Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable Senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

The objective of Bill C-10 is twofold. It authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to COVID-19 tests. This amount is in addition to the $1.7 billion that was announced in the 2021 Economic and Fiscal Update, which is currently provided for in Bill C-8. This means that the total sum of money to be spent on the procurement of COVID-19 tests adds up to $4.2 billion.

Bill C-10 also authorizes the Minister of Health to transfer the COVID-19 tests to the provinces and territories and other establishments.

Diagnostic testing remains a critical tool in our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It enables early detection and isolation of infectious individuals, which helps to prevent the spread of the virus. It allows Canadians to take measures to not only protect themselves, but also those around them.

There are two types of diagnostic tests that are commonly used to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2: molecular and antigen tests. There are clear differences between the two tests, and each serves its own unique purpose.

First, the polymerase chain reaction test is commonly referred to as a PCR test. This molecular test uses a specimen collected from an individual’s upper respiratory system to detect the presence of specific genetic material belonging to the virus. PCR technology is highly sensitive and specific. It is for this reason that a PCR test is often referred to as the gold standard for diagnosis.

However, the prompt analysis of a PCR test result depends on several factors: efficient transportation, laboratory capacity, complex equipment and highly skilled and trained personnel.

In addition, due to its high sensitivity to virus fragments of genetic material, PCR tests often continue to provide positive test results for weeks or months, even when an individual is no longer infectious. The use of PCR tests is neither always effective nor practical.

The second is the rapid antigen test, which uses a sample collected from a nasal swab to detect the presence of viral particles known as antigens. The value of the rapid antigen test is that it tells you if you are infectious with the virus now — on the day it is taken. A key feature of this test is its ability to produce a rapid result, often within 15 minutes.

The additional appeal of a rapid antigen test is in its practicality: they are more affordable than PCR tests and they use less health care resources because they can be self-administered at any preferred location.

At the onset of the pandemic, many health experts advocated for the use of rapid antigen tests in a variety of community settings, including long-term care homes, hospitals and classrooms.

In an opinion piece published in TIME magazine on November 17, 2020, Harvard epidemiologist and physician Dr. Michael Mina urged recognition of the fact that rapid antigen testing is an important tool, a tool that could lead us out of the pandemic. He wrote:

The point is to use these tests frequently so people are likely to know their status early, before they transmit to others. It is frequency and speed to get results, and not absolute sensitivity of the test that should take center stage in a public health screening program to stop outbreaks.

A question that is frequently asked is whether rapid antigen tests are effective.

From August to December 2020, the U.K. COVID-19 Lateral Flow Oversight Team analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of 64 antigen tests. Results from their experiment, which were published in May of 2021, showed that antigen tests “. . . have promising performance characteristics for mass population testing and can be used to identify infectious positive individuals.”

Data collected from seven of the most popular and reliable antigen tests showed that the likelihood that an infectious individual tests positive ranged from 96% to 99%, with one of the tests at 94%. The probability of a false positive result was less than 1%.

Even more importantly, the probability that an infectious person gets a false negative result ranges from 1% to 4%, with one — and only one — of the tests at 6%.

It is evident that rapid antigen tests are an effective and important public health tool which, used early and frequently, are highly reliable in detecting individuals who are infectious at the time the test is taken.

However, nearly two years into the pandemic, the understanding of the use and value of rapid antigen tests has been minimal. Their rollout across Canada, in comparison to other nations, has been slow. Their value as a public health screening tool to lower the risk of community outbreaks has not been adequately utilized.

Honourable senators, over the course of this pandemic I have repeatedly and persistently raised the issue of rapid antigen testing in this chamber, particularly during Question Period. At the beginning of October 2020, I inquired about the distribution process of rapid antigen tests across Canada. Just a few weeks later, I asked about the numbers of rapid antigen tests that had been allotted to long-term care settings.

As Canadians continue to confront the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, access to rapid antigen tests remains limited. Canadians have been forced to scout various locations in search of test kits. Many have waited in long lines from dawn to dusk, only to be turned away empty-handed.

