Hon. Jane Cordy: Senator Gold, I raise this issue with you today on behalf of a Canadian couple who reached out to me and shared their experience of the barriers they faced as a same-sex couple starting their family.

During the last two elections, the current government campaigned on a promise to remove barriers for LGBTQ2+ people who wanted to start a family. These changes would also help heterosexual couples who have fertility challenges.

As well-intentioned as these promises are, they fail to take into account the realities of surrogacy and the differing family law systems across the provinces and territories.

More often than not, the intended parents cover the expenses of in vitro fertilization, IVF; and because neither of the intended parents are the “patient,” they are not eligible to claim the expenses from a tax perspective. The egg donor, or surrogate, cannot claim the expenses, as it would be claiming an expense for which they did not pay.

This requires a review of the structure of the tax credit system and how it defines a “patient” for the purposes of the tax credit.

Access to 15 weeks of leave is available to those parents who adopt their child following surrogacy. The government failed to understand that in several provinces with more progressive family law systems, the child born through surrogacy is not adopted. That would mean that these families would not be entitled to leave, as neither of the intended parents are the birth mother; nor would they be eligible for adoptive leave, as they have not, in fact, adopted the child.

Senator Gold, this couple’s experience is not unique. It is the same situation faced by parents starting their families through surrogacy, regardless of sexual orientation, across Canada. Mark Foley and Shelly Maynard from Dartmouth made their case public in 2019.

I know it’s not a simple issue, which is why I shared this couple’s concerns with your office in advance. I know I have provided a lot of information in a short period of time. Senator Gold, my question is this: Did you have an opportunity to raise these concerns with the responsible ministers; and if so, have you received a response?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I have made inquiries, Senator Cordy, and I have not yet received a specific response. However, the government remains committed to continuing to review and evaluate the structures in its areas of jurisdiction to take into account the rapidly changing realities of families in this country. As soon as I have an answer, I’ll be happy to report back.

Senator Cordy: Thank you for following up, Senator Gold, because things have certainly changed tremendously. I remember — and perhaps a few others on the line who may be my age will remember — getting eight weeks’ parental leave after one’s child was born. I have to tell you that it was really tough going back eight weeks after my older daughter was born, since I had been in the hospital a month beforehand.

Senator Gold, I met these young men who are expecting their first baby this month, in February. Congratulations to them. They are bringing this issue forward to help other people, because in some of these situations it’s too late for them to benefit.

In a recent conversation, one of the fathers said they were very fortunate because they are both professionals with good-paying jobs — as was the couple from Dartmouth. However, there is a gap in the law, and parents shouldn’t have to be well off to afford surrogacy. I’m not sure how many of us in our twenties would be able to afford $100,000 for the procedure. The surrogacy laws must be updated.

Senator Gold, would you please request that the government fulfill what were campaign promises relating to in vitro fertilization under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act?

Hon. Diane F. Griffin: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, proposed changes to the Migratory Birds Regulations appeared in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 1, 2019. These regulations were first promulgated in 1917 under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, but they have not been substantially changed in the years since and are in sore need of modernization.

As it turns out, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has been tasked with halting and reversing nature loss in Canada by 2030. This will be a huge challenge, indeed. There are drastic declines in some species of Canadian birds. For example, since the 1970s, two thirds of migratory birds that rely on grasslands and feed on flying insects have been lost.

Senator Gold, these changes are on the minister’s desk for action on his part, and have been there for quite some time. Will the government act to modernize our Migratory Birds Regulations? Thank you.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold.

February 1 marked one year to the day that the Burmese military overthrew the elected government of Myanmar, or Burma, and began a brutal attack on political leaders, activists and ordinary citizens. At least 1,500 people have been killed by the military in the past year.

Wai Wai Nu, a leading young human rights defender whom I work with, has set out a long list of inaction by democracies. I repeat to you her question, Senator Gold: Will Canada support a resolution on Myanmar to the UN Security Council that includes key demands such as a global arms embargo, support for cross‑border humanitarian aid and the referral of Myanmar to the International Criminal Court?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the situation in Myanmar.

