Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, I’d like to take this brief opportunity to share some wonderful stories of our Canadian athletes, coaches and their families representing our country at the Olympic Games.

First, I want to share with you one more outcome of the Summer Olympic Games in Tokyo. You may recall there was an IOC Refugee Olympic Team at the Tokyo Games. I am thrilled to share that some are now here in Canada as part of the IOC Refugee Athlete Support Programme, training for Paris 2024 and attending Sheridan College for the next three years.

As for these Olympic Games, we are on day six. Our 215 athletes and 85 coaches have faced a number of pandemic-related obstacles in preparation for some of the most important moments of their athletic careers. Each story is incredible. For athletes there for the first time, to athletes in their final games, all having done so much just to get to the start line in their field of play.

Imagine Liam Gill of Calgary, waking up to a call at home invited to get on a plane to replace a snowboard half-pipe icon, Derek Livingston, shifting to become an Olympic athlete in one moment. He, in his own words, was stoked to be the only Indigenous athlete on the snowboard team.

Our Olympic delegation includes six sets of siblings and four children of past Olympians. Regionally it includes one cross-country ski athlete who will be wildly cheered on from the Yukon, with a high of 57 athletes hailing from Quebec.

The pandemic has brought with it any number of obstacles, of course, with some members of Team Canada having lost their Olympic dreams before the Games began. But whether athletes are competing in arena events in Beijing or Yanqing, which is the home of alpine skiing, bobsled, luge and skeleton, or even further up the bubble train to the cold mountain-top village of Zhangjiakou for skiing and snowboarding events. Every member of Team Canada will give it their all. They will make us proud and unite us in our love for this country.

I remind you of one of my cherished moments of the many Games I had the opportunity to experience. Just before marching in the opening ceremonies, you see three large words on the wall; citius, altius, fortius; faster, higher, stronger.

In Tokyo, after 100 years, a fourth word was added; that is “together.” Let us be spectators together. I encourage you to learn the stories and engage with athletes from your community. And colleagues, for you, let these athletes inspire you to get moving inside or outside. Next week is National Health and Fitness Week, a time when I encourage you all to get outside and show Canada your moves in an effort to get people moving, get active and embrace the physical and mental health benefits that come with an active lifestyle. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

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).

He said: Honourable senators, it’s an honour for me to rise and move Government Motion No. 14, dealing with the proposed constitutional amendment in relation to Saskatchewan.

I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking our colleague Senator Cotter, who is the seconder of this motion, for having brought this to the chamber’s attention, and to all my colleagues from Saskatchewan for their work on this matter.

Before I begin, I would like to put on the record a correspondence I received yesterday from the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, which serves as the genesis of the motion before you:

Dear Senator Gold,

Today, the House will consider an important constitutional amendment to the Saskatchewan Act, S.C. 1905, c. 42., which forms part of our Constitution. As you are aware, on November 29, 2021, the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan unanimously adopted a resolution to amend the Act, thus initiating a constitutional amendment process through the bilateral formula found in s. 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The amendment aims to remove a historical exemption from provincial and municipal taxes granted to Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) in the Saskatchewan Act, as a result of a prior agreement between the federal government and CPR. The Government will be supporting this vital amendment to support the Province of Saskatchewan and its economy. The amendment will promote tax and fiscal fairness, as well as cooperative federal provincial relations that would be beneficial to national unity. The amendment would also have the benefit of reflecting in the law the ongoing practice whereby CPR, despite its historical tax exemption, has been paying taxes to the province of Saskatchewan. To have the constitutional amendment proclaimed by the Governor General, we would need a motion in both the House of Commons and the Senate. We look forward to its speedy passage in the House. I understand that senators are already alive to the issue in light of the motion put on notice by Senator Brent Cotter. I would like to encourage the Senate to take this issue up with alacrity. It is important to the people of Saskatchewan that this issue be resolved. Our Government is proud to have worked with the Province of Saskatchewan to advance this motion and looks forward to the proclamation of the constitutional amendment.

