44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/8/22 10:45:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend and colleague's approach to dealing with what is a serious issue. Whenever a provincial legislature takes an initiative, it is appropriate that the government respond, no matter what its political stripe, in whatever way it can. There is also a responsibility to gain a full understanding.
The credit that the member referenced is for the province of Saskatchewan. Are there other jurisdictions that are encountering the same situation, or is this truly unique to the province of Saskatchewan?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 10:46:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North, who wanted to ensure that this applies only to Saskatchewan. As we know, the feds have an almighty fear of ever talking about the Constitution, especially when it comes to Quebec.
I realize that this applies only to Saskatchewan, but would my colleague agree that this could set a pretty strong precedent for re-opening discussions on the Constitution? I would like to hear his comments on that.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 10:48:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see the Conservatives standing up and calling for Canada's biggest corporations to pay their fair share. It is obvious that what we have been saying all these years is rubbing off, and it is good to see.
The court case between Saskatchewan and CP Rail has been going on for 13 years. It seems there would have been ample opportunity to have addressed this issue quite a bit earlier—for instance, when the Conservative Party was in government. I wonder if my colleague could reflect on why it has taken 13 years for the federal government to take this step.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 10:49:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Regina—Lewvan, for his excellent and informative speech on this important and historic opposition day motion calling on the House to amend the Constitution of Canada.
The passage of the Saskatchewan Act, which created the Province of Saskatchewan in 1905, became part of the Canadian Constitution and came into force on September 1 of that year. Through a unique mechanism created as part of our Confederation, provinces have the ability to amend the Constitution when a matter deals exclusively with their internal governance.
For those who enjoy the history of Canada and learning about the twists and turns of the past, the events that have brought us to this point are really quite fascinating. As already mentioned by my colleague and as outlined in the motion itself, prior to the creation of the Province of Saskatchewan, our nation's forefathers were undertaking an immense nation-building exercise: the completion of a trans-continental railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
In order to help the fledgling railway company complete this mammoth task, the Government of Canada agreed to provide it with a tax exemption. When the Saskatchewan Act was passed in 1905, the tax exemptions applicable to the Canadian Pacific Railway were referenced in section 24. Since the creation of the Province of Saskatchewan, the company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan. Section 24, or the Provision as to C.P.R. Company, states the following: “The powers hereby granted to the said province shall be exercised subject to the provisions of section 16 of the contract set forth in the schedule to chapter 1 of the statutes of 1881, being an Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.”
Let us fast-forward 61 years to August 29, 1966, when the president and board of directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway company confirmed to the federal minister of transport at the time that the board had no objection to constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption. The elimination of the tax exemption contained in clause 24 was based on an agreement between the company and the federal government that the Government of Canada would make certain regulatory changes.
It is important to note that the Government of Canada upheld its part of the agreement and made the regulatory changes. However, clause 24 of the Saskatchewan Act was never eliminated. Recently the company undertook a challenge to this tax exemption, which is why we are seeking to address this change.
While I am pleased to speak today on this motion, it is unfortunate that I have to do so. Last year my colleague, the member for Regina—Lewvan, presented a unanimous consent motion in the House dealing with this very issue. I was both disappointed and more than a little troubled that consent was not granted by members of the government at that time.
This is not a partisan issue. The motion we are discussing today was unanimously passed by the Saskatchewan legislative assembly on November 29 of last year. In fact, two members of the Saskatchewan NDP caucus, Trent Wotherspoon, the official opposition critic for finance, and Nicole Sarauer, the official opposition critic for justice, wrote a letter to the federal ministers of justice and finance, the government representative in the Senate, the leader of the official opposition in the Senate, and the finance and justice critics for the Conservative Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, expressing their support for the motion and calling on the Parliament of Canada to act.
This letter was cc'd to all 14 Saskatchewan members of Parliament.
For the record, I would like to quote from the letter, which states:
You are likely aware of the resolution adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan on November 29, 2021, to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. We ask you to work with your colleagues in the House of Commons and the Senate to ensure that the parallel resolutions required under section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to finalize this amendment can be passed without delay.