Canada, as you know, condemns the convictions and other abuses, and the coup d’état particularly, in Myanmar. With regard to the specific question, I’m not aware of a decision that has been made with regard to a resolution at the United Nations. I will certainly make inquiries, and if an answer is forthcoming, I will be glad to share it in the chamber.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, last fall, an investigation by “The Fifth Estate” revealed that the office of the Minister of Immigration was aware of the urgency needed to take decisive action and bring our interpreters to safety in Canada. As early as February 2020, the Minister of Immigration was contacted by Liberal MP Marcus Powlowski. An article published this morning by the National Post revealed Mr. Powlowski had pushed to rescue Afghan interpreters weeks before Kabul fell, citing credible evidence of an imminent Taliban attack against Canadian interpreters and concerns brought to him by an Aman Lara co-founder.

While strict paperwork rules and deadlines imposed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, led to hundreds of desperate evacuees exposing themselves to Taliban collaborators by rushing to local internet cafés to complete the application, Jeff Valois, who was at the time an advisor to the Prime Minister, allegedly ordered Powlowski to stay in his lane and to let professionals in the ministries handle it.

Senator Gold, in light of the growing number of blunders committed by our government, many are losing faith in Canada’s rescue efforts. Why is our government playing political games instead of saving lives?

Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Gold, there is mounting evidence showing Canada’s mismanagement of rescue efforts in Afghanistan. A quick extraction force sat idly at a Kuwaiti air force base for days. A Canadian embassy staffer publicly outed an interpreter and safe house facilitator. The video shows Canadian soldiers ignoring Global Affairs Canada-approved evacuees at the Kabul airport.

There have also been reports of evacuees with perfect paperwork being turned away and of families being separated at checkpoints, leaving spouses and children behind because of trivial inconsistencies with their documents. Why is our government continually placing paperwork above saving lives?

Hon. Amina Gerba: Honourable senators, as I rise in this chamber to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne, I feel humbled by the work that needs to be accomplished, but I also feel a strong desire to help do that work on behalf of Canadians.

Before I begin, I want to recognize that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabeg, Anishinaabe, Atikamekw and Mohawk peoples. I extend my warmest greetings to them and to all First Nations, Métis and Inuit people in our country.

All Canadians should be part of the reconciliation effort, which, fortunately, is under way and must be given our support and ongoing attention.

Honourable senators, as I rise to make my maiden speech, I would like to thank my family, my friends and my business partners, who encouraged me to join you. I must also thank the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, who recommended my appointment.

I also thank Senators Marc Gold, Donald Plett, Raymonde Saint-Germain, Pierre Dalphond and Scott Tannas for their warm welcome at my swearing-in in November.

In the Speech from the Throne to open the Forty-fourth Parliament, the government emphasized the need to build a more resilient economy to ensure a better future for Canadians and Canada. In order to fully meet those goals, the government identified preserving and expanding trade as a top priority.

Honourable senators, I am pleased with these overarching goals. They are in keeping with the spirit of what I have tried to accomplish throughout my career. Over a quarter century ago, upon graduating from the Université du Québec à Montréal, I began working as a strategy consultant.

I was responsible for projects for Africa and for helping our companies expand their business to the African continent and around the world. That early experience taught me how complicated it is to do business with international partners.

As I navigated legal systems, customs and tax requirements, transportation logistics, financial and technology transfer, consumer habits and marketing channels, I quickly learned that our entrepreneurs need to know and master many ins and outs in order for their investment or commercial ventures to succeed.

I greatly admire and respect our fellow Canadians who are expanding our international trade. When it comes to the African continent, the lack of precedent, lack of knowledge about private channels and available public resources, lack of economic and business data and, in some cases, a tarnished reputation have made it even more challenging to provide consulting services that are useful to Canadian exporters. That realization inspired me to start a consulting firm called Afrique Expansion Inc. in 1995 to help make the Canadian business community more aware of the opportunities available in Africa.

Given the interest generated by our activities, especially our initial trade missions to Africa, three years later, in 1998, my husband and I started an international economic magazine called Afrique Expansion Magazine. Today, that magazine is a reliable reference work for North Americans to find economic information about Africa.

It is also the only Canadian magazine that is distributed in some 20 African countries. To further consolidate partnerships between Canadian and African companies, in 2003, we created the Forum Afrique Expansion, which has since become the largest business networking platform for Canadian and African investors and exporters.

