Senator Gold: Again, thank you for your question. The government is doing everything it can to save lives, and there is no attempt to put obstacles in the way. Circumstances were and remain difficult and challenging. The government is committed to doing everything it can, alone and with its allies, to address this significant, important challenge.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice and pursuant to the order of the Senate on November 25, 2021, authorizing Senate committees to hold hybrid meetings, the Senate authorize standing joint committees to hold hybrid meetings;

That:

(a)hybrid committee meetings be considered, for all purposes, to be meetings of the standing joint committee in question, and senators taking part in such meetings be considered, for all purposes, to be present at the meeting;

(b)for greater certainty, and without limiting the general authority granted when this order is adopted by the Senate, when a standing joint committee holds a hybrid meeting:

(i)all members of a standing joint committee participating count towards quorum;

(ii)such meetings be considered to be occurring in the parliamentary precinct, irrespective of where participants may be; and

(iii)the standing joint committees be directed to approach in camera meetings with all necessary precaution, taking account of the risks to confidentiality inherent in such technologies; and

(c)subject to variations that may be required by the circumstances, to participate by videoconference senators must:

(i) participate from an office or residence within Canada;

(ii)use a desktop or laptop computer and a headset with integrated microphone provided by the Senate for videoconferences;

(iii)not use other devices such as personal tablets or smartphones;

(iv)be the only people visible on the videoconference;

(v)have their video on and broadcasting their image at all times; and

(vi)leave the videoconference if they leave their seat; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

Senator Galvez: Okay.

(At 9 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on November 25, 2021, the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, February 22, 2022, at 2 p.m.)

Senator Gold: As I said, as the Government Representative, I would like this to be debated and voted on efficiently and appropriately. However, as I said before and will say again, I respect the Senate’s and senators’ desire to take as much time as necessary to fully understand the matter before us. In light of the clarifications I provided today, I’m eagerly awaiting the speech by our colleague, Senator Cotter, who has a stake and expertise in this area. I hope you’ll join me in looking forward to an efficient vote.

[English]

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Thank you, Senator Cormier, for your support for Indigenous languages. You remind me, with your passion, of Senator Joyal.

Senator, you know I represent a region with the highest proportion of Indigenous people in the country; 85% or more of the people of Nunavut are Inuit, and they largely still speak Inuktitut. It’s a bilingual radio station, newspaper, and I mean French and Inuktitut. Yet the federal government refuses to provide services in the Inuktitut language for its federal services in Nunavut, in contravention of the Nunavut government’s own Official Languages Act and Inuit Language Protection Act.

Do you have any comments on that in relation to your bill? Thank you.

Senator Cormier: Thank you so much for your question. I will try to answer in English.

The answer, for me, maybe does not reside in the Official Languages Act. I think the answer is that the federal government must do more to implement the Indigenous Languages Act; that’s for sure. The federal government — and all citizens, by the way — should do more to ensure that citizens receive the services they deserve in their part of Canada.

I sincerely and honestly feel that this is not in opposition with the official languages. I think that taking care of the Indigenous languages, taking care — making sure that in Canada, those rich languages can be revitalized — is a responsibility of the federal government and it is a responsibility for all of us.

So concerning this bill, it is specifically on the Language Skills Act. I talked about the Official Languages Act, but mainly this bill is about the Language Skills Act. I say “may be,” but I’m not sure even if this actual bill — what I said in my speech — I’m not sure if it is the right vehicle for that. But what I can assure you, Senator Patterson, is that much more must be done for the different languages in Canada, and we must find the right tools, the right place and the right hour to do that.

I’m not sure I am answering your question, but I’m trying to express the importance of making sure that in Canada we do help and respect all cultures and that their languages can also be celebrated. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, let me begin by apologizing if some of what I have to say is repetitive and redundant of the two previous speakers. Colleagues, this is a rare moment for us. It’s a rare opportunity for this chamber to consider an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. There have only been seven of such bilateral constitutional amendments considered by Parliament, as Senator Gold outlined yesterday. I rise to speak in support of the motion. Indeed, you may have observed that I introduced the identical motion on December 17 of last year in this chamber.