Some provinces have creative and effective distribution mechanisms in place. Rapid antigen tests can be readily found in a number of locations, such as public libraries, family resource centres, grocery stores, gas stations and COVID-19 testing sites; whereas, in other provinces, rapid antigen tests have been scarce and difficult — if not impossible — to find.

While the distribution and deployment of rapid antigen tests do fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, this does not absolve the federal government of their responsibility to show leadership on this matter. The shortage of rapid antigen tests across Canada is a direct result of the federal government’s reluctance to approve them at the beginning of the pandemic. It demonstrates a lack of communication about their importance and value.

It is important to note that these challenges are not new. The federal government has struggled to communicate clearly and effectively on matters concerning public health for years.

In June of 2010, former Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq asked the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to review and report on Canada’s response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. At the time, I was a member of this committee and had the opportunity to participate in this study.

Over the course of 10 meetings, my Senate colleagues and I heard witness testimony from representatives of the federal government, several provincial and territorial governments, and representatives of health care professions, First Nations and Inuit organizations and the research community.

In December of 2010, our committee tabled a report entitled Canada’s Response to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, which summarized our findings and provided 17 recommendations to strengthen Canada’s future pandemic preparedness plan. Our committee heard considerable testimony that expressed concern about the lack of effective and clear communication and messaging.

The report found that:

Despite the fact that communications was handled much better than it was during SARS and that our CPHO was complimented on his performance by many witnesses, communications and messaging were the most frequently criticized issues during the study. This issue is vast and includes the federal government’s communication and messaging to the Canadian public, their communication with the P/T governments, their role, if any, in the messaging available to Canadians via different media, and the responsibility for two-way communications, whether possible or helpful.

The report also highlighted the distinct roles and responsibilities of the federal, provincial and territorial governments in public health.

While there was an indication that the federal government took a leadership role in several areas such as disease surveillance, antiviral and vaccine programs, infection prevention measures, collection of clinical care guidelines, public health communication, research and laboratory testing during the H1N1 pandemic, some witnesses stated that:

. . . the federal government should have been more emphatic about its leadership role. That is, some front-line workers felt that the shared responsibility for public health should come under explicit federal leadership.

Witnesses proposed different mechanisms by which a uniform national approach could be achieved. These ranged from:

. . . further nurturing the current approach of consulting with provinces and territories, to establishing mutual agreements among the jurisdictions, to harmonizing legislation between the provinces and territories, to utilizing the peace, order, and good government head of power granted under the Constitution.

To that end, it was agreed, “. . . the goal of a pandemic response should be to have a uniform national response.”

Honourable senators, I recognize and fully support the need to increase the supply of rapid antigen tests in Canada. However, an initial analysis of Bill C-10 leaves me with a number of concerns.

The first concern pertains to the language used in Bill C-10. The bill states that the authorized payments of up to $2.5 billion are in relation to the COVID-19 tests. The bill, however, does not specify the type of COVID-19 tests that will be purchased.

Yet, in a news release recently published on January 31, 2022, the federal government explained that Bill C-10 authorizes Health Canada, “. . . to purchase and distribute across the country up to $2.5 billion worth of COVID-19 rapid tests.”

The difference in the language used in Bill C-10 and the federal government’s news release creates confusion and leads me to ask why Bill C-10 omits the specification of the type of COVID-19 tests that will be purchased.

The second concern pertains to the equitable distribution of COVID-19 tests across the provinces and territories. According to the federal government’s Economic and Fiscal Update 2021, as of November 26, 2021, Canada has purchased 95 million rapid antigen tests and distributed 86 million of them to provinces, territories and Indigenous communities.

At the beginning of January of this year, the federal government promised an additional delivery of 140 million rapid antigen tests to the provinces and territories. However, a number of provinces have reported that they have not yet received the full amount of rapid antigen tests allocated for January.

According to an article published by the Toronto Star on February 9, 2022, a spokesperson for the Ontario Minister of Health said:

. . . the province has received 36.4 million rapid antigen tests from Ottawa, and expects the remaining 17.93 million tests to be delivered this month.

In fact, on February 9, 2022, the Government of Ontario announced that they, themselves, procured 44 million rapid tests to be distributed to Ontarians over the course of eight weeks. Each week Ontario will distribute 5.5 million tests to participating grocery and pharmacy locations. Every household will be eligible to receive one box, containing five rapid tests, per visit.

