44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Feb/8/22 11:40:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can reflect on the amendment we have before us today in the form of a motion. It deals with an agreement that was, in principle, agreed to back in the 1960s. It dates all the way back to 1880, as has been pointed out.
There is a general feeling on all sides and from all stakeholders, including CP Rail itself to a certain degree, although this might be somewhat dated, that there is a quite difference between a motion of this nature and some of the more complicated issues of constitutional ideas that surface from all sides of the House. Does the member recognize the difference?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:41:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to be honest, I have to tell my colleague from Winnipeg North that I am not a constitutional expert. However, I very much appreciate the idea that an opposition member can propose amendments to the Constitution by means of a motion.
As I said earlier, when I was a bit younger, I was interested in what James Tully had to say about flexible constitutions. Personally, I tend to think that is a good idea. If we set a precedent, it could be good for those who are trying to advance the idea that the Quebec nation could have more political autonomy. From that perspective, I find that my Conservative colleagues' motion is worthwhile.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:42:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Jonquière. I lived in Saguenay for several years.
The big issue before the House of Commons today is the fact that a tax loophole has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. As we all know, we lose $25 billion a year to tax havens. There are tax loopholes everywhere. In Canada, the ultrarich avoid paying their fair share of the money that should be invested to combat the housing shortage, to reinforce our health care system and so forth.
My question for the member for Jonquière is simple. Is it not important to eliminate all these tax loopholes?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:43:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from the NDP.
The government is plainly complacent about tax havens and tax loopholes. There is talk of the need for major initiatives once we are out of this crisis, including with regard to health care funding. That money will have to come from somewhere.
There needs to be major tax reform. We also need to put an end to tax havens and all the tax loopholes that are poisoning our society. I completely agree with him.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:43:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I feel like I am dealing in antiques today. The motion we are debating would amend a Constitution that was ill-conceived and that has aged poorly. The Constitution has so many holes, it looks like moths got at it. The holes in this Constitution are costing the provinces, Quebec and taxpayers a lot of money and preventing the provinces from properly and independently funding their public services.
What we are talking about today is a 136-year-old, billion-dollar company that cleared $2.8 billion in net profit last year and is exempt from paying taxes. As an economist specializing in taxation, my first instinct is to say this is an injustice and a relic of post-colonial cronyism.
This tax revenue is owed to Saskatchewan, and we think that the provincial government should get this money back. I want to inform my colleagues straightaway that I will be pleased to support this motion.
However, since we are speaking of holes in the Constitution that are costly for the provinces, I think it is difficult to ask the opposition, and especially members of the Bloc Québécois, to disregard other fundamental problems that this Constitution has created.
As I said, the Constitution has not aged well. The Constitution was drafted in 1867, and the majority of its provisions are still in force today, but the country that drafted this Constitution was not a modern country. Health care essentially referred to field hospitals run by religious communities. Assistance for the poor was essentially charity, again run by religious communities. Education consisted of a few one-room schoolhouses and some private schools supported by charity. These responsibilities were assigned to the provinces. The Catholics were in Quebec, and they were essentially given peanuts. The Constitution was obviously drafted to ensure that Ottawa would get more and more revenue over time.
When Canada was founded, there was no personal income tax, no corporate tax, and no sales tax. I just listed basically all of the federal government's revenue sources. Since then, all the responsibilities have remained with Quebec and the provinces, but half of the revenue has gone to Ottawa.
That is the problem, because we have a dusty old Constitution, the spirit of which the party in power deigns to respect. The provinces have responsibilities, and they must have management autonomy and must be able to legislate in their areas of jurisdiction. What remains is the power to spend. The problem is simple, and I have explained it many times to students: Ottawa has too much cash. That would make a great headline.
Ottawa loves to meddle in provincial affairs, loves to spend money and make legislation in areas of provincial jurisdiction, but the Constitution does not allow this. However, there is a loophole: the federal government can tell the provinces that if they do not do what it wants, it will withhold the promised money instead of giving it to them. Unfortunately, the Constitution has evolved, but not for the better. That is the problem.