The motion before us is supported by each of the five senators from Saskatchewan as well as all of the members of Parliament from Saskatchewan who voted yesterday in favour of the motion in the other place. I hope it will be supported by each and every one of us here.

The motion before us is a small constitutional amendment, but an important one to my province as you have heard. In late November, it was adopted unanimously by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. It addresses a long-standing inequity that was put in place by the Government of Canada to facilitate the building of the intercontinental railway from Central Canada to the Pacific coast decades and decades ago.

Here is the story, and why it is now a matter of significant concern for the people of Saskatchewan.

One part of the bargain to build the railway to British Columbia was part of a deal to bring British Columbia into Confederation in 1871. This commitment, this promise to build the transcontinental railway, was to be built within 10 years. This coincided with at least two other of Canada’s larger interests as a nation.

First, a critical building block in the building of a country from the east to the West Coast, Canada’s national dream, nation building. We all know this story.

Second, the establishment of a secure Canadian presence in the west, in the face of an aggressive American presence. It will be recalled that the United States at that time had recently acquired Alaska only years before, and a porous U.S.-Canada border across the Prairies was routinely ignored by American hunters and traders in those days.

Indeed, historians have shown that the actual route of the transcontinental railway was strategic in the sense that it was built along the more southerly line, closer to the U.S.-Canada border, than less difficult but more northerly routes through the mountains.

The railway was completed in 1885, as Senator Gold has noted. It’s an amazing achievement. The pounding of that Last Spike in the mountains of British Columbia is captured in an iconic photograph. The pounding of that Last Spike is pounded into the memories of nearly every Canadian child and has been eulogized by Gordon Lightfoot.

The story that brings us to this constitutional amendment is the story of the bargain struck to build the railway, and its curious and lingering consequences to this day for the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.

After two failed attempts to get the railway built, and with the 10-year deadline approaching, in 1880 the Government of Canada turned to a consortium of investors — who ultimately became the Canadian Pacific Railway — and entered into an agreement to have the railway built. This was a daunting undertaking. Based on my reading, the consortium had the Government of Canada somewhat over a barrel given the timetable they faced.

It’s therefore not surprising that the Government of Canada, for all of these reasons, provided significant incentives to the CPR to build the railway. The most significant of those were three: $25 million in cash, as Senator Arnot noted; 25 million acres of land across the Prairies near the rail line, that land to be selected by the CPR; and, thirdly, tax concessions. It is the tax concessions that are the focus of the constitutional amendment before us today.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on the other two incentives. First, the $25 million. In 1881, a very young country, Canada, had limited fiscal capacity. So $25 million, even then, was a lot of money. You might ask what is $25 million worth today? Using the CPI from 1880 to today, that $25 million would be worth a little over $68 billion.

Second, the land concessions. Now, the CPR acquired large tracts of land in some of Canada’s most important Prairie cities: Calgary, Regina, Moose Jaw, Brandon, Medicine Hat, to name a few. Even ignoring the value of the urban land the CPR selected, and imagining that it took only good, rural land — good, rural farmland — by a conservative estimate, 25 million acres of good farmland today would be worth roughly $50 billion.

The tax concession was also generous. It is a wide range of exemptions from federal, provincial and municipal taxes — how wide, and for how long, we have been hearing and I’ll speak a bit more about that in a moment.

The exemptions were set out in clause 16 of the CPR-Canada agreement, the clause about which Senator Dalphond asked. They were incorporated into legislation that launched the venture in 1881 and created the CPR as well; and, furthermore, as Ottawa had the power to do, in creating the Province of Saskatchewan in 1905, it unilaterally embedded the exemption from provincial taxes into The Saskatchewan Act, in a way, part of the commitment set out in clause 16 of the agreement, required the exemption to apply to any provinces created thereafter, and that meant that, in 1905, it came to apply to Saskatchewan. The federal government implanted that provision in the constitutional document — The Saskatchewan Act — that created the Province of Saskatchewan.