[Translation]

Honourable colleagues, allow me to provide some context. A resolution authorizing the proposed amendment has already been adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. If the resolution is then authorized by the Senate, the amendment will repeal a provision of the Saskatchewan Act, which was passed by Parliament in 1905 but is now an integral part of the Constitution of Canada. The government is proud to support this constitutional amendment that seeks to ensure fairness in Saskatchewan’s tax system.

[English]

As honourable senators know, this amendment uses the bilateral constitutional amendment procedure as set out in section 43 of the Constitutional Act, 1982. It states that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, in relation to a provision that applies to one or more but not all provinces, may be made by a proclamation issued by the Governor General where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies. The provision that would be amended, section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, only applies to Saskatchewan; and the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies, the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, has authorized the amendment, as has the House of Commons. It is now up to us to determine whether to adopt resolutions authorizing the same amendment that is the repeal of section 24.

The bilateral constitutional amendment procedure has previously produced seven constitutional amendments. Four of them concerned Newfoundland and Labrador, one changing the name of the province to include Labrador in 2001 and three changing the denominational schools provision of the Terms of Union in 1987, 1997 and 1998. One was made at the request of Quebec to remove their application so as to favour the organization of school boards along linguistic lines, this in 1997. One was made at the request of New Brunswick in 1993 and added section 16.1 to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and thus recognized in the constitution the equality of the English and French linguist communities in that province. Lastly, one was made at the behest of Prince Edward Island in 1993 to remove the requirement in the Terms of Union for Canada to maintain a ferry service, thereby facilitating the substitution and construction of Confederation Bridge to the mainland.

[Translation]

The amendment would repeal, retroactive to August 29, 1966, section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, the enactment that created the Province of Saskatchewan. This section of the law purports to subject Saskatchewan’s constitutional powers to clause 16 of an agreement dating back to 1880 between the Government of Canada and the founders of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This clause exempted the CPR from certain federal, provincial and municipal taxes indefinitely.

Despite the tax exemption, in 1966 CP agreed to pay the applicable taxes. More recently, CP took legal action against all the governments concerned to reassert its historic tax exemption.

[English]

Saskatchewan’s concerns regarding section 24 are threefold. First, Saskatchewan is of the view that it would be inconsistent with the province’s position as an equal partner in Confederation if the provision restricted Saskatchewan’s taxation powers relative to those of the other provinces of Canada.

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

Third, Saskatchewan asserts that it would be unfair to the residents of Saskatchewan if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, casting an additional tax burden onto the people of Saskatchewan.

Back in 1880, this tax exemption for a single large corporation may very well have been appropriate as it was intended to recognize and encourage CPR’s investments in the construction of the trans-Canadian rail network in the late 19th century. As such, it was just one of the incentives that Canada offered to CPR to build Canada’s first cross-country railway in fulfillment of a promise made to British Columbia for joining Confederation.

[Translation]

The government is of the opinion that Saskatchewan should be able to impose taxes within its provincial boundaries as it deems appropriate. The government agrees with its Saskatchewan counterpart that other taxpayers in the province should not bear a heavier tax burden as a result of a single large corporation benefiting from an exceptional exemption from provincial taxation. The government also agrees that there should be a level playing field between all businesses operating in Saskatchewan’s transportation industry.

[English]

As we all know, the completion of this railway was fundamental to the birth of our nation and the subsequent rapid growth and development of our economy. The “Last Spike” uniting east and west is an iconic representation of our national heritage and unity. Thank you, colleagues, and I urge speedy adoption of this resolution.

Senator Gold: Yes, gladly. I apologize for not having that information with me, but I will make inquiries and report back to the chamber with more details. I will be available to answer your questions.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I think Senator Cotter will have more to say about that in his speech, but I believe the date was chosen because, on that date, there was an agreement between the Government of Saskatchewan and other governments. In addition, the president of Canadian Pacific at the time knew the railway company was going to start paying tax. The terms of the agreement were a little complicated. Anyway, that’s why this amendment would be retroactive to that date, the date on which Canadian Pacific decided to pay tax to Saskatchewan regardless of the constitutional provision on Saskatchewan.

