for these regulatory reviews have included agri-food and aquaculture, health and biosciences, transportation, clean technology and international standards to name just a few. Indeed, some of the changes proposed in Bill S-6 stem from the regulatory reviews that I just described.

There is also within government something called the Centre for Regulatory Innovation that promotes a whole-of-government approach to regulatory experimentation to support innovation and competitiveness, and help regulators and the regulatory system keep pace with technological advances.

Finally, Canada is actively engaging with partners in the United States and the EU, as well as with provinces and territories, to reduce unnecessary regulatory differences and eliminate duplicative requirements among jurisdictions.

Honourable senators, this bill is about modernizing Canada’s federal regulatory system. It seeks to make the system more efficient and less burdensome, while maintaining protections for consumers, health, safety and the environment. I look forward to working with all of you on this bill, and I hope we can soon send it to the committees for their detailed scrutiny of the proposed amendments.

Thank you.

Senator Quinn: Honourable senators, I rise this afternoon on behalf of our honourable colleague Senator Robert Black who can’t be with us this afternoon. The question is as follows:

For the past few years, there has been extensive work highlighting the importance of regulatory modernization to Canadian agriculture and, by extension, the Canadian economy. Starting with the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, the Barton Report, and followed by the Agri-Food Economic Strategy Table, this work culminated in the Agri‑food and Aquaculture Roadmap and regulatory review that involved significant consultations with agri-food stakeholders.

How does this bill, which touches on many critical pieces of legislation for Canadian farmers, relate to that road map and reflect the voices of Canadian farmers that informed that work?

Senator Woo: I thank you, and I thank Senator Black for being the originator of the question.

By my count, 22, possibly 23, of the amendments out of the 46 in the bill, apply to the agriculture and agri-food sector. Many of those amendments derive precisely from the regulatory efforts and consultations that you reference, both the agriculture and aquaculture regulatory review process, as well as the so-called Barton Report.

To give you some examples, number 17 on the Feeds Act and number 25 on the Seeds Act — feeds and seeds — will bring about changes in the legislation to allow for mutual recognition of feed and seed safety guidelines between Canada and a partner country — in what they call equivalents or mutual recognition agreements — in order for processes in seeds and fertilizers and other materials to be shared between the two countries without repeating the testing and approval processes. That is believed to be helpful to our industries and to augment and enhance trade between Canada and trading partners.

Another example would be amendment 30, which has to do with the control of breakouts of animal disease. The current legislation is a bit unclear in terms of what a control area is and whether a place that has an incidence of this disease would be considered to be subject to the regulations, even if it is outside the control area. The amendment makes clear that a so-called place that is designated would be subject to the same restrictions, even if it were not part of the so-called control area.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Woo, I actually had the privilege of being the joint chair of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee in 2014 and 2015, prior to that election. I was a member for a couple of years before that, from the time that I came to the Senate. I certainly know and understand that it is a very important committee where this type of technical work gets done.

Stemming from my work for the Government of Saskatchewan, I saw it as a real benefit to have these types of regulatory statutes, which are brought forward quite often — in Saskatchewan, generally they try to do this every year or two — where they tidy up these regulations and statutes. When I was joint chair, I suggested strongly that this be done by the federal government to ensure these types of corrections to statutes can be made in a timely way.

However, I don’t think that has happened. Since the Trudeau government has been in power, I’m not sure how many times these types of regulatory statutes have been tidied up. Could you please answer that question?

Just yesterday the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee had its first meeting of this parliamentary session, already several months into it. Has that also been a problem, that we haven’t had many Scrutiny of Regulations meetings? We used to have them every two weeks when I was joint chair.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Batters, for the question. Let me start with the question about the committee’s constitution.

We did, in fact, meet yesterday for the first time in this Parliament. I’m honoured to have been elected joint chair, together with MP Blake Richards from the House of Commons. We will meet every two weeks now until we rise for the summer and we hope to get as much work done as possible.

Some of the work of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee can translate into immediate change on the part of the government if it doesn’t require a change in legislation. You will know, since you were a former joint chair, that a number of the requests the committee has made to departments pointing out errors in their drafting of regulations has resulted in their making the changes. Sometimes it’s like pulling teeth, you will remember. That kind of progress can be made without, in fact, changing the acts.

Of course, if errors spotted by the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee require changes in legislation, then we are into this kind of process here. Indeed, Bill S-6 contains at least a dozen measures that derive directly from the direct or indirect advice of the committee. I would be happy to provide more information on what specific advice was given. Those of us who have served on this committee should take pride that our observations in the committee — with the blessing of this chamber and the House — will result in changes to legislation.