I mention parenthetically, as you have already heard, that the exact same exemption from provincial taxes is embedded in the constitutional document that created the Province of Alberta, The Alberta Act of 1905, and a series of constitutional documents that expanded the boundaries of the Province of Manitoba in 1881.

The wide-ranging exemption from provincial taxes, which the CPR now argues to include things like sales taxes, taxes on its assets, excise taxes and income taxes, that exemption states the following:

That the CPR shall be free from taxation by the Dominion or by any province hereafter to be established, forever.

Let me repeat that. “Forever.” I don’t quite know how long “forever” is, but it feels like a very long time to me.

Now, there was an agreement reached in the mid-1960s — and Senator Arnot has spoken about it — between the CPR and the Government of Canada to end the taxation. But for reasons unknown, it was never implemented in the form of the removal of the constitutionalized exemption from provincial taxes. Even so, a peace broke out and the CPR apparently continued to pay or began to pay provincial taxes, as well as payments of municipal taxes, or at least grants in lieu of municipal taxes, subsequently.

However, again for reasons largely unknown, in 2008 the CPR concluded that that 1960s agreement only applied to municipal taxes; that is, the CPR took the view that it had only agreed to give up its municipal tax exemption, essentially property taxes for land it owned on or near the main line.

It then launched the four lawsuits we have heard about — one against the Government of Canada, one against Saskatchewan, one against Manitoba and one against Alberta — to get a return of taxes paid and a declaration that would confirm the tax exemption.

The claim against Saskatchewan, which is the main focus of the consequences of this exemption is, as Senator Gold noted, $341 million, plus a declaration of a continuing perpetual exemption from provincial tax. Perpetual.

Now to the present.

In the first case against Canada, and Senator Gold referred to this earlier, the CPR tax exemption was recently found in September of 2021 by the Federal Court of Canada not to have been constitutionalized vis-à-vis the Government of Canada, meaning that Canada could, and did, amend its laws to end most of the CPR tax exemption. That is the state of the law presently.

Though not decided in that case — since it was not a case about Saskatchewan — a plain reading of the situation and the evidence indicates that the 1960s deal was only intended, at least on the written language of the text of the material, to remove only the exemption from municipal taxes.

Second, in relation to provincial taxes, the exemption being embedded in the Saskatchewan Act, and therefore being a constitutional exemption, means that Saskatchewan cannot unilaterally amend its own tax laws to make the CPR subject to provincial taxes. It can only do so through this motion in Saskatchewan and a parallel motion in the two houses of Parliament to remove the exemption.

Where does that leave us today? Essentially this: Grand concessions were made to the CPR to get the intercontinental railway built. All Canadians were part of that bargain and, through taxes or in other ways, contributed to it. Fair enough. But one aspect of that bargain has left three provinces, and only three, with no say in the matter, continuing to pay for the building of that railway some 137 years after the railway itself was completed.

Speaking for myself, I’m not opposed to tax incentives that can be clearly shown to advance the public good. Incentives to advance a national and nation-building railway probably fit in that category, but I offer three countervailing points.

First, the other concessions, cash and land, were pretty darn generous in and of themselves.

Second, surely the tax exemption has long outserved its usefulness and justification. Its best-before date has long passed, and it appears that even the CPR thought so in the 1960s.

Third, as a burden imposed uniquely on Prairie taxpayers for a railway that has always served the country’s regional and national interests, it is profoundly unfair. If nothing is done in this chamber, there is a good chance that the residents of Saskatchewan would be required to unfairly continue to subsidize the CPR forever.