[English]

Senator Batters: I’m sure that is because it was all about Saskatchewan, and quite wonderful at that. Thank you to the Government of Canada for bringing this forward in an expeditious way in the Senate so that we can take what has happened in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan and what is, I believe, concurrently happening in the House of Commons as a result of the hard work of my Saskatchewan Conservative caucus colleagues there so we can make this fair for Saskatchewan.

I also wanted to give you the chance, as a former constitutional law professor, to perhaps impart some wisdom on the constitutional aspect of this and tell us if there is anything else that we should know, or you would like us to know, as to why this is a constitutionally sound manner in which to proceed.

Senator Dupuis: I understand the procedure for presenting the motion as a request from the Government of Saskatchewan, following a resolution adopted by its legislative assembly to amend the Constitution as it relates to the Province of Saskatchewan. However, if this is a dispute between Canadian Pacific and a government other than the Government of Saskatchewan, for instance the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan, this would no longer be part of the same constitutional discussion, because this amendment will have a direct impact not only on the Constitution as it relates to Saskatchewan, but also on federal government operations.

Senator Gold: I understand your question. Once again, the objective of this resolution is to eliminate an inequity, or lack of equity, for the Province of Saskatchewan and its taxpayers, because Canadian Pacific has a tax exemption that was granted a long time ago and is no longer warranted, not just in the opinion of the Government of Saskatchewan, but also in the opinion of the Government of Canada.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your questions and your comments. The appropriate way to proceed is to follow the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. As I outlined in my speech — and I suspect we’ll hear again from Senator Cotter who is a great constitutional expert in his own right — this is a provision that allows for the Constitution to be amended when it affects one or more but not all of the provinces, unlike constitutional amendments that affect all of the provinces and require a different formula or those that only involve the federal Parliament. That is something that can also be done differently.

Even though the Constitution was only patriated in 1982, this has been used many times. There has never been a question raised, to the best of my knowledge, as to the appropriateness of proceeding this way in cases like this. The government is satisfied that this is the appropriate constitutional way to resolve this issue, which is an issue of fairness for the people of Saskatchewan.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: I do not know how much was paid or the date the payments began. I will try to find out. I invite my other colleagues to talk about that when they rise to speak.

According to the information I have, Canadian Pacific pays taxes to the federal government. However, that is not the issue. We are talking about provincial and municipal taxes. Essentially, it is the municipal taxes that are at issue. That is all the clarification I can provide. I can’t say more. I don’t have the information, the amounts or the details.

[English]

Senator Simons: I’m taken aback that Alberta would not have proceeded in the same direction. That is very interesting and curious information. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I have a great deal of respect for all members and for the Senate. The government’s position is that it would be appropriate to pass this resolution. However, as I told our colleague, Senator Griffin, it is up to the Senate to decide how much time we wish to take and how we wish to study it. I have already undertaken to return to this chamber with the clarifications requested.

I am certain that this will adequately respond to any concerns, but it will nonetheless be up to us, to you, to decide how quickly you wish to proceed. I want to point out that resolving this situation is important to the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan, because that will correct this unjustifiable situation.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you, senator. You’re far more intimately involved with the history of this than I would be, considering where I come from. It is true. Thank you for underlining the fact that this has been a matter of some concern for the people and the Government of Saskatchewan, regardless of their political stripe. Indeed, elsewhere in the Prairies it has been a concern.

That it has come to a head is a good thing, at least from the point of view of the Government of Canada, so that it can partner with the Province of Saskatchewan to address this historical inequity.

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, P.C., M.P., Minister of Health, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Welcome, minister. Yesterday morning, a fellow Liberal MP of yours from Quebec Joël Lightbound held a press conference, during which he said:

. . . I believe the government should provide quickly a roadmap with clear and measurable targets to lift all restrictions within its purview.