However, Bill S-6 is much more than just cleaning up of regulations and laws based on the comments of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee. The majority of changes in Bill S-6 derive from either the regulatory review process that is held with business and consumer stakeholder groups, which Senator Quinn referred to, or they derive from targeted Regulatory Reviews that the government has launched in particular sectors.

We have three streams of material that have fed into Bill S-6. We have the work of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee, often of a technical nature and to do with the integrity of the bill; we have the regulatory review consultation process with stakeholders and, finally, we have the targeted Regulatory Reviews that are led by departments.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Would the Honourable Senator Woo accept a question?

Senator Woo: Yes, of course.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I am informed that the console is now functioning. It is not an issue of our hybrid sitting, to make sure you understand the technical issue.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the adoption of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled Report relating to Government motion 14 (taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Saskatchewan), presented in the Senate on March 31, 2022.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: I would like to ask Senator Woo a question.

Senator Woo, thank you for that informative speech. You have urged that the bill go to committee; however, it covers a broad area and a number of existing statutes. Do you see one committee being a main committee? How would committees of the Senate deal with such a broad piece of legislation? Thank you.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Patterson. The question and the decision on which committee or committees the bill goes to are now beyond my pay grade. I know the leaders are discussing this issue. I believe they are contemplating sending the bill to multiple committees. I think we can roughly guess which committees are suited for which amendments.

I do agree with you — if, in fact, this is what you were suggesting — that there should be a master committee; again, I leave that decision to the leadership.

What I will say, though, colleagues, is that if we agree that regulatory modernization is a good thing and that we should do it on a regular basis — sort of like housecleaning, right? — if we have to do spring cleaning every year, let’s think about how best to do it in the Senate and how best to organize ourselves so that we don’t have to debate which broom to use and which mop is the most efficient.

Personally, I would like to see us play a leadership role in the broader issue of regulatory reform for this country and to provide some leadership in Parliament in terms of pushing forward this agenda on a regular basis, regardless of the government in place. This bill will give us the opportunity to think about what some best practices might be.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled Report relating to Government motion 14 (taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Saskatchewan), presented in the Senate on March 31, 2022.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I want to start today with some history. In 1880, the Government of Canada signed a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway, or CPR, granting to the railway the right, in perpetuity, to be exempt from paying taxes along its proposed route through the Canadian Prairies.

In 1880, let’s remember, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta did not exist. It had only been in 1869, just 11 years before, that the Hudson’s Bay Company sold the territory it called Rupert’s Land to the government of the new nation of Canada for the fire sale price of £300,000 or $1.5 million — although you could argue that the Hudson’s Bay Company got a pretty good deal since the land in question didn’t actually belong to them. The land had never been conquered by the British Crown. It was Hudson’s Bay Company trading territory, but it had been, until that moment, the territory of the First Nations and the Métis Nation, who called it home.

Eventually there would be treaties that covered the land where the CPR would lay its rails, but those treaties weren’t signed until years after the land sale: Treaty 4 in 1874; Treaty 6 in 1876; and Treaty 7, not signed until 1877, just three years before the government signed its deal with the CPR.

It was an act of no small colonial hubris for the government of Sir John A. Macdonald to award Canadian Pacific Railway the eternal freedom from paying taxes on land it had been given by the Crown for its right-of-ways. Yes, that’s right — the CPR got the land for free and an everlasting tax holiday, too.

That same colonial spirit was strongly at play when Saskatchewan and Alberta finally entered Confederation in 1905, not as full-fledged provinces with the same rights as the others, but with slightly second-class status when it came to the governance of their own lands and natural resources. That same central Canadian colonial mindset helps to explain why the CPR tax exemption was written right into The Alberta Act and The Saskatchewan Act, and thus into the British North America Act itself.

I mean, it is absurd, when you think about it. We actually wrote a corporate subsidy — a perpetual tax holiday — for one private company right into our Constitution, our nation’s supreme piece of legislation. And we left it right there in 1982 when we repatriated our Constitution, making the taxpayers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, too, perpetual second-class citizens, perpetually on the hook, committed to subsidizing the cost of Sir John A. Macdonald’s crony capitalism forever and ever, amen.

Perhaps the reason this issue didn’t come up 40 years ago when we brought the Constitution home is because the CPR actually started paying its taxes on the Prairies voluntarily in 1966. Perhaps that’s why no one dealt with this oddball anachronism in 1982 when we opened up the Constitution for review and restructure.

Indeed, this whole matter might have been consigned to the history books if the CPR hadn’t sued the three Prairie provinces in 2008, demanding the return of the taxes they had already voluntarily paid, or, to be more precise, for six years of back taxes, the most they could claim under the statute of limitations.