I will go a little bit further, if I may, in my remarks. As may be evident, I have done a bit of work on this. What I have learned is that, although the CPR cases against Alberta and Manitoba are not as far along as the Saskatchewan case — Senator Gold noted that the latter in Saskatchewan is in the final stages — and although the amounts in those other two provinces’ cases vary, the same issue and same unfairness apply to the residents of Alberta and Manitoba.

I would encourage my colleagues in Manitoba and Alberta to examine the question of the CPR tax exemption and its application to their respective provinces and residents.

In my view, this motion is the beginning of an honourable national process to clear away a curious anomaly in the constitutions of our three provinces that, if it was ever appropriate, is certainly no longer so. I would be pleased to assist in such an undertaking.

I urge you to support the motion before you today. Thank you, hiy hiy.

Senator Cotter: I think it is difficult to do the latter. I think it requires a motion and a resolution in the legislature of Alberta. Alberta’s situation is slightly more complicated because, based on my understanding, constitutional amendments relevant to the Province of Alberta require a referendum first. I leave you to imagine the complications.

Notwithstanding that, this is an argument that advances the question of millions and millions of dollars — how many millions for Alberta is still not clear — that the people of Alberta are being asked to pay unfairly. It seems to me that if a referendum costs a little money, it would be well worth it.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Griffin, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, that further debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate. If you oppose adjourning debate, please say “no.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Those in favour of the motion and who are in the Senate chamber will please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: “Yea” that you agree to adjourn the debate? The motion is to adjourn the debate, to which, Senator Plett, you said, “No.” Now we are asking the chamber.

Those in favour of the motion to adjourn the debate and who are in the Senate chamber will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of February 9, 2022, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, February 22, 2022, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, in accordance with rule 12-7(9), be authorized to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to social affairs, science and technology generally; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than June 12, 2025.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise to draw our attention to the scourge of neglected tropical diseases, or NTDs, terrible illnesses which affect almost two billion of the poorest and most disadvantaged people globally and which can be largely eliminated with available treatments and prevention. With concerted global effort, we can be successful; without concerted effort, these diseases will continue unchecked, creating even more poverty, disadvantage and disparity.

NTDs include but are not limited to elephantiasis, a swelling of limbs due to a parasitic worm infection; trachoma, a bacterial infection causing blindness; intestinal worms that cause anemia and stunted growth; leprosy, another bacterial illness which causes disfigurement and blindness.

For these and other NTDs, effective treatments are available including antibiotics, ivermectin, antifungal medications and others. Better personal and community sanitation helps prevent the spread of these diseases.

Global initiatives are underway with notable success; however, the pandemic has significantly slowed progress. Global partnerships that include the World Health Organization, governments, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry and civil society organizations have had a great impact in many parts of the world. Some NTDs such as Guinea-worm disease and river blindness have been eliminated or substantially reduced over the last decade.

January 30 was World NTD Day, raising awareness about these terrible yet treatable illnesses and reinvigorating the global community in conquering them. In June 2022, Commonwealth heads of state will be meeting in Rwanda. Hopefully, Canada, along with all other members of the Commonwealth, will sign on to the Kigali Declaration, promising to end NTDs altogether.

Great impact can be made with relatively little. For example, Canada, working through the Pan American Health Organization could, by itself, fund the elimination of blinding trachoma from the region of the Americas within five years. The estimated cost, less than $15 million; the impact, incredible.

The Canadian Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases has been a strong, science-driven advocate in the global fight against NTDs. Recently, three members of this chamber — Senators Boehm, Ravalia and myself — have joined an independent international group of parliamentarians addressing NTDs. Together with colleagues in the other place, we are nudging our government to step up to the plate and hit a home run by helping erase NTDs from the world.

We can do this if we act. I hope that every member of this chamber will support Canada becoming part of the promise of Kigali. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report on the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies, and measures needed to increase resiliency to those impacts;

That the committee also examine the impacts of critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors on climate change, and measures to reduce those impacts; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than November 30, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Honourable senators, the 2022 theme for Black History Month in Canada is “February and Forever: Celebrating Black History today and every day.”

