Senator Gold: I will certainly pass on that request. Thank you again for your question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): It would be my pleasure to do so. Thank you for the question and for raising this important program that benefits so many Canadians with a disability.

Senator Gold: I will convey that to my counterparts.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question.

The government remains committed to its goal of receiving 40,000 Afghan refugees. It continues to work in close collaboration with its trusted international and local partners to work toward the creation of a second stream — a humanitarian stream — to welcome additional Afghan nationals, including women leaders, human rights advocates and others in vulnerable situations.

Senator Gold: As I said, Minister Fraser is making efforts to improve his French. The government and the Prime Minister still have confidence in him.

Senator Gold: I’ll inquire about the government’s plans on that and get back to you as soon as possible.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Will the senator take a question, please?

Senator Tannas: Certainly.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, honourable colleague. It’s good to have you back.

The Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have been working closely with the police, the Mayor of Ottawa and provincial authorities to seek a proper resolution to this situation.

The situation is an intolerable one for residents of the city who have been subjected to harassment and intimidation, to say nothing of inconvenience. Of course, protests are never convenient, but peaceful protests do not include the behaviour we have seen: the desecration of national monuments, the brandishing of Confederate flags and swastikas. The government remains committed to its approach to getting us out of this pandemic and will work constructively with all who are willing to work constructively to that end.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for raising this important issue. It is important for so many people in rural areas.

I have made inquiries of the government regarding this question, but I have not yet received an answer. As soon as I do, I will report to the chamber in a timely fashion.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, dear colleague.

I have made inquiries about this with the government. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard back, but I will follow up in order to answer your question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

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).

[Translation]

Senator Gold: The Government of Canada, in particular through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is in regular contact with its allies and is keeping a close eye on the situation in Afghanistan and making sure it is doing its part to assist in this humanitarian crisis.

Senator Gold: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I expect I’ll have more to say when I enter into debate.

Let me concede or admit that I feel strongly in our inherent flexibility in the Senate, in the flexibility of our Rules and our practices within which the chamber has always operated.

As many of you will know, and I’m looking at our honourable colleague Senator Plett, there is no lack of tools to slow things down — whether it’s government legislation or any legislation — if senators believe that it’s not in the public interest to do so. That leads me to my question.

I’m going to note that for the private members’ bills and public bills passed in the Senate last June, the timelines outlined in your motion were not respected by the Senate — far from it. Let me give you the list: Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave); Bill C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism; Bill C-237, An Act to establish a national framework for diabetes; Bill S-211, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day; Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians); Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ and tissue donors); and Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation).

Senator Tannas, were these bills expedited because there was a lack of procedural tools for senators to delay things and discharge our duty, or was it simply because the Senate collectively decided that these bills were in the public interest?

Senator Tannas: I think some senators did decide they were in the public interest, but to be open and honest, Senator Gold, a number of them involved political deals that were made in either the House of Commons or here in the Senate in order to pass this or to get that passed or to agree this was important or not important. It was a series of deals that were made that put those through.

We can say that those were good. Those of us who supported those bills were thrilled, but at the end of the day on some of those bills, we may or may not have done ourselves any favour or have discharged our duty.

Again, we’re talking about government bills. You specifically would have this tool in the Rules rather than a make-it-up-as-we-go-along tool that involves leave and pre-negotiated motions outside of this room. That’s what I’m interested in dealing with so that we stay focused on our job of good scrutiny of legislation in a thorough but timely fashion.

[Translation]