Their logic was based on a 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decision called Kingstreet Investments Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Finance). In that case, the Supreme Court held that restitution should be generally available for the recovery of monies collected under legislation that is subsequently declared to be ultra vires because it would be fundamentally wrong for a government to retain taxes it collected under a regime that was beyond its legal powers. To use a non-Latin phrase, CPR’s interpretation of Kingstreet stirred up a hornet’s nest.

Today, we are specifically discussing a motion to end Canadian Pacific Railway’s tax-free status in Saskatchewan, but let’s note that the CPR sued Alberta, too, filing its statement of claim against my province on August 13, 2008. That was back when Ed Stelmach was Alberta’s premier.

Though the case has yet to go to trial, or even to proceed to examinations for discovery, that lawsuit has stayed active throughout the premierships of Ed Stelmach, Alison Redford, Jim Prentice, Dave Hancock, Rachel Notley and Jason Kenney. Indeed, the CPR filed an updated statement of claim against Alberta in December 2020, demanding that it be exempt from paying carbon and fuel taxes, too.

So I’m speaking today very much as an Alberta senator and an Alberta taxpayer with a keen interest in ensuring that other Alberta taxpayers are getting their own fair deal from Confederation.

With that framing in mind, let me make three points.

First, despite the wording of The Alberta Act and The Saskatchewan Act, and despite the incorporation of this never‑ending corporate subsidy into the Constitution, the deal is not written in stone, and legal authorities seem to agree that the Parliament of Canada has the right and power to amend it. Parliament, after all, is sovereign, and no parliament, one could argue, has the power to bind a future parliament in this perpetual way, because no one parliament — even one led by Sir John A. Macdonald — is superior to another.

This isn’t a fairy tale from The One Thousand and One Nights or the Brothers Grimm, where a kingdom is cursed because its king signed some kind of blood contract with a jinni or Rumpelstiltskin. We have the power to break this spell.

This was a business deal inked in 1880, in a completely different world — one where Saskatchewan and Alberta didn’t even exist and where no one imagined that CP would be changing its name to Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited or be running trains all the way to Mexico. How logical is it for such an agreement to be binding 142 years later?

Second, there is, at the same time, a question of procedural fairness and what you might call natural justice. CP and the Government of Saskatchewan have been locked in an active legal dispute over this issue since 2008. For the Government of Saskatchewan and the Parliament of Canada to short-circuit that legal process by changing the rules so radically in the middle of the game isn’t exactly sporting. To use an 1880 colonial idiom, it is “hardly cricket.”

Now, maybe you don’t feel particularly badly for CP. After all, they opened this can of worms when they sued back in 2008. They might have anticipated that Saskatchewan, rather than pay back millions in taxes, might use this nuclear option. Also, given that CP reported $8 billion in revenues for 2021, maybe you’re not feeling deeply sympathetic.

But I feel uneasy at the thought of amending the Constitution retroactively, as this motion proposes, backdating this change to 1966. The Constitution is the moral code and the DNA for our country. It has to be treated with respect and with the understanding that our actions have long echoes. For a government to reverse a constitutional entitlement in this ex post facto way sets a problematic precedent. What other constitutional rights or entitlements might a future government attempt to antedate in this fashion?

In its 1988 ruling in Ford v. Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Constitution’s “notwithstanding” clause could not be applied retroactively but only as an act of prospective derogation. I am no expert in constitutional law, although many here are, but from a common sense perspective, I can’t help but wonder if a parallel philosophical argument for prospective derogation might not apply here also. I am happy to argue that we should change this deal going forward for the benefit of Saskatchewan’s future. I am considerably less comfortable with a motion that seeks to time travel some 56 years into the past, not just to rewrite the Constitution but to rewrite history. It may be valid, but I’m not sure it’s good public policy.

Here is my third concern: This is a stand-alone deal for Saskatchewan, a constitutional carve-out for one province, but Saskatchewan is flanked by Alberta and Manitoba, two provinces that share the same CP conundrum. Does it make sense to amend the Constitution for the benefit of only one province when two other provinces are in the same boat — or a rail car? There’s an old expression, “That’s no way to run a railroad.” I can’t help but feel that adage applies here.

Amending the Constitution in this patchwork, piecemeal way leaves us with an uneven and uneasy Confederation. As an Albertan, I’m upset that my own province has been left at the station, as it were, shunted to the side. This is not fair to Albertans, and it’s an imbalance that cannot be allowed to stand.

I have attempted to reach out to the Alberta government to discuss this, and I’d be very willing to work with the province to see what can be done to address this imbalance. That might well include volunteering to move a motion in the Senate to ensure that Albertans get their just deserts.

