SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 26

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2022 10:00AM
  • Feb/8/22 10:35:56 a.m.
  • Watch
moved: Whereas on October 21, 1880, the Government of Canada entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Syndicate for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway; Whereas, by clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the federal government agreed to give a tax exemption to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Whereas, in 1905, the Parliament of Canada passed the Saskatchewan Act, which created the Province of Saskatchewan; Whereas section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act refers to clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway Contract; Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed on November 6, 1885, with the Last Spike at Craigellachie, and has been operating as a going concern for 136 years; Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the Province was established in 1905; Whereas it would be unfair to the residents of Saskatchewan if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, casting that tax burden onto the residents of Saskatchewan; Whereas it would be unfair to other businesses operating in Saskatchewan, including small businesses, if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, giving that corporation a significant competitive advantage over those other businesses, to the detriment of farmers, consumers and producers in the Province; Whereas it would not be consistent with Saskatchewan's position as an equal partner in Confederation if there were restrictions on its taxing powers that do not apply to other provinces; Whereas on August 29, 1966, the then President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Ian D. Sinclair, advised the then federal Minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, that the Board of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had no objection to constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption; Whereas section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies; Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, on November 29, 2021, adopted a resolution authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of Canada; Now, therefore, the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the annexed schedule. SCHEDULE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA 1. Section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act is repealed. 2. The repeal of section 24 is deemed to have been made on August 29, 1966, and is retroactive to that date. CITATION 3. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Saskatchewan Act). He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand to present the motion today and lead off the debate. I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. I am happy to hear her comments put on the record as well. We will have a lot of Saskatchewan content in the chamber today. I feel that more common sense from Saskatchewan is always a good thing. I want to talk to the members in the chamber today about why this motion is important. There are two defining reasons why we should be passing this unanimously. One is for tax fairness. I believe the taxpayers of Saskatchewan should not be forced to pay an additional dollars to a profitable corporation. Second, it is about respecting provincial jurisdiction. I believe all colleagues can appreciate that. I think we have a duty in this chamber to respect what has been done in provincial legislatures across the country. We know that this passed unanimously in the Saskatchewan legislature last fall. I brought forward a unanimous consent motion, but I appreciate that the member for Winnipeg North and the justice minister wanted to have debate on the floor of the House of Commons about why this motion is important and why it should be passed. It is with respect to their wishes that we brought forward this motion today so we would have that conversation, have that debate and have comments put on the record as to why this is a necessary motion. Hopefully, after today there will be a vote on this motion and we can move it to the Senate. Then this could be passed in respect to the wishes of the people of Saskatchewan. I have some thanks to give. My thanks to the minister of justice in Saskatchewan, Gordon Wyant, who put this motion forward in that legislative chamber. I have also talked with some of the NDP MLAs in Saskatchewan, my home province. I was a member of the legislative assembly there, and Trent Wotherspoon has said he has communicated with the NDP in the House of Commons. I believe they will be on board with this motion as well because they should respect what their provincial colleagues have done. I hope this will be a good and thorough debate about why we, as legislators, should respect the provincial jurisdiction of what is going on. I want to put on the record that I think it is very important that we have the proper tone. Decorum in this House has left a little bit to be desired. The motion today was put forward by the opposition so that we can all get together and have a good conversation to show the people of Canada that we can work together. We have done it in the past. We can work together and get things done more quickly and not see some of the holdups we have seen in the past with some of the bills put forward because of partisan politics. These are the conversations we have been having over the last couple months. I put forward a unanimous consent motion that was denied, so hopefully that will not happen again with this motion before I back home to Saskatchewan. Talking about the people of Saskatchewan, this is important to them because they think it is time that Ottawa listens to some of their concerns around tax fairness. Obviously, we have seen that the price of everything has been going up and inflation is increasing everywhere. They want to know that we are listening. My number one job when I stand in the House of Commons representing the people of Regina—Lewvan is to put forward their interests and make sure that I am a voice for them. This is something that I feel is very important. They feel, like I said previously, that they should not have to pay an extra