Moreover, the Government of Quebec reported that they have received 24.2 million tests in January, noting that they are waiting for an additional shipment of 5.8 million tests. In lieu of the absent tests, the Government of Quebec has taken the initiative and ordered 100 million tests on their own.

Honourable colleagues, it is evident that we cannot continue to spend money on the procurement of rapid antigen tests without clear leadership and a plan to ensure their equitable distribution across the provinces and territories.

According to the federal government’s website on COVID-19 testing, as of February 18, 2022, a total of 327 million COVID-19 rapid tests have been shipped to Canada. Of this number, a total of 296 million tests have been shipped to the provinces and territories. However, data specifying the number of rapid antigen tests that have been distributed to their final point‑of‑care settings and administered to patients is not clear. As the website indicates, this data has not been updated since December 31, 2021, and much of it remains missing.

Given the lack of data shared by the provinces and territories, how can we be sure that the total number of rapid antigen tests that have been distributed to the provinces and territories have reached their final destinations?

It is important to note that there is no provision in Bill C-10 for parliamentary oversight. Indeed, the Minister of Health has made a commitment in the other place to provide a report to Parliament every six months on the procurement, distribution and use of rapid antigen tests. However, this commitment was merely a verbal one; there is no guarantee that these reports will be published.

The federal government’s press release from January 31, 2022, stated that the funding authorized by Bill C-10 would allow the government to:

 . . . put in place critical contracts in a highly competitive global market, to purchase sufficient quantities of rapid tests to meet the continued demand across the country.

According to the federal government’s website on Canada’s procurement of COVID-19 rapid tests, Canada has established agreements with 16 suppliers of rapid tests. In an attempt to learn how many of these rapid antigen tests are manufactured by Canadian companies, I found incomplete and confusing data. As best as I could decipher, of the 16 approved rapid tests, fewer than half are manufactured by Canadian companies. The rest are foreign-made.

This leads me to ask: Can we not produce these tests at home? And why are we not supporting critical innovation and investment in Canadian companies?

There is a striking pattern in the way that the federal government has chosen to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. I will remind my colleagues that at the outset of the pandemic, the federal government failed to secure domestic production and supply of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The federal government’s neglect of Canadian-led industries and reliance on foreign-made medical supplies such as vaccines and rapid antigen tests has undermined our ability to effectively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. It has become evident that the discrepancy in the availability of rapid antigen tests across Canada necessitates urgent leadership from the federal government.

Perhaps it is time for the federal government to reshape their strategy and find new and creative ways to distribute rapid antigen tests to Canadians. As an example, Canada can look to the United States, whose new government website allows every American household to order up to four free rapid antigen COVID tests to be delivered by the United States Postal Service.

Honourable senators, it is imperative that we continue to invest in tools that will allow us to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many may question the need for rapid antigen tests at this phase of the pandemic. I remind my colleagues that the value in these tests lies in their ability to detect the virus at the peak of infectiousness of an individual. They have great importance as a public health screening device to prevent community spread.

With time, the COVID-19 virus will inevitably transition from a pandemic state to an endemic one. We will continue to find that the power of rapid antigen tests as a public health tool is in their effectiveness to manage community and workplace outbreaks by identifying cases at the time they are infectious. Ultimately, this will ensure our safe return to a new “normal” way of life. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Would the senator take a question, please?

Senator Patterson: I’m weary of important bills being rushed through the Senate by government fiat, no matter their merits. You’ve just described the important role that a committee can play — and has played — in dealing with an issue like this, and you’ve thoughtfully expressed some concerns.

I know you’re the critic, but could you tell me what is the anticipated time frame for committee study and consideration of this bill? And do you agree that the committee should have adequate time to do its job properly?

Senator Seidman: Yes.

Senator Seidman: I would say that probably there are observations that could be appended. I would suggest that perhaps one of the most important amendments we could make has to do with the accountability issue. Given the fact that very little data is posted on the government’s website and some of the data is as long ago as December, I would think that the minister should report, and it should be in the bill so that we’re certain of reporting as opposed to just his word given in the other place.