Today, we have a government that provides Canada health transfers that cover only 22% of the system's costs. When this government is asked to respect the Constitution, it spits in Quebec's face. The line that all the Liberals across the way keep repeating like trained parrots is that Quebec will not be given a blank cheque, that money is not given out without accountability.
We tell them that it is none of their business and that health is not a federal jurisdiction. Their response, which I have been given here in the House, is that this is false and that it is a shared jurisdiction. They say that we have only to look at the Canada Health Act to see the way it is institutionalized. This act is the embodiment of the federal spending power. It is an almost unethical way of confirming that Ottawa has too much cash.
The blank cheque is Canada's Constitution, and that is not what Quebec is asking for. The Liberals have slashed funding for health care. People need to understand that. The Constitution is full of holes. It has evolved, but not for the better. That is also true for other sectors.
Mental health is an important matter. The pandemic has shown how difficult things can be and how great the provinces' needs are in terms of mental health. That is also the case for health care and hospital capacity.
What was the government's response? It decided to appoint a minister. Instead of appointing a minister of mental health, it should have sent money to Quebec. The issue is not that we are begging for money, but that the Constitution is full of holes as though eaten by moths. It should have been printed on cedar.
The same goes for housing. There is currently a housing crisis. We know the Liberals well. They talk a lot and think that the problems will solve themselves. Quebec wants respect. Negotiations on housing have been been ongoing for two and a half years. We are at that point because Quebec ensures that its jurisdictions are respected and stands up for itself. That is nothing new.
In 1951, the then premier of Quebec, Maurice Duplessis, was already turning down federal subsidies for universities, because Ottawa had already started acting predatory by then. What did Quebeckers do when Ottawa refused to give in? They forfeited their own money, just as they are doing now, just as they have done for housing, health and mental health. Ottawa wants us to give in to its conditions because it has too much cash. That is the case for social policy, for the Canada health transfer and for the Canada social transfer. Ottawa says that if we do not accept its conditions, it will not give us the money.
I did not say I was against a universal public health care system and so on. What I said was that it is none of their business. The reason they are not minding their own business is that the Constitution has aged poorly. None of it has aged any better than the section that applies to the CPR. It is important to understand that this is not an exception. It is a major problem.
Now I would like to share a bit about myself.
I remember the moment when something just clicked and I decided to become an economist. I believe it was in 2001. I had read the Conference Board of Canada's report on the fiscal prospects for Quebec and the provinces. In early 2000, I was attending CEGEP. I still have the document, which has a blue binding. It showed the changing demographics and the provinces' responsibilities and how everything was going to fall apart. I should note the Conference Board is not a group of sovereignists.
People have been saying this for a long time. The Tremblay commission in Quebec said it, and so did the Séguin commission. This was based on forecasts that proved to be accurate. What happened on the other side? Nothing.
Former Quebec premier Bernard Landry, who was negotiating with former prime minister Jean Chrétien, had no choice but to call him a predator because of his behaviour. The Constitution has not aged well and was not well written.
I sympathize with our friends in Saskatchewan. A mistake can be corrected. In fact, correcting one's mistakes is a sign of intelligence. I think that we will show some intelligence today on this file.
Following this debate and after all is said and done, I sincerely hope that the CPR will be able to sing “Saskatchewan, you took my tax”.
1299 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:53:12 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe the member is completely out of touch with what the people of Canada, including people in Quebec, actually feel is an obligation of the federal government.
The residents I represent, and that he is smearing, understand and appreciate that there is a need for the federal government in the area of health care. It is not good enough just to give cash. We can look at the pandemic, long-term care, mental health and other very important issues where my constituents, and I believe many of the constituents the member represents, want to see a national government presence in health care.
Could it be the member is using a brush to paint a picture that is unfair to the people of Canada?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:54:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North is so disconnected that I think I will ask a page to take him an adapter.
There are 10 provincial premiers, all of whom are asking for an unconditional increase in health transfers and for Ottawa to mind its own business. Would my colleague say they do not represent anyone? Do those people not matter?
This is the attitude I am talking about, the Liberals' attitude towards Quebec and the provinces. They would have us believe that mutual respect is tantamount to giving a blank cheque. Meanwhile, they are slashing funding. Our constituents, like those in my riding, Mirabel, need more funding for improved services and want the system to be managed by the people on the ground, not you.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:54:59 a.m.