Held every two years in Montreal, the forum brings together 500 African and Canadian decision makers and investors, as well as heads of Canadian and international financial institutions, including the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the African Export-Import Bank.

Many heads of state and government leaders, Canadian provincial premiers, and federal and provincial government ministers have also attended the forum.

Since its creation, the forum has organized over 3,000 B2B meetings and facilitated the signing of contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars for Canadian businesses.

Honourable senators, our country does have a presence in Africa and its major institutions, including the African Development Bank and the African Union. Although our diplomatic representation in Africa may have decreased in the past few years or decades, our representatives there are still dedicated and effective, as I have had the opportunity to witness on several occasions. I was delighted with our excellent diplomats there, whose presence and work are vital to the success of our businesses.

Some of our major institutions, such as EDC, have a modest but important presence on the African continent. We also can’t forget the outstanding work being done by our trade delegates, as well as Quebec’s delegations to Africa.

However, considering the objective data regarding Africa’s evolution and the extremely strong interest that the world’s most powerful countries are taking in Africa, it seems as though Canada is sidelining itself by failing to capitalize on the comparative advantages and opportunities available in Africa today.

During the first quarter of this year, China, Russia, Turkey, the European Union and Saudi Arabia have held or will be holding summits with the leaders of Africa’s 54 countries. Trade is on the agenda for all of these high-level meetings. Other countries, such as Germany, Italy, Vietnam, the United Arab Emirates, Korea, Israel and Brazil are accelerating major collaborations with Africa’s economies.

I want to reiterate that, unfortunately, it seems as though our country is sidelining itself by failing to capitalize on the comparative advantages and opportunities that can currently be derived from the demographic, urban, industrial and technological dynamics of a continent that may have up to 2.4 billion inhabitants, 2.4 billion consumers, by 2040-50, and that is one of the three largest communities of internet users in the world, along with India and China.

According to the 2020 report of the Observatoire de la Francophonie économique, Africa represents just 2% of all trade with Canada. There is room to expand our trade with Africa and, therefore, an opportunity to grow our economy.

Honourable senators, our country’s international trade portfolio is impressive. As you know, Canada and the European Union have strong trade and investment ties. Canada is also very involved in Asia, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will enhance our economic ties with many Asian countries.

However, Africa is currently not on Canada’s radar when it comes to current and prospective exports and imports in goods and services. Why are we forgetting about Africa’s undeniable assets when seeking out trade opportunities, given that all of the world’s leading trading nations are looking to get their share of what will soon be one of the largest economic markets?

Honourable senators, Africa is a large market that is moving toward unification. Its GDP represents US$3 trillion. This market will make Africa the biggest free trade zone in the world.

By the middle of this century, one in four people will live on that continent, which will be the most youthful in the world by far. When it comes to maintaining global security and the planetary ecological balance and meeting the socio-economic needs of the human race, nothing about Africa’s affairs will escape the world’s notice. Moreover, Africa will play a key role in all global affairs. In order to be successful, Canada needs to recognize that and create a dynamic with Africa like the one it has developed and is seeking to enhance with Europe and Asia.

Honourable senators, I will make developing our relationship with Africa the main object of my contribution to advancing the affairs of our nation. That is baked into my personal and professional commitments.

Right now, I think that Canada should dedicate all of its expertise and its top institutional resources to supporting the successful implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area, or AfCFTA. This wonderful initiative will create a single market made up of the continent’s 54 countries and stimulate the enhanced international trade we are going to need.

As I stand before you, I have a dream that our country, Canada, will eventually sign a free trade agreement with AfCFTA and thus agree to include Africa in the modern economy, on the same footing as the other large economic regions of the world. This initiative would help increase trade between Canada and Africa, diversify Canada’s international trade and grow our economy.

In the meantime and in order to prepare, Canada could develop a policy to support Africa’s production of goods and services, similar to the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, which was enacted by the United States in the early 2000s. It would no doubt also be beneficial for us to review the economic strategy created by Washington last year called Prosper Africa, which focuses on accelerating investment and trade between Africa and the United States.

Honourable senators, enhancing our economic and trade relations with African countries, their regional economic communities and their continental free trade zone would certainly enrich our economy. It would also lead to greater political and diplomatic support for our international initiatives. We have needed that in the past, and we will need it again in the future.