I would like to see perhaps an amendment that builds in accountability and reporting so that we have more information about how the tests are distributed and exactly what the distribution process has been.

I will say, Senator Lankin, that one of the biggest issues has been the lack of coherent and consistent reporting from the provinces to the federal government, which inhibits our ability to understand whether these tests actually arrive at point-of-care services.

My concern still would be in terms of accountability. The rest of the issues can probably be dealt with in observations.

Senator Seidman: That’s a really good question because it’s an age-old issue in terms of data collection and different provincial and federal jurisdictions. So it’s challenging. There is no question. We all know that in so many ways we don’t get consistent data from the provinces to the federal government. That’s the problem they have, and I empathize with them on that score.

However in this case, I think, the federal government can be better at their data collection and transparency on their website. It was very evident that a lot of the data hadn’t been updated since December, and that makes it very challenging to get a better idea of equitable distribution in the provinces, for example.

I think it’s interesting to note that the U.S. government has decided to take responsibility for ensuring that these rapid test kits are distributed to all the citizens in the country. All you have to do is go on the U.S. national health website and order your kits, and they’re delivered by the postal service.

That’s another approach to accountability.

[Translation]

Senator Galvez: Thank you so much Senators Seidman and Marshall for all this information. What you are raising is very concerning — being very ineffective to double monies and this amount — we’re talking about billions of dollars. It worries.

We know that these antigen tests have not stayed static. They are evolving, and they are becoming more and more precise. If we compare with the early ones that had greater failure rates, we know that this has been improved today.

I see that there are two issues here, Senator Seidman. On one hand, there’s the money we’re paying for tests that evolve over time, and we don’t know exactly which type they are and how they are getting to the population. On the other hand, is this a duplication of money and tests? It’s a problem of effectiveness.

I can tell you that when I was in Glasgow during COP26, these tests were being distributed at the pharmacies, the train stations and the metro stations. In my province of Quebec, there were moments in which my colleagues and friends were trying to get these tests at the pharmacy, and they were simply not available. Now, they are available, but there are very few and they come at a cost.

We know that the provinces bought these tests, and they are distributing them in a way. We have both provincial and federal ways of getting these tests.

I want to ask you: At which level do you want to see accountability? Should we be asking what type of tests are being ordered, what the performance of these tests are and how they are getting to the people? Because I’m on the National Finance Committee, and you said you’re not, so we’re going to discuss this. I’m wondering for which level you will be interested in having this information given. Thank you.

Senator Wallin: Quickly, I have the two points. First, do we need to be spending this amount, the billion dollars in spending, given that the provinces have already purchased these tests on their own and we have duplication with two bills with an equivalent amount of spending? Do we need all that money at this point if the provinces are doing it? Second, in terms of these tests, is the data collection you referred to as poor when it comes to other issues, like impacts of the vaccine, impacts of the disease, et cetera?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I do if we have another couple of minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)

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 Tannas: When I said “listless,” I think there were members from different sides who were talking about their hesitation on this.

There is a political element to this that I think we need to recognize in the unanimous motions that went through both houses. That’s not supposed to influence us here. So to me, again, it begs us to do our homework even more than if they had done in-depth studies and made those decisions.

You raised another good point, though. How did Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba get hung with this bill? How did they come to shoulder the burden for tax exemptions for the CPR? What role did the federal government play in this?

The Canadian Pacific Railway line from coast to coast is a benefit to all Canadians. Why are those three provinces the only ones where this right exists?

Is there some obligation or role that might rightly be put to the federal government? That’s an interesting question for our committee to delve into as well. It might not get answers, and we’re certainly not going to bind the Canadian government to anything.

Again, there are so many questions that deserve an answer before we have a vote.

Hon. Scott Tannas: I’m happy to rise to speak on Motion No. 14. I’ve listened to the speeches that were made and some of the questions. For me, they raised a number of questions, and the following questions are just a sample.

I wonder: Are governments really this enthusiastic about unilaterally and retroactively taking away the rights of an organization that negotiated these rights in good faith and shouldered the risk and the obligations that were detailed on a contract that exists? That was the first question I had as I listened to the speeches. Are we really going to take away some kind of a legal, negotiated, executed right and make it retroactive for 50 years?