The letter goes on to say:
We stand united as a legislature on this front, and we trust that you appreciate the importance of the quick and enthusiastic support of the Parliament of Canada in this endeavour.
This collaborative, non-partisan approach by Saskatchewan's members of the Legislative Assembly reflects the spirit in which this matter should be dealt with. Additionally, the letter emphasizes the speed and urgency needed in dealing with this matter.
Unfortunately, I am concerned that the government may not make this a priority or treat it with the urgency that it requires. The motion passed in the Legislative Assembly is comprehensive and clearly outlines the issues for the Province of Saskatchewan and its people. It is my sincere hope that the government will support this motion and pass it, as the potential cost to the people of Saskatchewan is significant.
Exempting a major corporation from certain provincial taxes would cast a significant tax burden on the residents of my province. Citizens pay their taxes. Families, single parents, seniors and young people who are new to the workforce all pay their fair share. It would also be unfair to other businesses, including small businesses, as it would give significant advantage to the CPR over those businesses and would be detrimental to our farmers, producers and consumers.
The Hon. Gordon Wyant, Saskatchewan's justice minister, put it very well when in the Saskatchewan legislature when he stated:
Simply put, it would not be fair for one of Canada's largest business corporations to have a substantial tax exemption in our province, but be required to pay taxes in other provinces simply based on the date Saskatchewan became a province.
I have to admit that after the rejection of the unanimous consent motion, I was skeptical about whether or not the government would do what is clearly the right thing for Saskatchewan. However, given the clear arguments laid out in the motion put forward by Minister Wyant and Mr. Wotherspoon in the Saskatchewan legislature and the context provided during the debate, as well as the unanimous support of the Legislative Assembly, I would submit to this place that now is the time for the federal government to ensure that Saskatchewan is treated equally and fairly within our federation. I do hope that the government and in fact all parliamentarians will unite and support the people of Saskatchewan by supporting this motion. As I said earlier, this is about fairness and equity for Saskatchewan.
I want to quote one last time from the letter by Mr. Wotherspoon and Ms. Sarauer. It says:
Currently, section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act purports to limit Saskatchewan's powers of taxation in a way that does not apply to other provinces in Canada. The amendment to the Saskatchewan Act proposed by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan removes this inequality and will ensure fairness in taxation and jurisdiction for all Saskatchewan people.
The Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan has demonstrated that this is not a partisan matter, and I hope that all parliamentarians would look at this issue as one that they could support. As the Hon. Gord Wyant stated at the time of his intervention that section 24 is a relic of an earlier time and that repealing this section will cement Saskatchewan's place as a truly equal partner in our federation.
I hope that our colleague, the federal Minister of Justice, has had sufficient time to consult with his officials, Saskatchewan's justice minister and his colleagues across the way so that they will support this motion's speedy passage, both in this place and in the Senate of Canada.
I appreciate the opportunity to make this intervention and I will try to address any questions that my colleagues might have.
1329 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 10:59:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that individuals who might be following the debate here today or the debate that took place in Saskatchewan might be curious about what it really means in terms of the taxation.
Had the Province of Saskatchewan actually forgone any ability to tax CP Rail, or did CP Rail actually pay taxes? In listening to my colleague, one would be of the opinion that CP has been paying taxes. That is not 100% my understanding. If she could enlighten me on that point, I would really appreciate it.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:00:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and I understand. I did make the statement that since the creation of the Province of Saskatchewan, the company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan. I will say that I stayed away from commenting on the case that is before the court. I do not want to comment on that since it is before the courts, but I thank him for his question.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:01:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
The Bloc Québécois obviously supports the Conservative Party motion about a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the Saskatchewan Act.
However, we cannot discuss the Constitution without acknowledging the elephant in the room. Quebec is not a signatory to the Constitution Act, 1982, which Canada simply imposed on us.
Would my colleague comment on the fact that, for Quebeckers, the constitutional status quo is unacceptable?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:01:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member and his party have been very clear about what they think about the Constitution and their place in this federation. In fact, it was not so long ago that we were here in the last Parliament, toward the end of Parliament, entertaining an opposition day motion where they were flexing their right as a province to amend the Constitution. I appreciate his question on this issue. Here we are today asking for a similar consideration.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:02:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. It is great to see us working together. This started in the Saskatchewan legislature, led by the Saskatchewan NDP.