Conservatives have been saying this same thing for months. He said about the vaccine requirement for truckers:

This is a policy that now goes against the World Health Organization’s recommendation and for which no epidemiological studies and projections have been provided.

Today, Liberal MP Robillard echoed Mr. Lightbound’s comments, saying that many of his colleagues agreed.

Minister, he says you aren’t being responsive enough to adapt to the changing reality of the pandemic. Will you listen, minister — finally listen — to this advice and change course?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, P.C., M.P., Minister of Health: I’d like to thank the honourable senator for his very important question. I will say that “responsive,” as he mentioned, is the right word, and that’s why we had to be responsive. We have been responsive for the last 22 months. I think “responsive” and “responsible” have been key objectives to describe what the Government of Canada had to do and was able to do with the collaboration of many partners and leaders across Canada, including scientists and experts whose input has been key in guiding us through this very difficult circumstance.

May I remind everyone that this is the biggest health crisis in over a century? It’s also the biggest economic crisis. It used to be the biggest economic crisis since the crisis of the 1930s. We have gone through that crisis successfully relative to many other countries. If I have a moment in a second, I will be able to say more.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, P.C., M.P., Minister of Health: Thank you, senator. I believe that “caring” is the right word.

When we talk about vaccination, it’s not because we want to punish people, but because we want to protect them.

Roughly 14 months ago, we had the privilege of receiving an immense gift from science called vaccination. In normal times, it would have taken a decade to be able to get a vaccine like that.

Over the past year, Canada was lucky enough to be able to use this extraordinary scientific gift and vaccinate people because we care. We want to be able to protect ourselves and protect the people we love around us. I got vaccinated to protect myself, but also to protect my parents when I visit them. I also did it to protect my children. I was happy to see my youngest son get vaccinated, because he is protecting himself and his friends.

This is about caring, not punishment. When we talk about vaccination, it is because we care.

[English]

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Thank you for being here today, minister. The pandemic has laid bare the problem of inadequate health care surge capacity and insufficient numbers of health care providers across Canada. However, the pandemic only brought to the forefront what we’ve known for decades. Discussions about how to enhance human resources in health care have been under way since I was in medical school in the 1970s. There has been much chat but little effective action.

I have a three-part question. What specific plans are the federal government putting into place so that the chat-to-act gap will be rapidly closed? As part of this plan, would the federal government consider directly investing in post-secondary institutions to increase the numbers of graduates? Is there an action plan to improve the pathway to licensure for internationally trained health care providers?

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Minister, survey data from the Angus Reid Institute reveals that one in three Canadians is struggling with their mental health. Half say they feel fatigued, frustrated or anxious. In fact, 7% of Canadians say they are barely getting by, which is more than double the number measured since October 2020.

Minister, accessing mental health support appears to be a challenge as, according to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, one third of Canadians aged 15 or older seeking mental health care say those needs are not fully met. Only half of the Canadians experiencing a major depressive episode have received potentially adequate care.

Minister, how is the government planning to support Canadians now that we have entered a third year of the pandemic?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, P.C., M.P., Minister of Health: Thank you, senator.

These are numbers, but as you say, these are also real people who have suffered not only from a physical perspective in most cases and an economic perspective in many cases, but from a mental health perspective in almost all cases.

Minister Bennett, the first Minister of Mental Health and Addictions in the history of the Government of Canada, quoted to me some other numbers just recently. Half of Canadians are reporting that their mental health has deteriorated over the last few months, and 7 out of 10 health care front-line workers say the same thing. These are very big numbers. More importantly, these have very significant impacts on their personal lives and the lives of their families as well.

There is no health without mental health. That’s true for an individual. That’s also true for a family, a neighbourhood and for a community. That’s why, as you suggested, we are going to go forward with extensive, important and, in fact, historic investments in mental health over the next few years for the purposes and the reasons that you identified.

[Translation]