Esteemed colleagues, through legislation and meaningful action, we, as legislators, can make things happen and participate in cultural, social and economic change.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to pursue these goals in this chamber with you and in solidarity with all of the Canadians we have the privilege to serve.

Thank you for your kind attention. Asante.

(On motion of Senator Gagné, debate adjourned.)

[English]

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 Gold: Thank you for this question. I too spent a lot of time studying the court’s reasons. The answer is no. As the Government Representative, I believe, and the government believes, that it is important for the Senate to join forces with the elected members in the other place and those in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan to resolve this issue and quickly and efficiently correct what I would refer to as a “historic anomaly,” if I may use that expression.

One of the reasons for the Senate’s existence is to defend the regions’ interests and ensure that there is not an unjustifiable inequity in the treatment of the regions. No one here sees a problem with doing this. That said, you know me, and if senators wish to take more time to debate the matter and obtain information, I will respect that. I am not here to insist that we proceed before you’re ready.

Allow me to suggest that, ultimately, we are seized with a relatively simple matter. Given that our role as unelected officials is one that places constraints on us in relation to monetary constraints, and given the unanimous support of Saskatchewan’s elected officials and the members of the House of Commons, this is appropriate.

I hope that answers your question.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

[English]

Senator Gold, I know that our office has been working with the government to try to get timely answers to some of the questions that were posed to you yesterday, for which further information was requested. I am asking this question so that you are afforded an opportunity to put some of these matters on the record for the benefit of our colleagues.

[Translation]

Senator Gold, would you be able to provide us with this information?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her question. The answer is yes.

[English]

I am happy to report that I have indeed sought answers and clarifications in response to several questions posed by honourable senators yesterday. With your indulgence, I will provide these as well as a short recap of the essential facts.

As you know, in 1880, Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway company reached an agreement that included a provision known as clause 16, which exempted CPR’s mainline from certain federal, provincial and municipal taxes. It is important, honourable senators, to note that this exemption only applies to that line and not to the totality of CPR’s enterprise. The exemption was then incorporated by reference in section 24 of The Saskatchewan Act, as well as into the statutes creating Alberta and the statutes extending Manitoba’s borders.

To better answer the question posed by Senator Simons yesterday, the clause 16 exemption also exists in Manitoba and Alberta, but they are not at issue today. To be more precise as it relates to Senator Simons’s questions on outreach by those provinces, I’m not aware of recent overtures made by the governments of Alberta and Manitoba to the federal government of late. However, it is possible, in the long history of this issue, that there may have been some in the past. At this stage, what I can say is that the federal government would, of course, be willing to engage with either province should they wish to pursue a similar change through their own parliamentary procedures.

In 1966, the federal government reached an agreement with CPR. Under the 1966 agreement, CPR would forego exemptions in the Prairie provinces and support constitutional amendments to that effect. However, the Constitution was not amended to reflect this. As you will know, the Constitution had not, at that time, been repatriated, and the question of how to amend the Constitution was far less clear — or easy, more accurately — than it is today.

To answer Senator Dalphond’s question, the 1966 agreement is, in fact, written. It is in the public domain. It is a letter from Mr. Sinclair, which was introduced and read into Hansard on September 8, 1966.

Senator Ringuette asked about the exemption as it relates to federal taxes. By virtue of section 241 of the Income Tax Act, I can’t disclose specific federal taxpayer information. However, having said that, I can confirm that CPR is not legally exempt from federal tax, as confirmed by the Federal Court last fall, and that CPR has generally paid federal taxes, including income tax.

As to the existing litigation and which governments are involved, in answer to Senators Dalphond and Dupuis, I can specify the following. First, separate claims were brought by CPR against the federal government and the Government of Saskatchewan. These claims are distinct and are before different courts. Second, CPR filed a claim in the Federal Court against Canada, asserting an exemption from federal tax, claiming federal taxes paid and seeking a declaration that would preclude the Crown from collecting federal taxes going forward. The claim was made on constitutional, statutory and contractual grounds.

Last fall, the Federal Court decided that CPR is not exempt from federal taxes. CPR has appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court claim is not directed at Saskatchewan. The constitutional amendment we are contemplating does not engage the Federal Court claim.

CPR, as I mentioned, has appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, but it should be noted that it is no longer making its claim on constitutional grounds. As it pertains to the federal government, clause 16 was never constitutionalized.