I met with Dr. Katharine Smart from the CMA yesterday. She cited that there are pre-existing shortages. We need $3.2 billion for 7,500 new doctors and nurses. We need $6 billion to end the wait-lists in our health care system. We have overworked, tired and exhausted health care workers, and it is corporations like this that are not paying their fair share.
Does the member agree that not only should Canadian Pacific pay its fair share, but those who have profited from COVID-19 and the pandemic and companies using tax havens to not pay their fair share of taxes should also be paying their fair share? I hope she agrees with me that they should.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:03:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I absolutely believe that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. I would suggest that what we have seen over the last two years during the pandemic, which I believe has been greatly mismanaged by the current government, was the spending of tax dollars to grant sole-source contracts to Liberal insiders and their friends to line the pockets of those individuals. They really did take advantage of the pandemic. I suggest that questions about health care and whether it is being funded properly should be posed to the members across the way.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:04:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me acknowledge that I am speaking to you from the traditional lands of the Algonquin people. I also want to acknowledge the lands from which our colleagues are joining us today.
It is a solemn honour and pleasure for me to rise in this debate to speak on the proposed constitutional amendment in relation to Saskatchewan. It is not every day a motion for a resolution to amend the Constitution of Canada comes before the House. I want to thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for bringing this forward.
Indeed, a resolution authorizing the proposed amendment has already been adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. The amendment, if also authorized by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, would repeal a provision of the Saskatchewan Act that was enacted by Parliament in 1905 but is now an entrenched part of the Constitution of Canada.
Hon. members are aware that 40 years ago the Constitution of Canada was patriated by the enactment of the Canada Act 1982. No longer would the Parliament of the United Kingdom legislate for Canada, including making amendments to its Constitution. The Canada Act 1982 completed Canada's journey from a colony to an autonomous dominion to a full independent state, while preserving our institutions and traditions of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.
Our government is proud to support the province and the people of Saskatchewan in supporting this important constitutional amendment to ensure the tax system in Saskatchewan is fair and that all corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
The Constitution Act, 1982, which is scheduled to the Canada Act 1982, not only constitutionally entrenches the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples of Canada and sets out the commitments of governments to promote equal opportunities for all Canadians. It also establishes the procedures for constitutional amendments.
There are five amending procedures. Two of them we have often heard about: the general rule or 7/50 procedure; and the unanimous consent procedure.
The general procedure requires the approval of at least seven of the 10 legislative assemblies of the provinces representing 50% of the provincial population, and the two federal Houses. Only one constitutional amendment has been made under the general procedure. It was made in 1983 to strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The unanimous consent procedure, which applies to a limited number of subjects, requires the approval of both the Senate and the House, as well as 10 provincial assemblies. For both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords to succeed, they would have had to meet this stringent standard.
As well as the two multilateral procedures, there are two unilateral procedures of limited scope. The Parliament of Canada can amend the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government or the Senate and the House of Commons, subject to the protections of the fundamental characteristics of these institutions by the multilateral amending procedures. That is how, in 1985 and 2011, Parliament amended section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning representation in the House. As well, each provincial legislature may amend the constitution of the province as long as it does not infringe on fundamental provisions, such as section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, which protect language rights.
We now come to the bilateral constitutional amendment procedure. It is this procedure that the legislative assembly has invoked, which is set out in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to a provision that applies to one or more but not all provinces may be made by a proclamation issued by the Governor General when authorized by a resolution of the Senate and the House, and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies. That is the case here. The provision that would be amended, section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, only applies to Saskatchewan. The legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies, the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, has authorized this amendment. It is now for the two federal Houses to determine whether to adopt resolutions authorizing the same amendment: the repeal of section 24.