In the meantime, I’m concerned that by doing these amendments bit by bit, we’re missing a chance for a more coherent examination of these constitutional irregularities. I fear, too, that we’re forfeiting the chance to address the role and the rights of Indigenous peoples through whose traditional lands in Alberta the CP main line runs, including the five nations of Treaty 7: the Siksika, the Kainai, the Piikani, the Stoney-Nakoda and the Tsust’ina.

Thank you for giving me, as an Alberta senator, this opportunity to speak up for the rights of all my fellow Albertans. It is long past time to correct a legal anachronism that denies the three Prairie provinces their constitutional right to levy and collect taxes on their own territories. We can’t be a modern Confederation while Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are still treated like second-class colonies. I just wish we were tackling this problem in a somewhat different way.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I thank my colleagues for their speeches on this matter.

I speak today to urge that we work together to uphold one of our most important duties as senators. As we well know, we share a responsibility to ensure that all perspectives are heard. Far too often, the perspectives of those most marginalized seem to be intentionally ignored. Today, we have an opportunity to ensure they are not.

Here are some important facts.

The 1881 agreement between the Government of Canada and CP Railway provided CP Railway access to traditional territories of First Nations peoples, both unceded lands and treaty lands. Clause 12 of the contract between CP Railway and the Government of Canada states:

The Government shall extinguish the Indian title affecting the lands herein appropriated, and to be hereafter granted in aid of the railway.

This blatant disregard for the rights of Indigenous peoples underpins and forms crucial context for Motion No. 14.

The lands transferred between CP Railway and the Government of Saskatchewan are governed by three treaties — 4, 6 and 10 — signed with the Cree, Saulteaux, Chipewyan, Ojibwe and Assiniboine. These were agreements negotiated in good faith between the Crown and Indigenous peoples but that have not been honoured by the Canadian government.

Tempting as it is to try to list the depth and breadth of all these broken promises, time today does not permit it so, for additional details, I will urge anyone interested to review the documents of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

In order to provide you with just a taste of the sorts of issues involved, however, I feel it is important to give a few examples.

The first breach concerns the settlement on an area known as the “treaty ground,” a place that was agreed to be set aside to conduct treaty business. It was the site where Treaty 4 was signed and where Indigenous peoples received their annual treaty compensation.

In 1882, Treaty 4 peoples were told to receive their payments on their reserves instead of on the ground. Although this decision was met with resistance by the First Nation, Indian Affairs unilaterally transferred the treaty ground to the Department of the Interior in 1894. It took more than a century for Treaty 4 peoples to get this land back.

Treaty 6 was signed when the Cree were in constant threat of starvation, as the bison population, their main source of food, was being hunted to extinction by arriving settlers. This was such a serious issue to the Indigenous peoples that they included a “famine and pestilence clause” in the treaty. Despite negotiating that provision, successive governments have failed to ensure First Nations enjoyed food or health security. Indeed, these, as well as economic insecurity, remain serious issues, with food insecurity alone ranging from the horrific average rate of 48% to the genocidal figure of 60% in too many First Nations communities.

Treaty 10 was not signed until 1906 — 25 years after the agreement between CP Railway and Canada. Even then, this treaty was nearly immediately breached with both the Canoe Lake Cree First Nation and English River First Nation not being given the full amount of reserve land promised.

There are also further concerns. Although, according to the government, treaties extinguished Indigenous land “ownership,” all the First Nations involved maintain that they agreed to share, not sell, their lands.

There are also disputes about the nature and extent of the rights covered by these treaties. It is well recognized that during their negotiation, government representatives made oral promises that were not then reflected in the written versions of the agreements, otherwise known as the treaties.

The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Badger created the principles to govern treaty interpretation in light of these facts. Furthermore, Justice Sopinka wrote that even when the written version of an agreement was faithful to the oral promises, there were still linguistic and cultural barriers and unfamiliarity with the common law system that created an obligation to examine treaties in a special light. Treaties must be interpreted in the sense that they would naturally have been understood by Indigenous peoples at the time of signing.

These facts may be uncomfortable for Canadians to hear and learn. However, Canadians agreed to grapple with this difficult past in pursuit of a brighter future. Canada has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, many articles of which focus on remedying past colonial wrongs and rely on the good-faith negotiation of nation-to-nation relationships with Indigenous peoples. The government has committed to implementing the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Most recently, Canada’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples was tabled as a top priority for the Canadian government and is included in the mandate letters of all 36 current members of the cabinet. Part of reconciliation requires that Canadians know, understand, acknowledge and work to rectify the truths of our racist colonial past that were for so very long ignored. Only then can we move on in the spirit of reconciliation.

This motion deserves this contextualization and more, dear colleagues, and I thank you for your time.

Meegwetch. Thank you.