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 Saint-Germain: Senator Gold, I have listened to the questions and comments of colleagues on all sides in this chamber. I would like to know if you think we should have more time to study the amendments and give sober second thought to an issue that seems complex and on which the constitutional experts in this chamber have raised some aspects that concern me personally.

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]

(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]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, P.C., M.P., Minister of Health: I have a two-part answer to that.

I will start with the personal, family and social trauma we experienced at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. About 80% of the deaths during the first wave of COVID-19 in early 2020 occurred in long-term care centres. Living conditions were a contributing factor, living conditions that many, if not all, of us are aware of. I was certainly aware of the situation because I had visited long-term care facilities in Quebec during election campaigns and observed utterly unacceptable living and dying conditions in Quebec and elsewhere in the country.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, about 50% of all deaths occurred in long-term care facilities. We promised to work respectfully and efficiently with the provinces and territories to protect our seniors, their health and their unity. As you said, there will be major investments and legislation enabling us to work in a way that respects jurisdiction and the sense of shared accountability when it comes to treating our seniors responsibly and with dignity.

Hon. Clément Gignac: Good afternoon, minister. Thank you for being here. My question is about the provinces’ requests for increased, recurrent funding for health care. According to official statistics, the federal government contributes about 22% of provincial health care budgets. At the last meeting of the Council of the Federation, the provincial premiers called for that contribution to be increased to 35%.

Your government has so far responded by saying that its priority is fighting the pandemic and helping Canadians and businesses. That’s what you did. Now, however, more and more experts, political leaders and even colleagues of yours are saying that we’re going to have to learn to live with this virus. Some provinces have even announced that they’re doing away with the vaccine passport. Don’t you think it’s time for Ottawa to agree to the provinces’ request to provide increased, permanent funding, in order to avoid having to shut down the economy because of a lack of capacity in our hospitals?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you, minister, for being with us today. There have been changes in the rules in the administrative procedures throughout the past two years dealing with what is truly a fluid COVID situation.

Minister, my question is focused on one administrative procedure that creates perhaps unnecessary confusion for Canadians returning to Canada from the U.S. at our land border crossings.

Currently, a Canadian entering at a land crossing must fill in ArriveCAN within 72 hours before arrival to Canada. If not submitted, then that Canadian must quarantine for 10 days. But if that same Canadian, in short order, returns to the United States, they can again arrive at the border crossing and enter Canada without quarantine for that 10-day period.

Rather than creating this workaround situation, can the government not create a rule that would allow the returning Canadian to fill in the ArriveCAN at the border crossing or perhaps within a short period after entering Canada?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, P.C., M.P., Minister of Health: Thank you, Senator Quinn. You allude to and describe quite well some of the various features of the border measures. Border measures obviously are part of a broader agenda to protect the health and safety of Canadians. What you’re signalling now is obviously the joint outcome of the Public Health Agency of Canada’s expert advice and transportation and public safety in that particular context with the Minister of Public Safety being responsible for the ArriveCAN application.

We know it’s quite complicated. It’s difficult for many people who want to travel abroad. Now is still not the time to travel abroad, not with the level of infection of Omicron; the world is at a historic high. Our hospitals are still obviously overloaded in Canada. People returning or intending to return to Canada are often infected with the virus, which complicates either their departure from hotels or other places in the world or their return to Canada. We understand it is complicated.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is continuously reviewing the measures in support of others in the government, Transport and Public Safety in particular.

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

Two things. First, I believe we all understand and certainly we all have heard of the use and usefulness of rapid tests for COVID-19. As I mentioned earlier, those rapid tests were rarely and unequally used by provinces and territories prior to the end of 2021. That’s why we were so happy and collaborative in providing hundreds of millions of rapid tests in quite a short amount of time. We know they were being used and appreciated by many Canadians.

This being said, as you have noted, we note there will be a greater demand for such rapid tests. I will be glad to ask my office to get back to you and provide examples and ways for which these rapid tests will be of continuing use and usefulness for Canadians across the country.