The bilateral procedure can be viewed as a middle ground between the multilateral procedures requiring unanimous consent of the federal and provincial Houses at one end and the unilateral procedures allowing for an amendment by an ordinary act to the legislature on the other. The bilateral procedure is found in part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, which the Supreme Court of Canada has said “provides the blueprint for how to amend the Constitution of Canada”.
The court called section 43, the bilateral formula, the “special arrangements procedure”, which applies in relation to provisions of the Constitution that apply to some but not all provinces. The court noted that it would “overshoot the mark” to make the adoption of the amendment dependent on the consent of provinces to which the provisions do not apply. Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, also serves to ensure that a special provision cannot be amended without the consent of the province to which the amendment applies.
The bilateral constitutional amendment procedure has produced no fewer than seven constitutional amendments. Four of them concern Newfoundland and Labrador: one changing the name of the province to include “Labrador” in 2001, and three changing the denominational schools provisions of the terms of union in 1987, 1997 and 1998. One was made at the request of Quebec and also concerned denominational schools provisions to remove their application as to favour the organization of school boards along linguistic lines, and that was done in 1997. One was made at the request of New Brunswick in 1993, adding section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and thus recognized in the Constitution the equality of the English and French linguistic communities in the province. Finally, one was made at the behest of Prince Edward Island in 1993 to remove the requirement in the terms of union for Canada to maintain a ferry service, thereby facilitating the substitution of the construction of the Confederation Bridge to the mainland.
These amendments all have the same things in common: each amended provisions of the Constitution of Canada that applied to fewer than all provinces; each amendment applied only to one province; each amendment was initiated by the provincial assembly of the province in question before being considered by the federal Houses; and each amendment modernized certain aspects of the Constitution and demonstrated federal-provincial co-operation.
The amendment proposed by the Saskatchewan legislature is similar to the seven others that have been adopted under the bilateral process since 1982. It seeks to amend a provision of the Constitution that does not apply to all the provinces. The amendment itself would apply to only one province. The initiative to make the amendment came from the legislative assembly of the province before it ended up before us.
The amendment would modernize certain aspects of the Constitution, in this case by removing a limit on the exercise of the province's power that does not apply to most of the provinces and no longer has its place.
Repealing section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act at the request of the province would be, by the way, a fine example of federal-provincial collaboration.
The Governor General is being authorized to proclaim a constitutional amendment, so it should go without saying that the wording of the constitutional amendment must be identical in each of the federal and provincial resolutions and in each official language version of the text.
To come to the proposed amendment at hand, on November 29, 2021, the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan unanimously adopted a resolution to amend the Constitution of Canada to repeal, retroactive to August 1966, section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, the enactment that created the Province of Saskatchewan.
This section of the act purports to subject Saskatchewan's constitutional powers to clause 16 of an agreement dating back to 1880 between the Government of Canada and the founders of the Canadian Pacific Railway company, which is now commonly referred to as the CPR. This clause exempted CPR from certain federal, provincial and municipal taxes forever. Despite its tax exemption, in 1966 CPR agreed to pay applicable taxes. More recently, CPR brought claims against all governments involved to reassert its historical tax exemption.
The amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan is similar to the seven others that have already been made to the bilateral procedure since 1982. It aims to amend a provision of the Constitution that does not apply to all provinces. The amendment itself would only apply to one province. The amendment was initiated by the legislative assembly of the province before coming before us, and the amendment would effectively modernize certain aspects of the Constitution, in this case by removing a limit on the exercise of powers of the province that does not apply to most of the other provinces and which is no longer appropriate. Moreover, repealing section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act would be a nice example of federal-provincial co-operation.
Saskatchewan's concerns regarding section 24 are threefold. First, Saskatchewan is of the view that it would be inconsistent with the province's position as an equal partner in Confederation. The provision restricted Saskatchewan's taxation powers relative to those of the other provinces in Canada. Second, Saskatchewan believes it would be unfair for other businesses operating in the province, including small businesses, if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, providing the corporation a significant competitive advantage over those other businesses to the detriment of farmers, consumers and producers of the province. Third, Saskatchewan asserts it would be unfair to the residents of Saskatchewan if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, casting an additional tax burden onto the people of Saskatchewan.