Further, in 2008, CPR filed a separate claim against Saskatchewan before the Saskatchewan courts, asserting the clause 16 exemption, as it relates to provincial tax, claiming provincial taxes paid and seeking a declaration that would preclude Saskatchewan from collecting provincial taxes going forward. That case is ongoing, and final arguments have been scheduled for May 2022. It is in the Saskatchewan case that CPR is claiming over $340 million from the people of Saskatchewan for taxes it has paid over the years — $340 million. Obviously, senators, $340 million to a population of 1.2 million people is quite substantial, to say the least.

CPR is making that claim based upon the vestigial clause that we’re being urged by all Saskatchewan legislators — all of them — and all members in the other place to remove from The Saskatchewan Act and the Constitution.

In short, the constitutional amendment that we are considering today deals only with the Province of Saskatchewan and it does not involve CPR’s ongoing claim against the federal Crown before the federal courts.

Finally, it should be noted that similar separate claims have been made against Manitoba and Alberta. However, these proceedings have been halted until a final decision is rendered in the Saskatchewan case.

With this additional information and the additional perspectives, we will be hearing soon from the seconder of this motion, Senator Cotter, and I hope we can move ahead swiftly. This is a clear opportunity for us in the upper chamber to stand up for a region of our country in a spirit of cooperative federalism. Colleagues, let us join the unanimous voice of the other place and respond positively to the request made by the elected representatives of the “land of living skies.”

Senator Gold: I thank the honourable senator for the question. I will respond in two ways. First, with respect to the 1880 contract, the details are found in several places. I will try to find the text and make it available to senators.

However, it should be noted that in 1880, there was no federal tax. At the time, the taxation system we know today did not exist. At the turn of the 20th century, the Government of Canada introduced several taxes in a wartime context, and CPR paid those taxes. That is why, notwithstanding the wording of clause 16 of the contract, every stakeholder has always understood that the main issue of the situation that concerns us and that concerns Saskatchewan has to do only with provincial taxes.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Senator Dupuis: Senator Gold, you referred to clause 16 of the contract, which exempts Canadian Pacific from provincial and municipal taxation. Please correct me if I have misunderstood the 1950 Supreme Court ruling in C.P.R. v. A.G. for Saskatchewan. It is an English-only document that quotes clause 16 of the contract, which states that the company, all its facilities and shares, all its capital, and I quote:

[English]

. . . shall be forever free from taxation by the Dominion, or by any province hereafter to be established, or by any municipal corporation therein . . . .

[Translation]

If I read this Supreme Court ruling correctly, it is indeed an exemption from taxation that covers not only provincial and municipal taxes, but also taxation by the Dominion, that is, the federal government. Can you provide us with the documents that relate to this contract, so we can properly consider this motion? I fully agree with you that this is extremely important to the people of Saskatchewan.

Hon. Jim Quinn: This is very interesting to me. I support where this is going, in general. At the same time, after listening to this particular question-and-answer period it seems more complicated for some of us than for those who have stronger backgrounds in such matters.

While respecting the province and the lower chambers voting on this issue, and while I tend to be supportive of this, we would be better served to be well informed and have the opportunity for more discussion. Perhaps we could even hear from CP on their stance on the issue.

Is that something that makes sense for all of us, to be better informed as we take on the decision to agree?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. Respectfully, colleagues, I do believe that what I have placed on the table and the responses I have given — and I have every confidence that what Senator Cotter will be providing in his speech — will provide you with the information that you need to be properly educated on this. As Senator Dalphond points out, additional material is available in the public record, which will provide further background and context. I am confident that when all is said and done, this chamber will be in a position in a reasonably short time. It’s certainly my hope to include the debate and pass this resolution so that we can correct this unfairness to the government and the people of Saskatchewan.

Hon. David Arnot: Honourable senators, I speak to you today from Saskatoon, which is in the heart of Treaty 6 territory. Treaty 6 was entered into in August 1876 just a few miles north of where I stand at Fort Carlton. This area is also the traditional homeland of the Métis.

Today, I rise to speak in favour of the motion proposed by Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate. This motion is designed to address an historic inequity placed upon the people of Saskatchewan.

In 1871, Canada entered into an agreement to build a national rail line to British Columbia within 10 years as a critical incentive to bring British Columbia into Confederation.