I thought maybe I misunderstood, but no, that’s what we’re talking about here, or at least I think we are.

One of the comments or some of the implications were somehow that in 1966, Canadian Pacific gave away or agreed to give away their provincial tax exemption. We must realize that we’re talking about a very small exemption. It applies only to the running of the railroad through the province. It doesn’t apply to any of the other activities that in 1966 Canadian Pacific had. Remember, Canadian Pacific in 1966 had ships, an airline, a chain of hotels, a huge oil and gas company, an enormous real estate company, a coal company and a railway in Canada only.

Did they really, in 1966, give that away? Did it get thrown in with the request around property taxes? If they didn’t, then why are we going back to 1966 in this motion? What is the magic of 1966 if it’s clear somewhere else, possibly clear in a court decision, that they did not give up provincial taxes? I don’t understand it. It’s a question that I think we should try to find an answer to.

The other one was that, as I was listening to the speakers, Senator Gold, Senator Cotter and Senator Arnot, they all mentioned in their speeches that we needed to deal with this quickly, with alacrity; it should be passed quickly, and I wondered why. Why was there a rush after 150-some years? Why suddenly did this have to happen quickly?

If you go back and look at Hansard, “quickly” and “with alacrity” were mentioned multiple times with no explanation as to why. So what was that about?

I wanted to know how much due diligence had been done in the other places. I haven’t done much due diligence, but it was interesting to know that the Saskatchewan legislature debated this for four minutes and 30 seconds. The House of Commons had an opposition day on it with some kind of listless debate that appeared like there was uncomfortableness but it was a foregone conclusion. I don’t believe it went to committee but I’m not sure. I didn’t get a good feeling, when I took a cursory look at the due diligence path behind us, that there was a lot of transparent due diligence by legislators.

I also wondered about precedence and what precedents we might be setting with this particular motion, as I understand it, and I’m not 100% clear that I do understand it. I do know that Canadian Pacific has a similar set of rights and obligations in the province of Alberta and in the province of Manitoba. So I suspect that whatever it is we do here, if we pass this, I think we will be obligated when Alberta comes and Manitoba comes to do the same thing.

Hon. Paula Simons: Senator Tannas, I, like you, am from Alberta. And I, like you, am still learning about this situation. I met with CP, who told me that their lawsuit against Alberta would be for what is now about $95 million in taxes that they feel they have paid unfairly.

I’m just wondering, as Albertans, do we have an obligation as Alberta senators to do more investigation about what the implications are of this proposed constitutional amendment for the people and the taxpayers of Alberta?

Senator Tannas: This could be exactly what we need to do. I’m not saying it isn’t. But there is more to this than meets the eye, in my view.

This issue of precedent is interesting. So if we do what I think we’re going to do with this motion, we can expect Alberta and Manitoba here in relatively short order. If we somehow discover that we didn’t do our due diligence and we made a mistake by waving this through, we will get to repeat that mistake twice more because we will have made it now.

There is also the issue of — there was a little bit of this in some of the speeches — the precedent that what if this were an organization that was a little bit more virtuous than Canadian Pacific? What if it were a minority group that was about to win a $50-billion award in a province that the province couldn’t afford or didn’t want to pay or there was public — are we actually 100% clear on all of these questions such that we can just do it with a few words here in the chamber, like has been done in other chambers, and whistle it through? Is that why we are the last guys, because we should just follow along? I don’t think that’s what our job is. I don’t believe it’s what our job is.

So these were my questions. I did a little bit of research. I’m not a great researcher and I did it myself. But I would say, colleagues, that I am absolutely convinced that before we do something, we should do a little bit more due diligence ourselves. I don’t know that it will change the outcome. I don’t think that’s the point.

I think that we should do our homework here, though. I really believe that. And we should have all of us, all senators, make the decision on this particular motion with our eyes wide open and understanding exactly what it is we are doing and why.

Senator Tannas: I think that’s a role we potentially could play in bringing all of this to light. With the parties retreated to their corners, and if we bring them together, maybe a solution with the hammer still in the hand of the Senate — there may be something that can be done over the next little while.

I think it’s worth the discussion and us getting educated and taking this matter seriously. I agree that it was a fundamental unfairness that happened when those provinces were formed.