- Watch
I want to remind the hon. member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:55:47 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, if it were up to me, there would be an international border along the Ottawa River. Of course, that would not stop me from inviting my colleague for the weekend.
I would say that the first thing would be to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and the legal implications that entails.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:56:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague talking about the deficiencies when it comes to health care transfers to the provinces.
As I said earlier, I met with the Canadian Medical Association's Dr. Smart yesterday. She cited that $6 billion is needed right now just to end waiting lists. We know that health care workers are stressed. They are tired. We know there is money out there, and that corporations are not paying their fair share, whether it be Canadian Pacific in Saskatchewan or those that are using tax havens or loopholes not to pay their fair share of taxes.
Would my colleague agree that the Liberal-Conservative coalition to protect large corporations needs to end, and that large corporations that have profited from the pandemic, that are moving their money outside the country, and that have CEOs who are not paying their fair share of taxes, need to pay their fair share? Then we could have doctors and nurses, and the services that all Canadians need to protect themselves and their families.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:57:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has always been an ally of the taxpayer in the fight against tax evasion.
When it comes to funding health care, I would like to point out that we heard the Minister of Health across the way tell us about the pandemic and say that suddenly there was money and commitment, but only when the solution was temporary. For a permanent solution there is never one cent.
It is important to realize that the money the provinces are asking for, and which is in Ottawa because, as I was saying, the Constitution is full of flaws, is money that was taken away from us. It is money we used to have. All we want is to go back to the way things used to be, which was more or less fair. We are not asking for heaven and earth. We are just asking for the minimum, and this government refuses to even listen.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:58:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak to the opposition motion brought forward by our friends in the Conservative Party down the way. I am even more pleased to be sharing my time with the excellent member for Elmwood—Transcona.
This motion proposes an amendment to the Constitution of Canada that would repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act and deem the change retroactive to August 29, 1966. Notably, this would remove a provision dating back to 1880, prior to Saskatchewan's becoming a province in 1905, which exempted Canadian Pacific Railway from paying provincial taxes in Saskatchewan.
This has been an interesting issue to learn about over the past 48 hours. I understand that this motion here before us today complements a similar motion the Saskatchewan legislative assembly unanimously passed in November of last year.
I might seem to my colleagues a bit of an unlikely speaker to this issue, being a B.C. boy and all, but I am honoured to serve as the NDP transport critic. Of course, trains transport things, and Canadian Pacific owns trains. Hence, for the next 10 minutes, Madam Speaker, I am your guy. More important, I am a proud Canadian, and I believe in the principles of fairness and responsibility, which I believe lie at the heart of this issue.
For folks following along back home, and I will not hazard to guess how many of those there might be, I believe these are the basic relevant facts in this matter. Canadian Pacific Railway obtained access to a huge swath of our country, much of it unceded indigenous land, to build its railway. While the corporation made a significant investment, it also received substantive incentives from the federal government of the day. Among those incentives, the federal government agreed, in its contract with Canadian Pacific Railway, to exempt the railroad from paying taxes in perpetuity.
It is surprising, I know, that a Conservative government would agree to such immense corporate welfare, but there we have it. Despite this, and for reasons that are not exactly clear, CP has been voluntarily paying taxes to the Province of Saskatchewan for a century. It is also surprising to see such voluntary corporate benevolence.
Today, Canadian Pacific wants the taxes it has paid to the province since 2002 to be returned in the sum of $341 million on the basis that it should not have paid those taxes in the first place. I am not a lawyer, and I will not be making legal arguments today. The battery of lawyers who are engaged in the court case that is ongoing will have that aspect well in hand. Rather, the argument I will make in support of this motion is a simple moral one.
Today, Canadian Pacific benefits greatly from the Province of Saskatchewan and from the infrastructure and services its residents have funded through their taxes. CP employees drive to work on roads paid for by the people of Saskatchewan. They utilize hospitals paid for by the people of Saskatchewan. Their kids go to schools paid for by the people of Saskatchewan.