This theme focuses on recognizing the daily contributions that Black Canadians make to Canada. This year, I want to highlight their contributions at the municipal level in Quebec.

When Jean Alfred was elected as a city councillor in Gatineau in 1975, it set the stage at the municipal level in Quebec. It was not until 1994 that four new Black municipal officials were elected, two of whom became mayors for several terms. They were the late Ulrick Chérubin in Amos and Michel Adrien in Mont-Laurier. That same year, Kettly Beauregard would become the first Black woman elected to Montreal city council.

Four Black people were elected between 1998 and 2017.

The entire province of Quebec had six Black municipal officials going into the 2021 municipal elections.

An analysis of the November 7, 2021, election results by Councillor Josué Corvil of the Saint-Michel district in Montreal found that 27 Black people, including 19 women, were elected in more than 1,100 municipalities in Quebec. I want to recognize Gracia Kasoki Katahwa, who was elected mayor of the Côte-des-Neiges—Notre-Dame-de-Grâce borough. Colleagues, please join me in congratulating them.

According to Statistics Canada projections, the Black population will continue to grow and could reach 5% of the total population of Canada by 2036. By then, if not sooner, I hope to see that same representation of Black people on city councils.

I want the Black population to see themselves reflected in our democratic institutions and to feel represented by the members of our community.

As Myrlande Pierre, a researcher with the UQAM Centre de recherche en immigration, ethnicité et citoyenneté, wrote:

Promoting the full participation of Black communities will help legitimize our democracy, for a more just and equitable society.

I urge Black people to get involved in politics at all levels. Yesterday I spoke about this to a group of teens from Calixa Lavallée high school in Montreal at an event organized by S’Engage.

If we want Black communities to be well represented, Black people will have to run for office, go vote and make their voices heard, which will contribute to a more harmonious society. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. David M. Wells (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to mark a very important milestone for the Republic of Kazakhstan. This past year marked the thirtieth anniversary of Kazakhstan independence and diplomatic relations with Canada. This anniversary commemorates the development, peace and prosperity it has achieved since then.

Kazakhstan is the largest country in Central Asia and the ninth largest in the world. In an historically short period of time, Kazakhstan has made great progress in the improvement of living standards, the development of a modern legal system and strengthened sovereignty, security and stability. Over the past 30 years, Kazakhstan has established diplomatic relations with 186 countries and transformed into one of the dynamically developing countries of Eurasia and a reputable diplomatic voice on the world stage.

Colleagues, like Canada, Kazakhstan has a bicameral parliament composed of the Majilis, which is the lower house, and a senate.

Kazakhstan’s notable accomplishments include their significant contribution to the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear disarmament and their contributions to UN Peacekeeping. Kazakhstan has also contributed to the establishment of a Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.

Colleagues, Kazakhstan’s culture is ancient but their democracy is young. Please help me in celebrating this very important milestone for the Republic of Kazakhstan and the important bilateral relations between our two countries.

Thank you.

Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Last week, the Honourable Marci Ien, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, announced that funding would be extended for the LGBTQ2 Community Capacity Fund and granted to two specific LGBTQ2 projects. Obviously, I applaud this announcement, which will help many LGBTQ2+ organizations in Canada continue their activities.

This fund is especially important for organizations working in rural regions. For example, Rendez-vous de la fierté Acadie Love, an organization on the Acadian Peninsula in New Brunswick, is doing outstanding work. Thanks to this fund, this organization recently contributed to the creation of a new francophone provincial group: Alter Acadie NB, the New Brunswick association of queer francophones, which focuses on LGBTQ2+ issues.

That being said, I am very concerned about the fact that the LGBTQ2 Community Capacity Fund was extended for only one year for $7.5 million, which is approximately the same amount as in previous years.

How does the federal government assess the growing financial needs of the LGBTQ2+ organizations that are eligible for this fund? How does it plan to ensure that they receive ongoing financial assistance?