On the other hand, there’s a great, wonderful story of Canadian Pacific to be told there — the fact that for their 25 million acres of land there were parcels side by side that the federal government took and used to sell and generate money for the treasury and populate the country. It was, no thanks to Pierre Berton, a wonderful story of an organization that got done what others couldn’t get done and helped us fulfill the national dream.

I think we owe it to everybody to try to fix this without a sledgehammer as crude as we have here.

Senator Tannas: No, I’m not bothered by it. We have a job to do. We could pass everything that came here unanimously or that came through other legislatures, with our apologies for being in the way, if that’s what you think we ought to do.

We need to do our due diligence. Quite frankly, this has turned into something that is a little more complicated than was presented to us. I would also say the unanimity, and the lack of debate and research in the other legislatures, create a flashing red light — not a green light for us to do the same. It should be encouragement for us to actually perform sober second thought rather than wave it through. Therefore, no, I’m not at all troubled by us taking the time.

There are two elements to your question. One is whether we would be showing disrespect to the House of Commons or the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan by holding committee meetings and trying to get to the facts so we can have an informed vote. I don’t think that’s the case.

Regarding the time issue, my motion is for March 31. In that time frame, I believe there are three weeks of sitting time for study by the Legal Committee, which I don’t think is seized with any legislation right now; I could be wrong. That should be plenty of time to get to the facts. I think they can be garnered with a relatively small number of witnesses.

As far as timing goes, the fact is that the rush about this, as I’ve come to understand — and I might be wrong — is that Saskatchewan and Canadian Pacific have their final arguments in court set for sometime in May and that we’re being asked to do this because there is some calculation that Saskatchewan will lose this lawsuit, so we must take the legal rights away from Canadian Pacific before the judge rules.

So now that we all know that — or at least I think I know that; maybe the committee will tell me that’s wrong — and if those are the facts in the case, I think we have time to go to March 31 and do the deed if it needs to be done in April. That would be well ahead of final arguments and a decision by the judge.

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you, Senator Tannas.

First, I don’t think Saskatchewan should be punished, because Saskatchewan took some proactive steps to get a sizable amount of money they believe is justifiably ours. To this point, Alberta and Manitoba have not taken those particular steps.

My question to you is about the House of Commons. You described it as a “listless debate,” to quote you. However, I just wondered if you knew that that was an entire opposition day motion that the official opposition Conservatives brought forward and debated. An opposition day motion takes about six hours of debate, so a substantial length of time was devoted to that debate in the House of Commons. Then it was unanimously passed in the House of Commons, including by the federal justice minister. I wanted to get your opinion on that.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Tannas, I have two or three questions. As you know, I’m not in opposition to the matter being considered in a timely way, and I want to state that publicly and on the record.

I would invite you to offer your thoughts on this dimension of it. In the lawsuit that was brought against the federal government, the judge found that large exemption in relation to federal taxes had been — which was also to run for a very long time — taken away by federal legislation over the years. Are you offended by that happening in the way in which you’ve just described this seeming to be unfair to a corporation that made a contract a long time ago? I guess I’m saying that the Government of Canada made the same contract with respect to itself but then took away CP’s rights over the decades.

I have another question after this, but I would be interested in your thoughts.

Senator Tannas: I agree. That is an interesting twist to all of this; that the initial lawsuit that CP put forward to try and assert what they believed were their rights with respect to federal taxes, they lost. Part of that decision where they lost has given rise to the fact that that court, as I see it, provided a lot of light for CP to then go to the next step to assert their rights in the provinces, and in particular in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.

The federal government seems to have their fingerprints in different spots all over this, including this famous 1966 agreement that was done on behalf of the provinces. Frankly, the best result, rather than asking legislatures to yank, retroactively, legal contracts out from under parties, would be for the federal government to work toward solving this problem in a way that didn’t involve the courts. I guess they’ve had 100 years or so to do that and haven’t done it. It is an interesting element to this.

Senator Simons, me and others, we did a bit of research — and I know you’ve done a lot of research — but in the bit of research I did, I felt there was a story that needed to be clear in all of our minds when we do this, especially because I’m sure we’re going to be asked twice more to do the same thing.