It took various iterations for Canada to get this commitment underway. To support the project, the Government of Canada provided a series of benefits to a consortium of investors, which eventually became the Canadian Pacific Railway company. These inducements included a payment of millions of dollars, a grant of millions of acres and a critical inducement: a tax exemption granted to the CPR in perpetuity — very unusual.

When Alberta and Saskatchewan were incorporated as provinces in 1905, the tax exemption was incorporated into the constitutional documents, resulting in section 24 of The Saskatchewan Act.

During the 20th century, a range of other actions occurred associated with railways, particularly with the transportation of grain. The purpose was to address the monopoly powers of the railways and the financial vulnerabilities of farmers shipping their grain to market. Various federal measures were taken. One included the establishment of the Crow’s Nest Pass rate, which capped the rates that railways could charge to transport grain to port. This protected farmers. However, as the cost of that operation rose, the railways began to experience a financial squeeze.

Ottawa intervened and, based on a transportation inquiry, developed a plan to pay direct subsidies to railways. That inquiry was the 1959 Royal Commission on Transportation, also known as the MacPherson Commission. It was created to investigate transportation policy, particularly freight rate inequities in Canada.

In their 1961 three-volume report, the commissioners, under the chair of Mr. M.A. MacPherson, a well-respected Saskatchewan lawyer, recommended that, first, railways be allowed more freedom to eliminate uneconomic passenger service and branch lines, and second, to receive direct subsidies for grain-handling responsibilities which were imposed upon them by Parliament.

The principles of the report included the value of competition between different forms of transportation, the need to reduce regulatory control and payment of reasonable charges by transportation operators for facilities provided by government. It also recommended the establishment of the Canadian Transport Commission.

In the early 1960s, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta renewed lobbying efforts to end the constitutionalized tax exemption for the CPR. In 1966, the federal government saw an opportunity to leverage the subsidies in exchange for an agreed end to the CPR tax exemptions.

I have read a copy of the correspondence between Mr. Ian Sinclair, the president of the CPR, and Mr. Jack Pickersgill, the Minister of Transportation. Mr. Pickersgill was a former clerk of the Privy Council. In that letter dated August 29, 1966, Ian Sinclair wrote to the minister and stated:

. . . as a contribution to the rationalization of Canadian transportation legislation, Canadian Pacific would be prepared voluntarily to forgo the perpetual exemption from municipal taxation provided in clause 16 of its contract of 21st October, 1880 . . .

— between Canada and the CPR.

He further wrote that the exemption applies in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. This exemption is contractual, statutory and constitutional.

Sinclair wrote further in the letter:

At any time . . . Canadian Pacific would have no objection to action being taken to amend the constitution and the legislation to terminate the perpetual exemption from local taxation . . .

and that he had the agreement of all of the board of directors.

From the debates in the other place on September 8, 1966, at page 8211, the minister said that the agreement reached between Canada and the CPR “is an act of good corporate citizenship.” Looking back, the minister also commented that he thought the tax exemption had been a mistake to make it in perpetuity.

On January 10, 1967, the minister, speaking in the other place, declared that he had spoken to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and made it very clear to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that immunity for perpetuity is not desirable in the 20th century. CPR said that if the government gave them the right to raise revenues, “then the company would be glad to give up this immunity.”

It is clear that if the government could change the Constitution, the CPR would not object.

From the debates in the other place on the same day, at page 11,602, Tommy Douglas stated that the “government of Saskatchewan between 1944 and 1964 made repeated representations for changes” to be made so that the CPR would be subject to municipal taxation.

In other words, this issue was a perennial one in the three prairie provinces in Canada throughout the whole of the 20th century. There is no ambiguity in the exchange; in my opinion, it’s very clear. The intent of the parties is evident in the letter of October 29, 1966, and the contemporaneous debates in the other place.

The CPR received what it wanted: an increase in subsidies. The federal government received what it wanted: an end to the tax exemption in section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. I believe the CPR voluntarily agreed to end the perpetual tax exemption, recognizing the circumstances of the day and changes in transportation policy, subsidies and protection in the modern era.