dollar for a profitable corporation. We went through the motion. For a little more background, this is a constitutional amendment. That is not unheard of, as B.C. has done this, as well as Alberta, and through this very process. We are not breaking new ground. We know this has been done before, amending provincial constitutions through motions and agreement with parties in the chamber and in the Senate. I believe this is something that can be done again. We really want to make sure that people realize that this is an outdated exemption. It dates back to 1880. It was something where the government at the time made a deal with CP Rail. It is something where they were exempt from paying taxes. Going back to 1880 makes it 116 years old. CP and the Saskatchewan government have been engaged in a battle over this for the last 13 years. For CP, that is something that will be ongoing. This will affect that going forward. That court case will be settled in the courts. It will not be settled here today, but we will make sure that we get this exemption done and off the books so that something like this does not come up again. On November 29, the justice minister introduced the motion to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act in the legislature. Like I said, it has been a few months. I believe my colleagues across the way on the government side have had an opportunity to look at it and are in agreement with this motion going forward. The resolution will be passed by the government and the Senate. I want to put on the record today a comment made by the minister of justice in Saskatchewan. He said, “We're going to vigorously defend the claim that's been brought by the railway to defend the interests of the people of Saskatchewan”. When it comes down to it, today we are trying to defend the interests of the people of Saskatchewan on the floor of the House of Commons. That is what I will always do. When I talk to the people of Regina—Lewvan, I tell them that I will always be on Saskatchewan's side. This motion shows both that commitment to the people who have sent us to the legislature and that we have the ability to get things done. Sometimes I am asked in my hometown of Regina if I can move the yardstick being in opposition, if I can get things done. This is an example of how, working with all parties, we can get something done for the people of Saskatchewan and make sure they do not pay a cent in tax that should be paid by profitable corporations. In a few conversations with people back home over Christmas, they were really interested in what the problem with this could be. I am hoping that, if the other parties, the Liberals, NDP or Bloc, do have concerns, they put them on floor of the House of Commons today. We can then answer those concerns, and we can work together to ensure this will be moved forward. It is very important that we make sure outdated legislation is changed. I believe it was an oversight because in 1966, as it says in the motion, there was a handshake agreement between CP Rail and the government of the day to get this exemption off the books. Sometimes there are small oversights, so we are going to fix a past mistake that was overlooked and ensure that everyone knows what the rules are going forward. Canadians are really looking for some certainty and making sure we are doing what we can to make legislation clear. Passing this motion so that oversight is fixed and that exemption is taken off the books of CP Rail is what today is about. This is about tax fairness for the people of my province, and I am looking forward to hearing the debates of my other colleagues from Saskatchewan. It is about respecting provincial jurisdiction. I think a lot of members in the chamber agree with this and will make sure we work together to get this motion passed. I believe everyone in this House thinks provincial jurisdiction should be respected, and when it comes to tax fairness, I think everyone in the House would agree that people in our home provinces should not be paying for profitable corporations. When I go home, I will be happy to have conversations with the people of Regina—Lewvan and tell them this is one thing we did together. When they watch the news, sometimes all they see is the combativeness among opposition parties. They watch question period and think all we do is argue and not get answers from our colleagues across the way. Through this motion and the debates today, I want to show there is co-operation at times. I am hoping my government and opposition colleagues will help us to make sure this is fair for Saskatchewan. I am proud to say that I will always be on Saskatchewan's side, and that is what this motion is about.
1993 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 10:46:08 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, this particular motion is truly unique to the province of Saskatchewan, because the exemption is in section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. I have not read any other provincial acts that deal with the Constitution, so it may be in the Manitoba or Alberta act as well, but this motion just deals with repealing section 24 in the Saskatchewan Act. The motion today deals only with Saskatchewan. If the member likes, he could have some conversations with provincial colleagues in Manitoba or Alberta to see if there are other provincial constitutions with the same exemption for companies, but the motion today deals strictly with Saskatchewan.
107 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 10:47:29 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, this is not a precedent. It has been done before, as I said in the opening comments of my speech. B.C. and Alberta have used this method as well to change portions of their provincial constitutions. It would not set a precedent, and other provinces have the ability to do it. I would love to have a constitutional debate with my friends from Quebec. If they have any suggestions, I am open. They always bring forward good ideas, so I hope that if they have ideas to bring forward, they will do so through the House of Commons. This particular motion is only about the Saskatchewan Act and does not set a precedent, because, as I said, B.C. and Alberta have used this method already to change their provincial constitutions.