Back in 1880, this exemption for a single large corporation may very well have been appropriate, as it was intended to recognize and encourage CPR's investment in the construction of the trans-Canadian rail network in the late 19th century. As such, it was just one of the incentives that Canada offered CPR to build Canada's first cross-country railway in fulfillment of a promise made to British Columbia for joining Confederation.
While there may have been valid reasons to grant CPR's founders a tax exemption as part of a series of measures to support the construction of Canada's transcontinental railway, those reasons no longer stand now that the construction is completed and Canada's transportation legislation has been modernized. In broader terms, section 24 of Saskatchewan's founding statute and CPR's historical tax exemption have not kept pace with how Canada's tax and fiscal policies have evolved to support an effective and efficient transportation system and a healthy growing economy.
Under the division of powers in our Constitution, the provinces are granted a general power to impose direct taxes. Section 24 seeks to constrain Saskatchewan's ability to do so with respect to the CPR, yet not all provinces are subject to such constraints, resulting in an asymmetry within the federation. Our government believes Saskatchewan should have the freedom to levy taxes within the province's boundaries, as it deems appropriate.
We agree with our Saskatchewan counterpart that other taxpayers in the province should not bear a heavier tax burden as a result of a single large corporation benefiting from an exceptional exemption from provincial taxation. We also agree there should be a level playing field between all businesses operating in Saskatchewan's transportation industry.
As we all know, the completion of this railway was fundamental to the birth of our nation and the subsequent rapid growth and development of our economy. The last spike, uniting east and west, is an iconic representation for our national heritage and unity.
If proclaimed, a constitutional amendment would have the effect of removing CPR's tax exemption from the Saskatchewan Act, retroactive to August 29, 1966, the date on which CPR entered into an agreement with the federal government to forego this perpetual exemption from some taxes. The Constitution was not amended to reflect this agreement at the time because it had not yet been patriated.
It is important that we not only focus on the substance, but also ensure that the form and procedure of the constitutional amendment are executed faithfully.
It is true that the Constitution is, as the Supreme Court tells us, the expression of the sovereignty of the people of Canada and it lies within the power of the people of Canada, acting through their governments duly elected and recognized under the Constitution, to effect whatever constitutional arrangements are desired within Canadian territory.
I submit that this is a very important constitutional amendment, one that is rooted in fairness. It would ensure that all Canadian corporations, including in Saskatchewan, pay their fair share of taxes. I look forward to ensuring the passage of this motion today, as well as questions and comments from our colleagues.
2219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:22:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for the Senate. The Senate is independent of our government, but we certainly will be supporting members throughout the passage of the motion in the House of Commons today, as well as supporting it through the process in the Senate.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:22:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very technical. I will put it in terms that people can better understand. Basically, Canadian National, or CN, is asking for a reimbursement of taxes paid that is equivalent to 0.3% of its sales annually.
In 2021, that equalled $8 billion dollars, which is significant. The annual amount requested by CN represents approximately $290 for every Saskatchewan taxpayer, including children. How is it fair that a multi-billion company that was granted land for free and exemptions until 1966 is asking for more?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:23:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today's subject is a constitutional amendment that would essentially give Saskatchewan a right that it should have had to tax CPR. That is the fundamental issue. Previously, without this amendment, that would have been limited. I therefore submit that this is moving toward fairness, and it is up to the Government of Saskatchewan to impose a tax policy that is appropriate.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:24:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the most surprising thing I have heard this morning has come from the member for Regina—Lewvan, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and now the parliamentary secretary, the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park. They have all said the same thing: They believe corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The New Democrats welcome all of them onto that political space because it has been a long time since we have heard that kind of unity here.
Does the member think we can use the consensus this morning on paying a fair share of taxes to move forward with some kind of supertax on those who have profited from the pandemic?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:25:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously, my friend has not known my politics long enough to understand that I have always said it is important to tax corporations. Of course, as a party we believe that and have acted on it consistently. We look forward to working with all parties on issues of importance, particularly in this case to ensure that Saskatchewan has all the tools available to it so we do not differentiate it from other provinces.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
