44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Feb/8/22 11:25:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Regina—Lewvan on this motion, and I thank my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge Park for quite a lot of technical information that helped to guide me a bit. I love Saskatchewan very much. My father used to live in Saskatchewan, and I visited Regina many times to race on Wascana Lake.
I want to give a shout-out to Mark McMorris, who won his third bronze medal at the Olympics. He is the pride of Saskatchewan. I texted his dad Don and his mom Cindy yesterday to congratulate them.
As to my question for the member, have we looked at how this would enable Saskatchewan to raise revenues and potentially invest more in health care, education or other priority areas for the province?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:26:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Milton for his leadership and for ensuring that Canada's team does very well in Beijing. I really look forward to the medals they bring home.
To his point, this allows Saskatchewan a number of important things. First, it equalizes the tax playing field for all businesses so there is no unfair advantage and no unfair burden on other corporations that do not have this exemption. Second, it allows for corporations, such as CPR, to pay their share of taxes that are due to the people of Saskatchewan. It is really up to the people of Saskatchewan to decide how they spend their money, including on important issues such as health care.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:27:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member will recall that late last year when this suggestion first came up, shortly after the Saskatchewan legislature passed the motion, we looked at giving unanimous consent to pass a motion. At the time, I indicated that I did not think it would be appropriate, given the very nature that a constitutional change was being proposed.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts as to why he feels today it is important for us, at the very least, to have some debate before the motion's passage.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:28:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know our not supporting the ratification of this motion by way of unanimous consent was noted by the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. As the member knows, we get a number of unanimous consent motions, and something of this nature, with the magnitude of amending the Constitution, requires debate, and it is the type of debate we are having today. It allowed the government a number of months. The Saskatchewan legislature passed a motion in November last year, so we are within a three-month timeline to support it.
We are very proud to support the motion today. We look forward to its passage both in the House and in the other place.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:29:52 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel, commonly known as the Jean-René Dufort of the Bloc Québécois.
I asked myself this morning how I would deal with this fascinating issue. Something struck me when reading the motion, specifically the following:
Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed on November 6, 1885, with the Last Spike at Craigellachie....
As I am fascinated by this subject, I consulted the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the dean of our party, who was there, and he told me that the last spike was actually driven into the track on November 4.
All joking aside, it is a fascinating subject, but I will comment on two aspects. First, I asked myself why my Conservative colleagues decided to devote an opposition day to this issue. In my view, a political party generally uses an opposition day to poke at the government with actions that more or less reflect their own political orientation. Sometimes, the intent is to shed light on urgent issues or to put forward the party's policies or agenda, which are unique to each party.
Why would the Conservatives choose to use an opposition day to talk about the railway in Saskatchewan, especially in the middle of a pandemic? Numerous opposition days have been dedicated to this urgent situation, on such topics as vaccination and the “Justinflation” that my Conservative friends keep bringing up. The Conservatives are positively giddy about inflation.
I have to wonder why they did not devote an opposition day to inflation or health care funding. It seems as if power within the Conservative Party is shifting west. Who knows. I do not know. I would not want my Quebec colleagues to feel abandoned, but this is nevertheless rather interesting.
Earlier this morning I pointed out to a Conservative member that if we were to adopt this motion it would set a precedent for allowing an opposition member to move a motion to amend the Constitution. My colleague said that this had been done before, but by the government. This would therefore be the first time the Constitution would be amended through an opposition motion. I am not going to lie; this precedent is pretty appealing to a sovereignist.
We know that no one wants to debate the Canadian Constitution or hear about it. Let us remember that the rhetoric of the federalist governments in Quebec City was that the fruit was not ripe enough so we could not talk about the Constitution.
Need I remind members that in 1982, Quebec was the only province that did not sign the Constitution? We still have not signed it to this day. Perhaps we could resolve this issue through a motion.
Need I remind members of the two unsuccessful rounds of constitutional negotiations, Meech and Charlottetown? Quebec kept whittling its demands down further and further, but despite this reduction to Quebec's five traditional demands, there was no agreement from all the provinces to amend the Constitution and offer Quebec special status. My colleagues will therefore understand why this idea of being able to amend the Constitution based on an opposition motion would excite a typical sovereignist. I am highly intrigued by the idea.
The Constitution is our principle of political association; it is a fundamental principle. We are one of the only countries whose principle of political association was based on building a railway. That is true. If we look at the United States, their principle of political association was based on a quest for emancipation. It is ironic that we are talking about this issue today, given that the starting point for us was that a group of business people wanted to build a railway from one coast to the other, and in order to do that, there had to be a political form that emerged from the various colonies at the time. That is how the British North America Act came to be.
I find it kind of ironic that we are revisiting the subject in the present context. However, what most interests me is the possibility of amending the Constitution via an opposition party motion.
Many political thinkers have already pondered this question, including James Tully, who has written about diversity. In his book, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity, James Tully tells us that one of Canada's biggest problems is our restrictive constitutional framework. He says it is virtually impossible to amend the Constitution, which makes it that much more difficult to recognize ethnic minorities. James Tully talks about that in this wonderful book, and his conclusion is that our constitutional rules should be more flexible. In other words, we should have the means to easily amend our Constitution.
That is very interesting from a theoretical standpoint, but why have we not done it? Why has there never been much appetite in Canada for the kind of flexible framework that would enable us to amend the Constitution?
I will say it. It is quite simple. The reason is, if we open this Pandora's box, it will be easier for indigenous groups to get what they have long been asking for, namely greater political autonomy.
It is important to make a distinction. When James Tully says that minorities must be constitutionally recognized, he is referring to ethnocultural minorities. However, there are also national minorities, and in the Canadian context, we have two main groups: the minorities of the indigenous nations, which are too numerous to name, and the Quebec national minority.
What are these national minorities asking for? They want political autonomy.
As my father used to say, opportunity makes the thief. If we had a system that facilitated more flexible constitutional amendments, we would definitely be the first in line to try to use such measures, perhaps to assert Quebec's traditional demands, specifically, veto power and recognition of distinct status. I am sure that indigenous nations could do the same.
Unfortunately, the federal government and the federalist parties will never allow the flexibility needed for constitutional changes to be made. If a precedent is being set today, I am curious to see how this will develop in the future.
A constitutional amendment was made in the past, without any fuss or fanfare. In Quebec, Pauline Marois wanted to change the school boards from being divided along religious lines to linguistic ones. A constitutional amendment was needed for that to happen. It was done without too much fuss or too many political problems.
However, we do not have a tool that would allow us, as legislators, to potentially enter into dialogue with our colleagues on the Constitution. I welcome the Conservative Party motion today, because it might be just what we need to be able to open this Pandora's box and actually have a conversation about the Constitution.
If we do go down that road, perhaps the Quebec nation and indigenous nations could be recognized in some way. That is why I am confident that my party will enthusiastically support my colleague's motion.
1190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:39:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for supporting this motion. It is a matter of fairness and justice. It is a matter of fairness to the provinces, especially to Saskatchewan. That is what the motion is asking for.
Does the member agree with that?
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:39:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.
I may not have focused on that aspect in my speech, but it is unacceptable to allow a company like Canadian Pacific, which according to my research makes $2.8 billion in profit a year, to not pay taxes. That is unacceptable.
That is something that I think can be fixed quickly. With the goodwill of the Liberal Party, I am sure that we can quickly resolve that issue.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