134 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 10:49:02 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is coming up now because the provincial legislature passed this motion unanimously just recently. At this time, how the process rolls out is that the provincial legislature has to pass a motion unanimously before it comes to the House Commons. That is why it is happening now. In my speech, I said that it had been passed in November of 2021, and we brought this up at the earliest opportunity. First we asked for unanimous consent and now we are going through this process to ensure it is done properly and is debated on the floor. I know the court case has been going on for 13 years, but the timing of when the provincial legislature passed its motion unanimously is the reason it is here in the House of Commons today.
135 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 11:21:45 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech from my friend across the way, the parliamentary secretary for justice, and thank him very much for his support on this motion. I have also heard questions from my Bloc colleagues, and they said they support it as well, as do my NDP colleagues. I thank them very much for today's decorum. The people who have spoken have been very much in support of this motion. Does my colleague who just spoke believe that we will have that same support from the senators in the Senate chamber when this motion goes to the floor of the Senate? I am hoping they have the same kind of decorum and unanimous support for this motion.
122 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 11:55:14 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the Bloc. I think there is symmetry in what Saskatchewan is going through with this Constitutional amendment: this mistake that should have been fixed in 1966. Are there other, comparable changes the member would like to see made to the Constitution from a Quebec point of view? It is nice to see that Quebec and Saskatchewan are on the same page. Could the member outline a few more examples of where he would like to see some fixes in the Constitution for his home province?
95 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 12:07:48 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for his support of our motion. Saskatchewan appreciates it. It is also heartwarming to see how everyone tries to make a connection to Saskatchewan. It has been said that all roads will lead to Saskatchewan, so I am happy to see members trying to make that connection. It is truly the best province in our country. I understand that the railway does have a wide swath. I think that if we can find agreement on something else today, other than the motion itself, is that maybe if we had other ways to move goods back and forth across our country other than the railway, maybe with some pipelines, that would be a good start as well. I wonder if my colleague would agree that some pipelines also need to be built in this country.
146 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 12:23:55 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his support on this motion today. I heard him mention Biggar. When driving into the town of Biggar, Saskatchewan, there is a sign that says, “New York is big, but this is Biggar”. The hon. member can take this back to his relatives: it is a cute little sign. I have been through Biggar many times. Once again, people are still trying to make that connection to Saskatchewan, because it is a great province to be from. Today, we will deal with this motion and I thank my colleague for his support, but I would also ask one more thing. If he does have friends in the Senate, if he knows a few Senators, I would ask that he go and talk to those friends to make sure the Senate deals with this important motion as soon as possible. I would like to have his support with the next step, which is making sure this motion passes in the Senate, so that the taxpayers of Saskatchewan receive fairness and make sure that the corporation pays its fair share. I would hope to have his assistance with that, as well.
204 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 1:38:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood. As we do know, the Senate has tabled a motion very similar to the motion that was tabled here in the House of Commons, so they will be ready to move on that hopefully as soon as we have broad support from all parties when we vote tomorrow. How does the member think that some of the money we would be saving from CP could be used better for taxpayers in Saskatchewan? Where could some of that money go? We all agree that corporations should pay their fair share. I want to tell the people of Saskatchewan that we are here for them, and we are always going to be on their side. I would like the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood to explain what he could do with some of that money and where it could be better spent.
153 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 2:16:59 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been an eventful several weeks in Ottawa, but earlier today, Canadians witnessed a moment of true courage from the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert and the chair of the Quebec Liberal caucus when he spoke out against the Prime Minister's dividing and stigmatizing of Canadians. It is also encouraging that other members of the Liberal caucus may have also seen the light. The Quebec caucus chair said, “I can tell you that I am not the only one” to have a certain discomfort on different levels regarding the direction the government is taking. Canadians have been looking for leadership from the Prime Minister, and we can see from the protest outside that he is still hiding. I encourage all my colleagues on the Liberal benches to speak out against the Prime Minister's divisive approach and discrimination against Canadians. After all, as the Prime Minister said, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”
165 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 3:43:56 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle and I have worked together on a couple of committees, and I appreciate that he has voiced his support for this motion. I wonder if there are things that we can work together on. He just talked about taxation. The Saskatchewan government has put forward its own carbon pricing system, but it was denied outright. I was wondering if we could work together on this with a sense of decorum and friendship as well, and move it forward. I am sure the Saskatchewan government would like to hear if it could work with the Liberal government on its new environmental plan as well.