The Saskatchewan Minister of Justice, Gordon Wyant, Q.C., introduced a motion in the Saskatchewan legislature in November 2021 to amend the Canadian Constitution as it relates to the Saskatchewan Act, which was accepted by both sides of the legislature and passed unanimously. We have all been informed that it was debated in the other place and unanimously passed in that place yesterday.

This resolution seeks to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act retroactively to August 29, 1966. This is the date of the crucial correspondence. I believe this reflects the common understanding of the parties at the time they reached that agreement. I believe that the CPR is one of the largest corporations in Canada and should continue to bear its responsibility for provincial taxes just like any other taxpayer.

The CPR benefits from using Saskatchewan’s infrastructure and should contribute to the maintenance of that infrastructure. The CPR should not be able to reap the benefits of operating in Saskatchewan without assuming any tax responsibility.

I believe that considering modern taxation and transportation policies, it is time to eliminate any uncertainty respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway’s tax exemption and to ensure an equal playing field for all companies operating in Saskatchewan.

Section 24 is a relic of an earlier time, an anachronism from the 19th century when Saskatchewan was not treated as an equal partner in Confederation. A perpetual tax exemption is no longer conscionable in the context of the third decade of the 21st century. If the tax exemption persists, it is to the detriment of the people of Saskatchewan, farmers, consumers, producers and businesses, including small businesses, across the province of Saskatchewan.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support this motion and to put to an end any uncertainty on this historic inequity. We need to prevent a wealthy corporation from obtaining an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace.

To continue with a tax exemption in the 21st century, which was granted to the CPR in the 19th century, would be fundamentally unjust, unfair, unreasonable and an undeserved economic hardship on the residents of Saskatchewan. The continuation of section 24 after August 29, 1966, would not be consistent with the Province of Saskatchewan’s position as an equal partner in Confederation.

I hope this will be done with unanimity in the Senate. I encourage my colleagues to move with alacrity on this issue.

I believe that, in fact, it distills to a very straightforward issue and is not as complicated as it may seem. I note that the Westminster parliamentary model was designed to operate with principles of compromise, collaboration and cooperation. This motion introduced in the Senate by the government leader is a clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the cooperation and collaboration by the Government of Canada, Canadian parliamentarians and the Saskatchewan legislature to protect the interests of the Province of Saskatchewan. Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I, too, rise to speak to you on Bill S-201, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act for the purposes of lowering the voting age from 18 years to 16. I want to commend Senator McPhedran for her persistency on behalf of young people so that they can have a say in our democracy and welcome our efforts in bringing this amendment for the third time to the chamber.

The history of who gets to vote in Canada has never been set in stone. In 1885, only male, property-owning, British subjects aged 21 and older were eligible to vote. Today, all Canadian citizens aged 18 or older, regardless of gender, income or ethnic origin have the right to vote. Evolution has been at the heart of electoral law.

However, every time voter eligibility has evolved, objections have been raised. For example, before some women were enfranchised in 1918, Senator Hewitt Bostock argued that:

. . . women will be put in the position of receiving something that they do not appreciate, and consequently very probably they will not exercise their right to vote.

I’m sure many women cringe when they read and hear this point of view. I have heard many similar arguments against lowering the voting age to 16.

Instead of telling you the virtues associated with this idea, let me deal with the objections to it.

The first objection is that young people are too young to deal with complex matters such as voting. Plus, they are so young that we cannot reasonably expect them to make informed choices. In addition, their brains are not sufficiently developed at 16 to enable them to make logical choices. And, finally, what would be the point in any case, since young people would only vote the way their parents tell them to?

In other words, they are too young, too immature, too impressionable, too inexperienced to be granted the most valuable right of citizens: the ability to cast a vote.

Instead of giving you just my opinion, let me share the evidence from jurisdictions that have lowered the voting age.

In 2007, Austria enfranchised those aged 16 and older. There is a 13-year body of evidence to draw from. What the data tells us is that the turnout among 16- and 17-year-old Austrian voters has not been substantially lower than the overall turnout rate. Evidently, young people will vote if they are given the opportunity.

Let’s deal with the objection related to immaturity.

Young people cannot be entrusted with the vote because they will make uninformed choices. If given the vote, they may cast their vote for the sake of voting without understanding the implications of the choices they are making. They don’t have enough political knowledge and are not able to tune in to the political discourse of the day. Honourable senators, frankly, if this holds true for young people, I would submit it holds true for many adults as well.

