Honourable senators will recall that, when we left off yesterday at 4 p.m., Senator Gold was using his time to answer questions, and I believe there was at least one other senator who wished to ask a question.

Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

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.

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

I thank the honourable senator for her question. The answer is yes.

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 Dupuis, do you have a question?

Yes, I have a question for the Government Representative in the Senate, if he’ll take one.

Yes.

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:

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

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.

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.

Would you agree to table in the Senate any legal analysis that may have been done by the Department of Justice regarding this constitutional resolution?

I will ask the government what is available and appropriate to share, but that is all I can say right now without asking the government.

I believe I have understood the responses from the Government Representative, and I have done some research on this topic since yesterday. I obtained a copy of the ruling from the trial division of the federal court, which is 306 pages long. I admit that I fell asleep while reading it last night, but not because it wasn’t interesting. On the contrary, it was fascinating to read about the early days of Confederation and the railway.

Am I to understand from your comments today that you insist that the Senate adopt the motion without delay and without senators having the time to read the ruling, hear witnesses and check the documents that Senator Dupuis is referring to, some but not necessarily all of which are found in the schedule to the ruling?

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.

Thank you for clarifying, Government Representative. It’s reassuring to see that we’ll have the time to do our duty as representatives of our region as well as fulfill our primary role, which is to carefully examine the bills put before us. I believe that is all the more important when we’re talking about a constitutional amendment.

I am pleased to see that, if the members of a provincial legislative assembly make a unanimous request, Ottawa will act on it quickly, no questions asked. However, as a senator, I would like time to read the documents and ask questions about Saskatchewan’s proposal. Quebec and other provinces will be making proposals too, and I would like them all to receive equal treatment from the perspective of defending regional interests, but only once they’ve been subjected to careful review.

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.

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?

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.

Thank you for that response, which makes really good sense.

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.

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, we have three senators who would like to ask questions. Would you accept questions? You have barely two minutes.

Yes. I will do my best.

Senator Cotter, my question is a simple one. As an Alberta senator newly alerted to this situation, what would Albertans need to do to be party to this initiative? Would there need to be a bill or a motion passed in the Alberta legislature or is the bill before us today one that could be amended?

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.

Senator Cotter, Senator Griffin and Senator Tannas wish to ask questions. Are you asking for five more minutes?

There is already a “no.”

I will ask and let someone say “no.”

Honourable senators, we now move to debate.

Senator Griffin on debate.

I wish to adjourn the debate.

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.”

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

“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.”

Those opposed to the motion to adjourn the debate and who are in the Senate chamber will please say “nay.”

I believe the “yeas” have it.