110 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 3:57:44 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I love talking about taxation and the fairness of taxation, especially in the transportation sector. One thing we have heard from Saskatchewan residents is that the Saskatchewan government has put forward an environmental plan very similar to that of the Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It was dismissed outright by the current government. I know the member was the former envoy to the Prairies for the Prime Minister. I am wondering this. Could the member talk about some more things we could work together on, such as the environmental plan Saskatchewan delivered? Hopefully he could speak to the Prime Minister about accepting that plan from the Saskatchewan government.
114 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 4:29:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, once again, it is great to see all the connections to Saskatchewan that so many members in the chamber have. I have a quick question for my friend from Saskatoon West who gave a great speech. Are there other areas where perhaps the federal government has not been listening to the Saskatchewan government or the people of the Saskatchewan for some of the needs they might have going forward? I could think of the environmental plan and a few others, but are there any other things that we would like to get on the record that we would like to work together to make sure we get it done for the people of our province?
123 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 4:39:13 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see my friend rise to speak in the House. I am glad we are on the same side and that the Liberals will be able to support this motion. I have a question that I have asked a few of his colleagues as well. We have talked about other issues for Saskatchewan that the Liberals have not been as supportive of, such as the environmental plan put forward by the Saskatchewan government. I am wondering if they would have a chance to revisit that decision. I know the Prime Minister dismissed it out of hand a year ago, but it is very similar to a few of the other environmental plans put forward by other provinces that were accepted, such as those from the maritime provinces, and the member would know that. Therefore, I wonder, in this new sense of coming together and great decorum in the chamber, if they would take another look at the environmental plan put forward by Saskatchewan Premier Moe and his government to see if it would meet their standards.
183 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 5:50:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the comments my colleague put on the record, and I thank him for his support of the motion going forward. I do have kids and I have played many games of Ticket to Ride. We have more in common, my Quebec colleagues and I, than we think. Another thing we have in common is a respect for provincial jurisdiction. I thank the member for the support. Premier Moe called for an increase in health funding, so that is another thing Quebec and Saskatchewan have in common. Given the constitutional amendment, are there other areas where the current Liberal government has let Quebec down? We probably have more things in common than we expect. Could he put some of those on the table so we can learn more about each other?
136 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 6:04:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again on this very important constitutional amendment. We have heard a lot of talk from the member for Winnipeg North on the UC motion that was brought forward in December. Once again, I was the member who brought that UC motion forward. We did have some initial conversations, but hearing everyone today putting their opinions and statements on the record about why they want to support this constitutional amendment for Saskatchewan and support that unanimous decision from the legislature, I think, is an important and good process to go through. My friend and colleague from Prince Albert is dead on when he said it is great that the House of Commons can work together like this in collaboration to get things done. I wish the people of Canada would see this more often than what we see during the theatrics of question period. Another thing my friend hit on is what the $350 million has been used for in terms of public services for the people of Saskatchewan. I was an MLA for eight years, and something I would like to put on the record is that probably one of the best initiatives we did was the STARS air ambulance coming to Saskatchewan. It helps everyone across the province from rural Saskatchewan to Regina and Saskatoon, because that helicopter is a lifesaver. When we hear it in the air coming to land, it is a life-saving initiative. We should be very proud, as a province, that we brought that forward. I wonder if my colleague would like to put a few other comments on the record about how, moving forward, we want to thank our colleagues across the chamber for supporting this initiative and making sure we get this done and ensure this also passes on the floor of the Senate sooner rather than later.
315 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/8/22 6:17:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for adding his voice in this chamber and for his support for this motion. I have asked a question of a couple of Liberal members who spoke today, and I am wondering if there are other areas where we can support Saskatchewan with other measures in his file. We know the environment plan put forward by Premier Moe is very similar to those of other provinces, such New Brunswick and P.E.I., and those were accepted by the government. In the spirit of collaboration, I am wondering if the member would be another advocate for Saskatchewan in trying to ensure that Liberals could take a second look at the environmental plan that Premier Moe and the minister of environment for Saskatchewan put forward. Maybe we could move forward together in this new spirit of happiness. They could take another look at it so that we can make sure Saskatchewan is once again being treated fairly by the federal Liberal government.
167 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border