Ignoring, for a moment, the historic paperwork negotiated under who knows what kinds of circumstances, I doubt many in this place would dispute that Canadian Pacific has a responsibility as a corporation to contribute its fair share to the province's coffers. This is hardly a company that needs either a hand up or a handout. Last year, CP made $3 billion in profits.
It is not as though being exempt from taxes would level the playing field on which CP operates; it is quite the opposite. After all, Canadian Pacific's main competitor in Canada, CN Railway, pays its taxes. I imagine CP's other competitors in the United States also pay applicable state and federal taxes.
This is about fair treatment for Saskatchewan in this confederation. Saskatchewan deserves to be treated equally, with the same control over its internal affairs and taxes that every other province enjoys. The jurisdictional inequity raised in this motion unfairly denies it that. The people of Saskatchewan have made their will clear, and the unanimous passage of the same motion in the provincial legislature illustrates that there is cross-party support for this change. It is time for the House to act.
By nullifying the historic tax exemption, this motion essentially codifies into law the practice that CP has already been following for an entire century. It seems to be the right and proper thing for us to do.
Besides a questionable historic contract, how could CP possibly argue it should not pay its fair share to the Province of Saskatchewan? People in Saskatchewan want their taxes to go to the public services they rely on, things like health care and education. They do not want them to have to pad the profits of a multi-billion dollar corporation. The money that CP Rail is demanding could be much better spent. I think everyone in the House will agree that it would be much better spent helping the people of Saskatchewan.
The railroads, and I speak of railroads in the plural sense, had a pivotal role in the development of our country. It is one of the central narratives we are taught in elementary school, yet in many ways, it was a Faustian bargain because today we are left with corporations that wield power far out of proportion to their place in our society. Railway companies have their own private police forces that investigate their actions when things go wrong, as we saw in British Columba after the disaster that killed three men in 2019 near Field: Dylan Paradis, Andrew Dockrel and Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer. Their families are still fighting for justice.
Railways own vast tracks of land, much of it adjacent to communities, and this too often constrains community development and restricts public access. Railway companies design their own safety plans, which are opaque to citizens and communities and, as the auditor general found in her follow-up audit last year, are inadequately monitored for effectiveness by Transport Canada.
Railway companies also own the tracks themselves, precluding the federal government from operating a dependable passenger rail service in much of the country during a time of climate crisis when our national bus service has been shut down for good.
Now I certainly recognize the positive role that railways play as well. They are certainly important employers in our communities. In the community I live, in the community of Smithers, the town is named after the former president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, Sir Alfred Smithers. Notwithstanding those things, when I talk to community leaders about their relationship with the railroads, sadly, mostly what I hear are stories of frustration.
In light of this dynamic, which is admittedly difficult to reshape given all that has happened, I would submit that the least we should expect is that these highly profitable companies pay their taxes. Let us put an end to this historic injustice. I hope all parties in the House will come together and ensure that Saskatchewan is treated as an equal partner in our Confederation. It sounds like they will.
Learning about this issue made me think of my mom's family, who settled in Regina in the 1800s. My great-great-grandfather, George Broder, settled in Regina in 1882, right around the same time that CP was building the railroad. His son-in-law, my great-grandfather, Neil Taylor, was a lawyer, businessman, veteran, athlete and someone who loved his own province deeply. Incidentally, he ran for the federal Conservative Party in 1945. I checked the electoral record, and I was simultaneously delighted and dismayed to see that he was trounced by someone representing a little party called the CCF.
Now, Neil, my great-grandfather, was also known as “Piffles”, a nickname he was given in reference to a turn of phrase that was popular during that time. If someone said or did some thing that was, shall we say, extremely lacking in merit, one would say it was “piffle”. It was nonsense, rubbish, balderdash and all the other words I am not allowed to say in this place, either directly or indirectly.
I asked my uncle Sam in Vancouver about this. He is our family's historian. I wanted to know what he thought my great-grandfather would have said about this issue if he were alive today, what he would say about a wealthy railroad company trying to get out of its responsibilities to the people of Saskatchewan. He said he would probably say that it was a bunch of piffle.
1448 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