Once again, I looked to countries that have enfranchised youth to determine if this argument holds water. A study conducted in Austria before the 2009 European Parliament election showed that young people voted based on their political preferences just as much as older voters. They were not ignorant of the context — quite the opposite. They had distinct political preferences which they exercised through their vote.

Then there’s the argument that adolescent brains cannot manage the logical processes required for voting, even though they can drive cars. They can join the reserves. They can work. They can pay taxes. But apparently they cannot manage the logical processes required for voting.

According to neuroscientists, in scenarios where tasks are mainly cognitive, adolescents show competence levels comparable to those of adults. This means that when the level of stress is low and there is time to evaluate different choices, young people can make thoughtful decisions. Because voting is an activity that teenagers — and in fact all of us — can think about ahead of time, they are able to make just as reasonable decisions as adult voters.

Finally, regarding parental influence, people ask, “What’s the point of allowing young people to vote, since they will surely vote the way their parents tell them to?” I don’t know about your children, colleagues, but in my family the opposite is almost always true. Kids have perspectives, they have priorities, they have opinions, and they don’t hesitate to tell us — especially us parents — what is wrong with our world. Plus, the influence does not go one way. Young people can and do affect their parents’ civic engagement and attitudes as well. My children have been instrumental in influencing me about global warming and climate change.

Additionally, there are other reasons to look seriously at this proposal. It will have a positive impact on electoral participation in the long run. This is because young people under 18 are most likely to still be in school and to live with their families — two factors that have been shown to encourage voter turnout. In the long term, this higher level of participation at a young age, may then facilitate the development of a lifelong habit of voting. As Rick Mercer, he of the famous rants, has said, “Voting is learned behaviour and it is addictive.” I am a big proponent of lowering the voting age to 16 because we know if people start voting, they will continue to vote their entire life.

It is also important to consider the impact allowing younger people to vote can have on their families, for those young people whose families are not politically engaged. Learning how to vote at school or in their community may help them to empower their family members to vote with them. Youth can be and are incredible behavioural change agents.

We make decisions in this chamber that have significant impacts on the lives of young people — decisions about cannabis, the labelling of food, assisted death, slave labour in our supply chains and, of course, climate change. A common complaint I hear from young people is that the older political elites control their future. Giving them the right to vote at this age will ensure that we hear their views and take them seriously.

Even though I have frequently referred to Austria as one of the jurisdictions that has enfranchised young people, I would also add that the voting age is 16 in Scotland, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Malta, Jersey, Guernsey, Wales and the Isle of Man. There are also several countries where 16‑year‑olds can vote in certain regional or municipal elections, including Germany, Switzerland, Estonia and the United States. The idea of allowing young people to vote should not seem so unrealistic, considering it is already taking place in many parts of the world.

Young people are campaigning for the right to vote in not only federal elections in Canada but also provincial and municipal elections. The Vote16BC campaign has received broad support, gaining endorsement from the City of Vancouver, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and the B.C. Teachers’ Federation, among many others. The Samara Centre for Democracy finds that beyond voting, young people are the most active participants in Canada’s civic and political life. They talk about politics more than anyone, are present in the formal political sphere, respond through activism and are leading their communities through civic engagement. Whatever happens at the ballot box, political leaders overlook the passion and engagement of young people at their own peril. It therefore makes sense to leverage this enthusiasm for politics into the ballot box.

I don’t want to make the argument for lowering the voting age without linking it with civic education. I don’t believe you can do one without doing the other. For example, in Austria, the lowering of the voting age was accompanied by awareness-raising campaigns and enhancing the status of civic and citizenship education in schools. In terms of citizenship education, all provinces and territories include this subject area in their curriculums. Some provinces, including Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec, have even created separate civics or citizenship courses. The foundation for leveraging civic education in our system already exists.

Perhaps the best way to conclude my speech is to look to the future. It is young people who will inherit the future, uncertain as it is. It is young people who will live with the results of our choices today. It is young people who will need to fix the mistakes older generations have made. Lord knows, we have made many, and we will likely make many more. It only makes sense to let them into the ballot box, because the future is rightly theirs, not ours. Colleagues, let’s send this bill to committee for thorough study as soon as we are able to. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Galvez, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]