Senator Tannas: Thank you. I don’t know how far back we have to go. But you’re right, this had its beginnings a long time ago. It seems there is an issue of fairness and there are multiple parties involved. We are doing something that I don’t think has ever been done. We have extinguished what is a constitutional right of somebody. We’ve not only done that but made it retroactive.

We need to get this in front of a committee. We have an excellent Legal Affairs Committee. I think they could do this justice in short order and make it clear to folks like me what exactly it is we’re doing and why, so I can vote with a clear conscience.

Senator Tannas: Actually, I’ll put a date a little sooner than that, just because I think there is an intention to pull the rights of Canadian Pacific away before this court case happens. I don’t see any other explanation for it than that.

If that’s what we’re being asked to do, we should not foreclose that by saying we’re going to wait six months. We should deal with it in a forthright and expeditious manner and get the facts before us here so we can make the decision.

Hon. David Richards: Would Senator Tannas take a comment more than a question?

This goes back to Sandford Fleming and the Bank of Montreal and Edward Seaborne Clouston and all that was going on back in the 1880s, 1890s up until about 1910. If you’re going to study this, I think you have to go back a long way. I wonder if that’s what we’re prepared to do. I thought I would mention that.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Tannas, we have a few senators that are in line to ask you some questions. Will you accept questions?

Hon. Scott Tannas moved:

That, pursuant to rule 5-7(b), the question under debate be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for examination and report; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than March 31, 2022.

Senator Tannas: I will, any and all.

Senator Tannas: I feel lucky that I don’t have to answer for the Government of Alberta.

This has been a really interesting piece of news. I didn’t realize that this existed — that there was a perpetual tax break for Canadian Pacific as it relates to the operation of their railroad in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which were not provinces at the time the deal was struck. I think that’s why they were stuck with this.

So I can’t say why it hasn’t been more of a news story. It was news to me, and I thought it was interesting news.

Senator Tannas: Yes.

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. 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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Tannas, I do believe your motion was seconded by Senator Wallin, to send it to committee? Thank you.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?